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

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

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

Capella University August 2008

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

2008

3320725

© Michael A. Syndell, 2008

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. there will be approximately 10. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences.000 billion annually. Department of Labor. In addition. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. and healthcare professions.S.033.Abstract The U. Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. education. predicts that by 2010. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. 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. The purpose of this cross-sectional.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. .

iii .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 . Lori La Civita. understood and supported my absence throughout this process . . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). . . for making this research possible. the voice of reasoning (smile!) . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . for the most part (smile!) . . Joseph Damiani. you my friend have been a gift from God. thank you sincerely. a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. . . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. . to Dr. Dr. and your respected members who participated. and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . . who helped me start this journey. and to my long time partner and good friend John Reardon who has supported me throughout the years helping to make living life a pleasure . And to my family and friends who have . . and 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 . I love you all! iv . . . Bruce Gillies.

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

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

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

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

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

vii

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

Comparison of Low. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22.Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20.

1 .CHAPTER 1. education. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace.373 billion (Herman.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). 1997. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. 1988). INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. Department of Labor. 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. & Olivo. 1997. 1999. 2003. 1990). The U. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. higher group performance levels (Keller. Department of Labor. 2000. 1998). attract. 1995). Ireland & Hitt. Drucker.S. U. Herman. develop. Gioia.S. 2005). and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. Hitt. and retain the best talent.033. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. Specifically. companies must compete to find. 1999).

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

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

2. 4 . In addition. if a relationship is found to exist. 3. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. 4.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and dissertations. along with several books and dissertations. 1995. 1985. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On.gender. 1995). In total. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. Specifically. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Theoretical Orientation of the Study Researchers investigating the effects of transformational leadership have found that transformational leadership is associated with higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction (Hater & Bass. books. 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. 1988). 2006. 12 . Bass & Avolio. 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. Goleman. In addition. 1999). to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. higher group performance (Keller. 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. 22 articles were relevant to this study.

not on “how” to effectively lead.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. However. 2002). and diplomatic. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. and skills (Yukl. of leaders such as personality. charming. 1990). Personality traits include being self-confident. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. tactful. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. values. and handsome. 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). These early leadership theories were content theories. assertive. Social characteristics include being charismatic. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. cooperative. adaptable. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. tall. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. popular. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. social. and emotionally stable. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. Task-related 13 . energetic. or traits. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. motives.

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

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

Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . Like trait research.involves planning. As a result. and providing for subordinates welfare. and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. 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. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. an employee orientation and a production orientation. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. empirical research has not demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader behaviors and leader effectiveness was inconclusive as the behavior approach emphasized only behaviors disregarding other variables such as situational elements. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. Unfortunately. organizing. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. being supportive.

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

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

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

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

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

Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. 1985. 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. 2000). Bennis. 1990. 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. 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. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. Leithwood & Jantzi. and comparative advantages.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. focusing on a common purpose. 22 . This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. However. the organization’s strengths.

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

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

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

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

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. 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. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Kroeck. the sample size must have been reported. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. and its effect on job satisfaction. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). The results of a study by Morrison. and job satisfaction. Third. Fifth. 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. First. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. Fourth. 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. Jones. using a sample of 275 nurses. Lowe.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. organizational perception. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. Second.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the academic and theoretical evolution of EI outside of anthropology was driven by the persistent failure of the IQ construct to predict either success or leadership qualities (Dulewicz & Higgs. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. (2004a. 1986. noted. it a learnable skill. Massey. Mayer et al. Indeed. In this view. though an inherent capacity. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. In contrast. 1986. 2000). They advocate an approach to stress reduction and avoidance of psychological burnout that includes learning to read EI levels in others and developing their own EI capacities so 41 . interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. The result of this was the development of a more refined ability to read others and to use that ability for governance and organizational purposes (Lutz & White. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. Massey).economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. but they do not expand or increase them. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. 2004b) reported. For example. 2002). the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. 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.

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

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

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

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

44

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

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

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

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

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

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

trust. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. However. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. (2004) argued. As Law et al. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. Judge 51 . EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. Rather. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. This is an important distinction. (2004). stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. 2003.to inspire the support. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. leaders are created by followers. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. Thus. According to Judge et al. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. Kobe et al. loyalty. they argue. as further contended by Law and colleagues.

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

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

2003. external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI. However. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 . EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. 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. Law et al. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. That is. this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. 2004. as Prati et al. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. Judge 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. transformational leadership.of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. the self-reported character of the evidence is pertinent to the phenomenon of emotional and social intelligence in that self-reports indicate the respondent’s level of emotional awareness and thereby reveal the respondent’s EI capacities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2003)... 2004. Specifically. Kobe et al. Indeed. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence. Mandell & Pherwani. (2003a) point out. 2001..

Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. contingent reward leadership. 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. title. coping (Purkable. Specifically. Brooks found that high ratings and high EI were not significantly related at the 95% confidence level but were significantly related on three ECI competencies at the 90% confidence level. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. 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. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. 2005). and manager success (Hopkins. gender. Using performance ratings and demographic data. These are reviewed as follows. 2003). with mixed results. contingent reward leadership.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. Regarding raters perceptions. and management tenure 55 . EI. 2003). Leadership. Position. 2003). 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 leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks.

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

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

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

. Hay/McBer. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i. personal or business) may interact with gender role and cultural expectations to influence the ways in which men and women managers exhibit EI behavior (Rivera Cruz. 2000. as with transformational leadership style. Mandell & Pherwani. 2000.e. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al. To summarize. Does EI predict transformational leadership style. Thus. The latter findings are supported by J. Moreover. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al.. the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows. 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. 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. and (a) if so. Mandell & Pherwani. 2004).. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. 1998. Petrides & Furnham. Further. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. E. 2003). are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents.’s (2005) studies. However. 1999. 59 . 2007). Schutte et al. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups..

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

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

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

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

However. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. 2002). The coefficients ranged from . challenges and pressures. fairly often = 3. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. and to successfully cope with daily demands. 2004). Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. if not always). all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier.coefficients for each leadership factor. to understand and relate well with others. once in a while = 1. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. sometimes = 2. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. participants are asked to rate the frequency of their perceived leadership style using such items as “I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. if not always = 4. consisting of four items each. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves.73 to . The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. For example.94 (Bass & Avolio). or frequently. therefore. rather than performance or success itself.000 respondents from the United 64 . All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently.

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.75 (n = 27. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing.85 (n = 44) and . and Interpersonal Relationship. and Problem Solving. Items are measured on a 5point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very seldom/not true for me) to 5 (very often/often true of me). Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. to obtain a Total EQ. and Self-Actualization.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. were reported as . 2002). 65 . Independence. Social Responsibility. 2002). The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. Assertiveness.States and Canada. Version 12.. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. respectively. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. Flexibility. Bar-On. Emotional Self-Awareness. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. 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. and their associated subcomponents. 2002). Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. MHS Inc.

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

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).” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. the MLQ assessment. individual data were not made available. 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 . Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. 2. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. 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.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent.

H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.3. 68 . H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4. 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.

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

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

outliers. Errors in scoring/data entry. 2005. Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. p. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. p. 667). 2005.. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). p. missing and out-of. Finally. 65). Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. When necessary. This was followed by univariate analyses. p. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 .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. as appropriate. Analyses examining group differences (e. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. p. 571). 94). 2005. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. 72). These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field.g. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. 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. 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. 2005. as well as to control for the effects of gender. 170). p. the nature and strength of that association. and. if so.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. In addition. age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. 160). 72 . Hierarchical linear regression analyses was then conducted to analyze the relative contributions of each component of the independent variable to the variance explained in the dependent variable. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style.

As previous research. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. 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. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. while not substantial. 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. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. 2.CHAPTER 4. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention.

4. and if so. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 3. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. 74 . Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. the nature and strength of that association.

. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. 94). and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. as appropriate.g. p. 75 . missing and out-of. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. 2005. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. 72). and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. If necessary. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS.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. 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. 65). Errors in scoring/data entry. p. 2005. or scaled variables. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. outliers. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. p.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables.

5 4.7 20.1 39.8 2.7 29.7 10.6 16.7 5.2 12.2 5.8 1.1 10.4 24.5 5.5 45.7 7.1 11.4 19.8 5.2 2.6 76 .3 8.9 12.7 5.4 3.9 3. 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 60.0 11.8 3.Table 1.1 25.2 55.9 6.1 22.

7 34.000 17 10.9 10.6 Between $100–150.7 31.1 9. Minimum age 24.9 65.7 16.9 12.2 10.000 15 9.000 55 34.70.000 23 14.20).3 12.7 Current income Less than $40. American Indian.25 85. 77 .8 Between $70–100.5 4.8 Between $40–70. SD = 8.5 1.9 2. East Asian. 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. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately. Arabic or other.0 2.Table 1.000 44 27. **Includes Pacific Islander. maximum age 67. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.3 20.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.1 32. N = 158.8 More than $150.7 2.4 8.9 1.

The sample of the population in this study has an average. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.6%. n = 72). n = 121) in a private. and a median of 5.32 subordinates. 78 . Most respondents earned from $40.15 direct reports. from between 3–6 to more than 16.7%. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7.6%. n = 78). this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. n = 106).4%.4%.1%. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. In terms of supervision responsibilities.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.000 per annum (49. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. However. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. for-profit organization.000–$100. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. n = 103). Addressing racial diversity.95 years of college education. n = 135) male (60. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. Notably. or mean of 3. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. 25.2%.

because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. Stress Management. 105. EQi component scores were. and General Mood Components.86 (SD = 13. 79 .85). 103. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.63 (SD = 12. 102.65 years.49). with a nearly identical median of 48. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.00). 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.02 (SD = 13.97 (SD = 13.730. 107. For the income this is going to be most apparent. As far as income.41).05).900 and the median was $54. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. Total EQi Score. The mean age of the subjects is 48.01).49 (SD = 14. Summed TLS Score. Descriptive Statistics—The Five TLS Components of the MLQ Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the five TLS components of the MLQ are displayed in Table 3.02 (SD = 13. Intrapersonal.77 years. in descending order. Interpersonal. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. 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. Adaptability. 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 used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. the mean income was $68. 105.

63 103.63 103.44 13.19 13.64 107.28 103.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.21 105.41 106.02 105.31 103.61 105.66 14.05 14.73 12. N = 157.17 104.54 103.97 13.60 14.61 102.01 13. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.36 Total EQi Score 105.46 102.86 106. 80 . 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 107.45 13.00 12.52 103.66 101.62 13.Table 2. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.70 13.41 12.74 13.93 13.49 13.49 103.02 102.04 12.85 12.67 13.86 12.

57).09 3. Inspirational Motivation.08 3. 3.63).04 (SD = 0. 3.96 (SD = 0.59). 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 3.16 (SD = 0.35 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Individualized Consideration. and Intellectual Stimulation. Individualized Consideration.63 0. N = 157.59).53). Mind Garden. 3.18 (SD = 0.58 0.57).52).57 0. 3. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Inspirational Motivation. 81 .09 (SD = 0.99 (SD = 0.59 0.13 3. Intellectual Stimulation. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3. in descending order. 3.18 SD 0.95 (SD = 0.S.57 0.13 (SD = 0. 2. 2.26 (SD = 0. TLS component scores were.08 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Behavior).59 Note. 2. which are as follows. 3. 2004).35 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).Table 3.26 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. Idealized Influence (Behavior).52.59).59).58).

Group Norms vs.95 2. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). **N = 3.53 0.35 SD 0. 2001).96 3.59 0. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.52 0.59 0.04 2. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.58 0.52 M 3. or scaled variables.26 3..S. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.59 0.59 0. Norm group** M 3. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.09 3. Skew represents the even-ness. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.16 SD 0.08 3.57 0.375.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.63 0.55 0.e.13 3.99 3. TLS Component Scores: U. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.Table 4.18 3.02 2. of a distribution (i. or symmetry. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.

This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.64. (c) Inspirational Motivation = .85.63. Inspirational Motivation = –.49. and Individualized Consideration = –1. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. and (c) 9.83. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. (b) MLQ 23 = –2.40. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.73. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .61. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .09. but normally distributed. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.67.16.24.0. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.66. 2001). (d) Adaptability = .80.67.70.78. (b) Interpersonal = . the decision was made to keep them in their original form. respectively.76.0. 83 . 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. (c) Stress Management = . with skew > +/–2. and not individual MLQ items. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . (a) MLQ 5 = 2.83.18.06. and (e) General Mood = . (b) 6. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. Intellectual Stimulation = –. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .

28* .52* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. Adaptability 5.44* .01. 84 . *p < .43* Note.36* .41* .05.30* .44* .05). IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). Stress Management 4.37* .35* .37* IIB . The significance level was set at (α = . and IC = Individualized Consideration. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.19 a .37* . Pearson’s r was obtained.25* .46* IM .59* IS .40* . a p < .31* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.29* .Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi components predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses I—correlations between the five EQi and five TLS components. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. General Mood IIA . To address the first research question.48* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.32* IC . Intrapersonal 2. Table 5. Interpersonal 3. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. IS = Intellectual Stimulation.33* .40* .23* . N = 158.37* .

(b) Happiness (r = . The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. 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. using the same Procedure Correlations. Inspirational Motivation (r = . Results are shown in Table 6. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. 85 . p < .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).50. which was still significant at p < . All correlations were in the positive direction. Most of the correlations ranged between . representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .59.51. EQi component scores also increased. all of the Pearson’s r’s were . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .45. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.05.05).23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . With one exception.001).Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.05).001) and Inspirational Motivation. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. at r = .19. p < . with (α = .16. p < . (c) Self-Actualization (r = .001). p < . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.23 or higher.20 and .

46* .24* .39* IM .16 (ns) .12 (ns) . Self-Actualization 6. p ≥ .Table 6. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).33* .17 a .32* .37* .35* . Assertiveness 4.31* .26* . Independence 5.59* .24* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).21* .38* .43* .33* .36* Note.39* .45* . Self-Awareness 3.40* . Interpersonal Relationships 9. Optimism 15.28* . *p < . and IC = Individualized Consideration.01.28* .51* IS .30* . Problem Solving 14. Happiness IIA .23* .23* .33* .40* .15 (ns) .45* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.36* .25* .40* .32* .11 (ns) .33* . Impulse Control 11.44* .40* . 86 .43* .50* .03 (ns) .16 a .05).37* .30* .36* . ap < . Flexibility 13.34* .36* .43* .34* .05 (ns = nonsignificant.37* .30* .24* .31* . Stress Tolerance 10.19 a .32* .24* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.37* .38* .33* . Social Responsibility 8.35* .29* .44* . Self-Regard 2.13 (ns) .38* .48* .15 (ns) .31* IIB .37* .27* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant. IS = Intellectual Stimulation. Reality Testing 12.37* . Empathy 7. N = 157.26* .33* .25* IC .

001). p.001). This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable.001). meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. EQi component scores also increased. In summary. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . This is a potentially serious issue.30. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. 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. p < . 2001). p < . 2005. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation.26. 170). Correlations 87 . Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.24.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. p < .While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . All correlations were in the positive direction. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than .

Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. 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.82. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. p < . Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . However. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.64.01). The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7.72. based on the . 88 . Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . this intercorrelation is to be expected.71. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ.90. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . p < .01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = .(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.01). p < .01). Therefore. p < .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).

41* .39* .25* .55* .47* .61* .56* .52* .55* .50* .50* .72* .42* .35* .43* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .00 1.00 .58* .55* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.00 1.60* .47* .60* .36* .41* .26* .32* .47* .38* .47* 1.43* .62* .39* .51* .30* .33* .43* .43* 1.61* .25* .53* 1.45* 1. Interpersonal Relationship .37* .50* .40* .36* 9.00 .00 1.40* . Stress Tolerance 13. Assertiveness 4.40* .55* .71* .50* . Self-Actualization 6.58* . Self-Regard 2.66* .66* .74* .42* .52* .61* . Empathy 89 7.60* . Problem Solving 12.64* .54* .40* .00 .52* .32* Subcomponent 1.51* 1.32* .55* .00 1.23* .00 .28* .53* 15 .51* .20* .00 1.23* .42* .65* . Impulse Control .42* .24* .00 .15* . Reality Testing 10.39* .27* .50* .50* 1.42* . Self Awareness 3.38* .42* .15* .61* .50* .56* .Table 7.32* .40* .37* .60* . Independence 5.53* . Social Responsibility 8.00 .49* .37* .16* .41* .00 1.60* .36* .59* .00 .51* .82* .59* .43* . Flexibility 11.33* .

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 1.00 Subcomponent 14.Table 7.00 15 .05. *p < . a p < .64* 1. N = 157. 90 .01. Happiness Note.

01. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.64* 1. General Mood and 91 . Results are shown in Table 9. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.015).019).62* . Stress Management at Step 3.00 2 . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.287).00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. and. *p < .58* 1. Inspirational Motivation 4. Overall.Table 8. Intellectual Stimulation 5. the Interpersonal component (R2change = . 1 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. 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. Stress Management at Step 3. followed by General Mood (R2change = .00 4 . Results are shown in Table 9.55* .54* .59* .00 3 .60* . to a minimal extent.72* 1. Individualized Consideration Note.57* 1. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. N = 157.00 5 . about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.61* . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .

*p < . N = 157.04* 62. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. nor Adaptability.301 at Step 2.728 –0.25 .008 .V.01. R2 = .32 . 92 .287 . R2 = .034 4.07 .073 –. entered at Step 4. † TLS Summed = D.320 at Step 5. R2 = . Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Variable† Step 1 Intrapersonal Step 2 Interpersonal Step 3 Stress Management Step 4 Adaptability Step 5 General Mood Beta a ta Fchange Sig.25 2.Interpersonal components. In summary. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.24 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5). Table 9.316 –0.000 .069 2. R2 = .287 at Step 1.000 .019 Note.015 . **p < .04 . F change R2change . entered at Step 3.162 .05.000 .66** .85 .033 –.66 3. the EQi Intrapersonal. Neither Stress Management.87 .301 at Steps 3 and 4. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.

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

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

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

M 106.93 108.74 102.71 106.44 106.44 103.25

SD 13.45 12.43 14.53 13.33 13.65 12.94

93

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

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

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

M 3.22 3.11 3.18 3.30 3.15 3.36

SD 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.51 0.59

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

bn = 62. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Males scored a mean of 0.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.05. bn = 62.05.21 14.16 0. *p < . *p < . 96 .14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. a difference which was significant at p < .48 104.05.44 2.50 2. Table 13.75 12.97 0.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.Table 12. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.67 2. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.

These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. SD = 14.64.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents.08. Descriptive statistics. SD = 14.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. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. females: M = 106. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females.77. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. These data are presented in Table 14. respectively. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. Interestingly. 97 . (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.

67 103.80 14.41 11.74 11.62 103.75 13.24 104.68 14. As a group.55 13.57 13. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender _________________________________________________________________________ Male Female EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104. **n = 62.53 12.84 11.17 103.80 102. Empathy (4 vs.09 109.93 13.07 14.Table 14. Self-Actualization (9 vs.92 13.76 106.23 13.43 11.01 103.34 102.89 103. 13).18 14.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.61 104.33 105.37 105.97 15.08 11. Social Responsibility 98 .64 109.26 103.77 102.37 12.80 106.50 12.47 104.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102. N = 157.21 105.16 103. *n = 95.92 102. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.56 102.19 12.28 (14) 100.34 12.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.50 109.27 11.70 13.37 14.14 15.99 107.63 13.48 13.40 14.78 13.06 102. 11).72 101.74 15.

Table 15. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. a difference which was significant at p < .01.07* 3.99 M 99. 15).(5 vs.21 105.74 15. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.97 109. 12). and Flexibility (6 vs. Self-Regard (8 vs. 15). *p < .01 102. Males scored a mean of 7. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. p = .67 SD 11. (2 vs.91a 2.18 14. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.05.01. Females.86 11.80 102. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). 12). 10). Independent-samples t test. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs.05.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. Males. n = 62.36** 1.26 Females SD 13.80 11. Assertiveness.11 107. 13).39 109. As a group.42* Note.74 t 2. **p < . n = 95. They also scored higher on the 99 . Stress Tolerance (4 vs. 10). They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. among others. a Marginally significant.07 14.57 12.

Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.05.08). No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. all of which were significant at p < . or combination. As a follow-up.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. were important predictors of TLS in females. To summarize.41) subcomponents. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females.11) than did females (M = 105. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. and independence (R2 change =. Further. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. Specifically. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles.13).10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. 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. Regression analyses. but did not predict TLS for males. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . They also scored 4.

606 .131 .302 . R2 (adj) = .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.02 .99** .05 .088 –..04 2.097 .022 .73 .176 at Step 1. **p < . The 15 EQi subcomponents were chosen for the analysis rather than the five components because significant gender differences were found on four EQi subcomponents compared to only one of the components. R2 (adj) = .167 1. Summary of Regression Analyses of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females EQi Subcomponents Step 1 Self-Regard Malesb Femalesc Step 2 Assertiveness Males Females Step 3 Independence Males Females Step 4 Stress Tolerance Males Females Beta a ta Fchange Sig.379 at Step 4.08 .12 2.989 34.253 at Step 2.261 at Step 1.18 .098 12.55 –.85 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).263 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .67 –1.45 .e.000 .755 .010 . F change R2change .002 .378 at Step 3. R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .73 1.41 .268 7.001 .269 .81 1. Table 16.000 .01. It was thus decided that using 101 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.21 –. R2 (adj) = . N = 157.001 .255 at Step 2.248 at Step 3. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .19 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .24 14.63** .011 Note.669 3.190 .

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). n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components.7%. the three highest TLS component scores).e. More than one half of males (53. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Categorical variables. To do this.0%.7%. categorical variables (low...and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . three highest and lowest EQi scores on the 15 subcomponents) for males and females who scored higher than the mean on the five TLS components. The 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. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. Finally.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. and exactly one half of females (50. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. The highest percentages of males (53. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.e.

1 45. Table 17.8%.6 49. Comparison of Low.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.1 50. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.5 53.2 56.6%.(Behavior). n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.4 50.5 46.3 48. *n = 95.7 51. The highest percentage of females (59.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total Note.7 53.7 53. **n = 62.8 43.5 59. N = 157.3 46.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.3 52. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.7%. The highest percentage of males (52. the highest percentage of females (54. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .4 54.5 40.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.4 50.3 46.7 47.

09 10. Table 18. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.00 112.66 11.83 111.45 112. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.76 110. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.64 112.00 9.11 113. Once this subsample was selected.98 111.50 114.66 114.14 11. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.30 10.51 111.11 11.75 9. Secondly.24 111.92 111.91).68 12. First. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.12 110.04 16.15 10.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .75 10.88 11.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.55 114.28 11.29 SD 14. 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 111.85 12.

55 12.71 106.23 108.51 107.39 9.50 107.68 10.50 11.42 109.07 14.28 107.15 108.41 8.23 106.55 11.55 12.20 9.13 111.64 9.15 104.84 11.17 9.12 10.03 7.13 107.50 11.62 107.51 7.92 105.18 109.44 9.90 103.21 11.86 105.53 109.38 14.40 12. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component 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 104.28 108.73 9.25 104.22 108.Table 18.36 13.22 13.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .56 SD 10.28 110.39 M 110.26 112.

59 14.81 17.41 10.27 14.47 12.06 12.73 10.56 105.35 103.33 M 104.Table 18.67 10. (b) Assertiveness.57 104.85 14.42 9.82 105.77 101.12 10.89 11.26 105.50 105.09 104.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.43 11. 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 102.75 104.79 105.14 105.66 10.90 12.86 12.50 SD 10. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .66 104.96 105.00 103.4 102.63 12.68 106. (c) Independence.65 103.03 102.78 103.01 8. 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.20 11.06 13.

Males scored a mean of 5. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. Assertiveness. In summary.05. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (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. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. (b) Independence.across the five TLS components. (c) Social Responsibility. a difference which was significant at p < .05. (d) Problem Solving. (b) Social Responsibility.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. 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. Independent subsamples t test. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . which was also significant as shown in Table 19. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. however. While males scored 5. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. (d) Empathy. Females scored a mean of 4. (b) Happiness. Males scored 107 .

43 104. a Marginally significant.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Subsample N = 82.16 Females SD 13.78 8. categorical variables (low.and high-scoring) 108 . n = 31.09 108. p = . 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. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. Table 19. Categorical variables. EQi.43 t 1. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.96 10. however. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. *p < . who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). Females.e.80 SD 10.05. To do this.94a –2.57 M 107. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112. Males.05.61 106.01* 2.05 10.33 111. n = 51. 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.00 14..04* Note.

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. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. Then. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. followed by 59. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures.1%.6%. The highest percentage of females (61. Once the subsample was selected. The highest percentages of males (61. again based on each EQi subcomponent. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.0%.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. The highest percentage of males (50.5% (n = 35) of females did so. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. More than one half of males (53. 109 .3%. Interestingly. However.5%.97).and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. n = 32). 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56.

5 46. Comparison of Low.0 48.2 55.4 53.2 56. Female** High Low % 53.4 45.2 55.8 44.7 54.9 43.8 45.0 110 .5 53.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 56.5 54.0 51.2 50.8 54.8 58.2 51.7 44.2 61.8 49.Table 20.0 45.3 45.9 43.5 45.5 46.2 41.1 56.8 38.2 45.9 44.8 43.8 High % 38.7 51.3 52.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.0 54.9 45.7 47.5 59.6 46.2 57.5 43.8 42.1 54.5 53.3 48.1 55.0 52.9 44.5 40.1 55.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61.6 54.8 50.0 47.2 61. **n = 62.2 50.8 38.8 50.1 56.3 55.

47 0.48 3.49 0.55 3. followed by the lowest mean.47 0.54 0.52 0.47 3.52 3.5 3.51 0.55 3.57 0.49 3.58 3.53 0.60 0.52 3.54 0.61 3.49 0.51 3.37 0.55 3.43 111 . Table 21.47 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.49 3.48 0.55 SD 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.37 3.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.

34 0.39 0.35 3.6 M 3.37 0.37 0.36 3.22 3.41 3.44 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 3.40 0.45 0.37 3.42 3.55 3.38 3.40 0.36 0.46 3.43 SD 0.51 3.30 0.37 3.35 112 .42 3.51 3.42 0.39 0.21 0.44 0.45 0.Table 21.49 0.45 3.37 0.

53 0.19 3.24 SD 0.51 0.57 0.53 M 3.59 0.24 3.6 0.15 3.61 0.58 0.14 0.61 0.58 0.2 3.1 3.57 0.57 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.08 3.28 3.2 3.21 3.22 3.45 113 .52 0.2 3.25 3.Table 21.5 0.51 0.24 3.22 3.43 0.18 3.

11 3.68 0.11 3.63 0. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.08 SD 0.16 3.67 0.59 0.Table 21.57 Descriptive statistics.63 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.55 0.58 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.21 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 . 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. Optimism and Happiness. with the exceptions of Independence.95 3.6 0. Empathy.62 0.13 3.14 3.49 0.05 3.06 2.02 3.

n = 33.05. Independent subsamples t test. Females SD 10. 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.05. *p < . Idealized Influence (Behavior).05.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females.04* M 111. n = 54. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. 115 . p = .16 SD 14. Males. Females.Motivation. a difference which was significant at p < .43 t 2. Table 22. 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.80 Males scored 0. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.57 M 106. In summary. 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. a Marginally significant.

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

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

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

recruitment interviewing. 2001. Schaie. selection. As scores on the TLS components increased. 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). 119 . 2005). these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. & Stacey. job profiling. Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. followed by General Mood and. EQi component scores also increased. Interpersonal. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores. 2004.. all correlations were in the positive direction. 2004. 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. Taken together. Perry. to a minimal extent. 62 female). Ball. Van Rooy et al. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. nonexperimental. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. In addition to filling this research gap.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male.

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

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

which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. drive. 122 . a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. Hay/McBer. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. Stress Tolerance. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. 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. 2003).51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. 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. or temptation to act. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS.= . 1998. Thus. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. 2000. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . Mandell & Pherwani.” 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. However. Impulse Control. 2002). For example.03 to .16.

No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings.62 (p < .05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Males scored a mean of 4. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. 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. Nevertheless. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. Males scored a mean of 0. thinking and behavior to new situations. entails adjusting our feelings. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well.Reality Testing.19 (p < . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. 2002). thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. Thus. BarOn.

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

suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.” 125 . and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. all of which were significant at p < .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. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. which this current study used. 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.05. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. Petrides & Furnham. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. 1995.41). While this current study supports previous research findings.17). 2000).10. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.18).

the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. “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. More than one half of males (53. and should not come as a great surprise. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. According to Dr. ¶ 1). are better at handling stress. Steven Stein. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. President of MHS. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. It should be noted that three of the four subcomponents identified with males scoring higher than their female counterparts are three of the five subcomponents that make up the Intrapersonal component. are independent. To do this. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4.18). n = 31) scored above 126 .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).0%. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3.7%.

p < . and Social Responsibility. who analyzed the scores on over 7. 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. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . p < .05).the mean across all of the TLS components. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.05).28. p < .700 administrations of the EQi. 2007). whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. Assertiveness. self-assuredness. The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. Stress Tolerance.” was rejected.64. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. inner strength.33. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. In addition. Thus.

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

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

62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108.31). 63. women scored higher overall. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that.decoding (Byron. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. as well as higher on all five components than males. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham.31) and TLS (65. 2005. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified.. 2005). However. 1998. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. 104.. The present finding that males scored higher on the Intrapersonal component of the EQi than females is partly consistent with results of Goleman’s (1998) and Bar-On’s (2002) research. Schutte et al. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). 101.7) (p. 2000). in the present research. Butler. unlike findings of previous research.21 vs. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. 2005. Van Rooy et al. unlike the present results. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. 2003) may be related to leadership ability.2). 98. men scored a mean of 4. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 130 . Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.58 vs.8 vs.7 vs. 92).

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

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

That is. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. In this current study self estimates were used in data collection in which Avolio and Bass (2004) suggested a common problem is that supervisors actually say and believe they are giving feedback to direct reports. Generally. In addition. Nevertheless. one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. 2001). 1995. 1989. 1989). The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. 2001. This level of disagreement between direct reports and leaders emphasizes the importance of the 360° assessment in data collection as it may provide a more statistically accurate profile of the subject group. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 1998). in 133 . Bass et al. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. 2001). (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. & Salas. Driskell. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. 1989. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. Rudman. In addition. Copeland. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. expressing disagreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This research also suggests that.. Likewise. both are equally transformational in leadership style. and (b) if so. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall 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). if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. Gender. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. In view of this projection.healthcare professions (Herman et al. Based on the results of this study. no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. The EQi Intrapersonal. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. 140 . implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. 2003). and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need.

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

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

Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. International Journal of Public Administration. Retrieved from http://www. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. B.1037/0003-066X. B. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. & Avolio. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. B. M. 17(3/4). (1993). & Avolio. (2006). & Handley.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. B. Bass. Bass. New York: The Free Press. Bass. R.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. B. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. B.uaemex. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. (1999).. Public Administration Quarterly. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual..Bar-On.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. 17(1). (1994). 18(3). Psicothema.net/tc3/TC019239.231. M. & Avolio. (1990). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online).. doi: 10. & Avolio. (1990).reuvenbaron. (1999). R. M. B. M. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. 112–121. 541–554. B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. B.242/demo/intro/tformlead.. M. Bass.. 4(3). J. CA: Mind Garden. B. J. Bass.org/bar-on-model/essay. (1995). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.htm Bass. doi: 10. B. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. M. M. 13–25. 52(2). B. B. CA: Mind Garden. (1993). 18(Suppl. 143 . Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Retrieved from http://205. TX: Pro-Philes Press. B.130 Bass. 19–31. (2004). J. R. Retrieved from http://redalyc. Retrieved from ProQuest database. B. doi: 10.52..84. Redwood City. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Organizational Dynamics. Menlo Park.2. J. New Braunfels.html Bass. (2007).pdf Bar-On. J. (1985). J.php?i=25 Bar-On. M.). M. & Avolio. M. 375–377. 130–139. Leadership Quarterly. R. B. & Avolio. (1997).

.ebscohost. 88(2). Retrieved from http:// www. D. Psychological Inquiry. (1990). M. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Murphy. J. R. doi: 10. S. J.capella.2224/ sbp. D. B. Jung. Psychological Reports.2007.Bass. 5–34.35. J.2.. Lincoln..aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. doi: 10. A. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). J.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. A.haygroup.. I. B. (2003)..88. N. Bass. 44–46. 45(1). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. B. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating.1037/0021-9010. & Atwater.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. L.. New York: Harper & Row. J. doi: 10.com/login. (2004). (1996). (1978). K. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development.haygroup. 15(3).eiconsortium. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.. M. E. 86(1). University of Nebraska. 9(4). Retrieved from http://www.library . 27(5). Social Behavior and Personality. 41–50. Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2003). South Carolina State University. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century.pdf Boyatzis. (2000). Y..eiconsortium. doi: 10. (2007).1177/107179190300900403 Burbach.207 Bennis. 47–64. M.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. Retrieved from http://ei.htm Burns. Retrieved from http://www. M. 207–218. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. L. Doctoral dissertation.pdf Brody. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (2004).41 144 .htm Bryant. Avolio. B. J. 234–238. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. & Berson. W. Hafetz. (2007). R. E. 35(1). Avolio. & Wheeler. Doctoral dissertation.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article.1. (2003). & Henninger.. E. E.edu/login?url=http://search. Burton. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. 32–44.

L. Colorado State University. 565–76.1037/0022-3514. M. 213–237. 887–902. (2005).org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. (2002). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Business and Psychology. J. & Mann. & Kaemmer. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. Retrieved from http://www. Wearing. Journal of Social Issues. (1989). (2003).eiconsortium . J. S. 14(3). The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders.aspx Cherniss... R. Doctoral dissertation. J. (1989). doi: 10.. A. D. Retrieved August 10.6. C.Butcher.00238 Cavallo. & Brienza. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. leader. 389–405. Retrieved from http://www. (2001). W. doi: 10. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. N. October).htm Cannella.org/-report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. A short measure of transformational leadership.. 56(4). Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. Dahlstrom. May). 23(3). Tellegen. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).eiconsortium .. L. K. and subordinate perspectives.eiconsortium.. L.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. K. Sex Roles. B.57 . from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. L. Retrieved from http//www. A. L. Retrieved from http://www. A. Fort Collins. doi: 10.htm 145 . Butler.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. Journal of Management. (2000).1111/0022-4537. (1997). & Goleman. Byron. 57(4). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Gender and social influence. J. doi: 10. S..ccl. C. Doctoral dissertation. Georgia State University. A. A. L.964 Carli. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. (1998). Graham. doi: 10. 725– 741. D. G. (2008.. 39(11/12).. & Monroe. (1998. 2008.

& Salas. (2002).1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. 45(4). J.. (1967). from Answers. 17–21. New York: HarperCollins. B. S. D..d.. F. J. doi: 10. A theory of leadership effectiveness. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. J.com Web site: http://www.. 55(6). Karau. J. F. Dulewicz. 146 . B. & Johnson. 467–480.. Gender and reactions to dominance. E. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 17–29. (1999). A. New York: Hill. Journal of Business Research.108. Eagly. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Drucker. Yammarino.answers. 31(4).. 15(2). & Johnson. E. Journal of Nursing Administration. V. 29(12). A. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 523–530. 53–68.. 10(6). H. Public Personnel Management. & Higgs. D. B.1037/0033-2909. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. (1990). 135–159. (n. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. W. Academy of Management Journal. Copeland. Leadership Quarterly. D. Psychological Bulletin. T. (2002). B. C.. M. A. J. 108(2). & Shamir. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. CA. Eden. J. (1995). (1999). (1995). Journal of Managerial Psychology. 735–744. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Retrieved August 31. Avolio. Miner.).2. Dixon.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. E (1999). M. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. K.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. B. doi: 10.. (2000).233 Eagly. Retrieved from ProQuest database. L. & Swerdlik. Mountain View. H. 233–256. Driskell.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. (2002). D. M. R.. Achieving results through transformational leadership. A. Jolson.. Dearborn.. 15(4).. 2008. doi: 10. 341–372. Mayfield. Dubinsky.. 5(2). & Spangler. P. (1994). doi: 10. Management challenges for the 21st century. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.Chief executive officer. J.

Gellis. (1998). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Furnham. (2008).Field. O. 10(3). 15(3). C. (2004). CA: Sage. Journal of Applied Psychology. Retrieved from http://psycnet.library. P.73. Psychological Inquiry. Z. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. R. M. Thousand Oaks. 10(6). 73(4). 17–25.. A.. Virginia Commonwealth University.ebscohost. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010. (2003).gov.edu/login?url http://search. E. & Dickson.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman.4. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. (2001). New York: Bantam.eiconsortium. Social skills in interpersonal communication. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. C. & Rawles. W. Block. Hater. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence.. B. Gohm.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. Retrieved from http://www. (1995). A. L.htm Hargie. Doctoral dissertation. & Martell. H. Frankel. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. 25(1).uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. J.capella. New York: Warner Business Books.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). 237–252. New York: Basic Books. O. (1995). doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www. D.. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. London: Routledge. 695–702.pdf Hay/McBer. 741–748.). Saunders. (2004).dfee. Social Work Research. M. (1983). Retrieved from http://www.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. C. Working with emotional intelligence. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care.695 Hay Group. (1995). (2005).. F.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. J..org/?fa=main. (2000). & Bass. (1988). D. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. 222–227.haygroup. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.apa. L. ECI fact card. Grubb. L. R. J.

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

Journal of Educational Administration. G. R.. N. R.edu/login?url=http://search... (2001). K.com/cda/media/ 0. F.. doi: 10. & Rickers..1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. 7(3). Education.. Journal of Research and Technology Management. Transformational leaders make a difference.wiley. 41–44. J. doi: 10. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators.. doi: 10. & Johnson.89. J.5. A. P. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. doi: 10. D. T. (2004). B.1037/0021-9010. R. 542–552. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 89(3). Leadership Quarterly.capella.15304. M.ebsco host. 385–425.pdf Law.00. & Beers.. Colbert. K.. 12(3). R. European Psychologist. 112–129. K.89.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.1037/0021-9010. Journal of Applied Psychology... D. Current Psychology. Salovey. B. E. Emotion. A. & Piccolo. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Furnham.. Journal of Applied Psychology. M. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. J. B.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. A. & Sivasubramaniam. 755–768. S. & Posner. 5(1). J. Z. 615–626. (2004).483 Leithwood. (2005). (2004).. L.89. doi: 10. & Ilies. Kroeck.1037/15283542. R. K. Wong. L.542 Judge. M. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences.755 Kaufhold. (2005). 173–180.. L.3.. (2007). T. 113–118. G. (1995). A.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . Côté. 483–496. 38(3). N. & Jantzi. (1996). doi: 10.5. 38(2). 89(3). P.3. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. P.. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.113 Lowe. & Siefen.. & Song. Noack.1348/026151000165869 Kobe.library.com/login.1037/0021-9010.. (2000. 20(2).. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. (2000). S. Kirkcaldy.1. doi: 10. 89(5). 125(4). Retrieved from http://basepath. A. C. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. S. June). Journal of Applied Psychology. Reiter-Palmon. doi: 10. 154–163. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school.Judge.

edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. & Chabot.. P. F.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. B. Annual Review of Anthropology. S. J. R.. D. D. findings. doi: 10. Carlsmith. Intelligence. 05B. M. & Caruso. 9970564) Mandell. Retrieved from http://ez proxy.. Salovey & D. R. New York: Basic Books. Emotional intelligence: Theory. Dissertation Abstracts International. (2000). (1998). 15(3).capella. K.capella. D.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. J. Journal of Research in Personality.. Mathews. G.Lutz. (1999). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).edu/login?url=http://search. The anthropology of emotions. Caruso. Toronto. Roberts. Journal of Business and Psychology. D. 15(3). Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space.ebscohost. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. & White.. 197–215. Retrieved from http://www. doi: 10. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. 387–404.com/ login. D. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. D. P.. About the MSCEIT. (UMI No.. & Pherwani. and implications.. P.com . (2004a). Retrieved from http://www. P.). 1–29. J. Mayer. Retrieved from ProQuest database.unh. C. 67(1). D. M. (2002). 61. 27(4). Ontario. R.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer.sciencedirect. 267–298. D.library. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. 405–436. & Salovey.. 253–296. G.. (2007). Salovey. doi: 10. D.. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. J. & Caruso. Psychological Inquiry.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . 71). (2002). (2004). 15(2). 179–196. H. D.library. M. Seven myths about emotional intelligence.1146/annurev.15. (2003). & Zeidner.edu/login?url=http://search.. Sluytrer (Eds.an.ebscohost. (1986). J.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Psychological Inquiry. R. J.002201 Malek..capella. 17(3). J. Salovey. S. What is emotional intelligence? In P. Mayer. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p.com/login. & Salovey. American Sociological Review.library. M. 32(3). D.100186.

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

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

Golden.3. D. J. Retrieved from http:// www.1037/1528-3542.com/topic/senior-management Smith..htm Schutte. and socialization.com Web site: http://www.pdf Sanders. W. (1990). doi: 10.library.ebscohost. J. (2003).eiconsortium.1037/0022-3514. (2001). & Osborn. Retrieved from http://www. New York: Wiley. Cognition. Hall.1. 21–31. 9(4). Cooper. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. A.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. L. (2000). (1998). Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. D.answers. 74(3). 167–177.com/login. W.d. Comment on Roberts. et al. L. Gender & Class. J. E.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 .74.. (n. P. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership.243 Schermerhorn. Emotional intelligence. 693–703. Schulte. Imagination. & Mayer. J. Retrieved August 31. J.library. J. J. S. 16(4)..EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. 25(2). J. & Geroy. and Personality. 629–645.). F. emotions. Retrieved from ProQuest database. R. 9(4). from Answers. Malouff.. D. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 94– 110. Haggerty.eiconsortium. Retrieved from http://www. 9(3). Retrieved from http:// www. B.com.org/ Salovey. J. Our Lady of the Lake University. G. Personality and Individual Differences. 185–211. & Bass..sciencedirect. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract].. doi: 10. (2003). N.capella. J. C.. (2002). Doctoral dissertation. Race..Rudman. Organizational behavior (7th ed.capella.edu/login?url=http://search .. K. 1(3). Journal of Management. Zeidner. M.629 Sala.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. Hunt.. 243–248.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. Emotion.unh. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. E. J.3. M.. and Matthews (2001). Race.).. T. Hopkins.. (1998). 2008. Schaie. E. E. M. (2001).. doi: 10. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. (1990). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.

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

Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. I..Viator. G.edu/login?url=http://search.1016/j. S.. A.library .com/login. M. L. D. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. Upper Saddle River.library. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 99–125. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. Leadership in organizations (5th ed.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. Zhu.ebscohost. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Retrieved from http://www . B.ebscohost.. 28–32. M.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. J. (1989).06. & Bass. M. Academy of Management Journal. C. doi: 10.).org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l.edu/ login?url=http://search.. A.edu/login?url=http://search. Wolfe. Comer. Chew. (1998). I. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2005). leaqua.capella.htm Weisinger. Lancaster. PA: Poised for the Future Company. Nursing Management. J. Yukl. 34(10). 975–995. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Doctoral dissertation.capella.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin.eiconsortium. H. F. E. Developing emotional intelligence. 15(2). 15(2). Retrieved from http://ezproxy .1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. J. Emotional intelligence at work. 40(1).library. (2000).com/login. (1997). The Leadership Quarterly. K.com/login. 16(1). A. J. (2007). 39–52. Yammarino. 43(10). International Journal of Selection and Assessment.. 205–222.001 155 . B. Journal of Management. Human Relations. Journal of Information Systems. doi: 10. Dubinsky. R. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. 8(2). 251–289.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. 89–92. NJ: Prentice Hall. F. H. The perfect labor storm 2. (2003). W. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. (2003). University of Minnesota.capella. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. doi: 10. G. (1990). L.ebscohost. & Jolson.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. W. & Spangler. (2001). (2002)..2004.

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

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

00 Between $40.000.00 and $150.00 Between $70.000.00 and $100.00 More than $150.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.000.000.000.00 Between $100.000.00 158 .00 and $70.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful