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

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. 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. there will be approximately 10. The purpose of this cross-sectional.Abstract The U. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. predicts that by 2010.000 billion annually. . Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections.033.S. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. In addition.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. education. and healthcare professions. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. Department of Labor. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions.

and to my Grandparents. . . 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 . who laid the cornerstone of my being.

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

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

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

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

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

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

vii

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

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

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

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

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

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.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. In addition. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. if a relationship is found to exist. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. 3. 2. 4. this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational. 4 .

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

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

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

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

interest or motivation to respond. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel. such as linear regression will 9 . participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. That is. Univariate statistical techniques. 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. First. Secondly.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. such as correlational analyses. thus skewing the pattern of responses. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. Since data will be collected at one time point. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. 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. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. and multivariate procedures. Finally. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process.

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

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

Goleman. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. 1995. 1995).gender. 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. 12 . 1988). In addition. Bass & Avolio. 1985. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. 22 articles were relevant to this study. 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. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. After completing the data analysis used in this study another review of the literature was completed to examine additional research findings that may have been pertinent to this particular study published between 2006 and 2007. Specifically. and dissertations. 1999). In total. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 2006. higher group performance (Keller. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 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. books. along with several books and dissertations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are absent when needed. 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. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. Laissez-faire leadership. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. Transactional leadership. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. clarify expectations. and 25 . conferences. Although they may not be close by.proposed that charisma may be less important to the decision making process and more important in terms of its effect on subordinates because having a charismatic relationship with subordinates enables the leader to implement decisions with less resistance (Canella & Monroe). contingent reward. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. laissez-faire. reports. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. negotiate for resources. fail to follow up requests for assistance. and management-by-exception (passive). management-by-exception (active). exchange assistance for effort. 1995). exchange promises and resources. 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 provide commendations for successful follower performance. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance.

health care. 2008). using the MLQ-360 assessment. Gellis. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. Wade. Jolson. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. Bass & Avolio. 2003. 2003. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. 2001. 2003. Ellis. Measuring Transformational Leadership—Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Over the past 2 decades the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-Form 5X (MLQ) has emerged as the primary means of quantitatively assessing leadership styles in scores of research studies involving military. 1992).. Avolio. In addition. subordinates reported about their managers.productivity records. & Plemons. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. The 26 . and commercial organizations. educational. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. Yammarino. Bass. & Berson. 2004. Douthitt. Avolio. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. Snodgrass. & Sivasubramaniam. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett.e. A research study by Dubinsky. Jung. Bryant. it does have its place under the right circumstances.

Fourth. and its effect on job satisfaction. leader/unit perception. The results of a study by Morrison. using a sample of 275 nurses. Second. Kroeck. demonstrated high statistical correlations that were significant in supporting the theory that transformational leadership does have positive effects on the financial bottom-line and that leadership can be measured with statistical accuracy when being able to establish appropriate benchmarks. a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. and job satisfaction.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. organizational perception. Third. 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. Fifth. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. the sample size must have been reported. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. Lowe. and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings. Jones. First.

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

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

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

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

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

2004). Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 .) The MLQ has individual subtests. 2000). & Mann. 1995). as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work. Kouzes & Posner. it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. Gender and Leadership Style Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found no statistically significant differences between the leadership scores of men and women managers as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio. Carless. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). Carless (1998) examined gender differences in transformational leadership in a sample of 345 middle-level managers and 588 subordinates in a large Australian banking organization using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X. Wearing. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. 1990. 1995). Bass & Avolio. with four questions for each scale.The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. Transactional leadership has three scales. transactional leadership and nonleadership. These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. which could lead to a possible total score of 20. However. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. Transformational leadership has five individual scales.

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

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

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

they claimed. and the multiple social science fields on the other.Although this is a clear definition. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. and empirically valid definitions. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. is problematic. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. Mathews et al. In particular. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. Mayer et al. Thus. conceptually coherent. they hold that EI escapes definition. and psychologically based definitions of EI. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. For this reason. cohesive. not of empirically validated. culminating in the formation. Roberts. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. 2004. Mathews et al.. 2004a. These issues are explored next. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. 2004b). but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. emotional intelligence. 2004. 39 . (2004) began by arguing that the concept of EI has been imposed upon psychology from without rather than having emerged from within and in accordance with validated scientific concepts and theories. EI Controversies Mathews. Gohm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

once in a while = 1. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio.000 respondents from the United 64 . 2004). The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. or frequently. 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. rather than performance or success itself. challenges and pressures. 2002). fairly often = 3. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves.73 to . However. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. if not always = 4. sometimes = 2.94 (Bass & Avolio). and to successfully cope with daily demands. therefore. all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier.coefficients for each leadership factor. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. to understand and relate well with others. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. consisting of four items each.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. if not always). The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. For example. The coefficients ranged from . and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score.

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

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

” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. 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 .” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “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. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). the MLQ assessment. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research.Consent was implied by participants who after reading the “Waiver of Signed Consent” (a detailed explanation of participants rights as a volunteer participant in research that outlined the safeguards researcher implemented to avoid any issues of potential harm or risk of their confidentiality and privacy). Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. 2. individual data were not made available. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention.CHAPTER 4. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. As previous research. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. while not substantial. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . 2.

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

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

2 12.1 10.7 5.4 24.8 2.9 3.1 11.2 55.0 11.4 19.1 25.2 5.7 20.5 5.6 76 .8 3.8 1.9 12.1 22.1 39.7 7.Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.9 6.3 8.7 10.2 2.7 29.4 3.6 16.5 45.8 5.7 5.5 4.

American Indian.3 20. 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 32.9 2.000 15 9.1 32.6 Between $100–150.9 10.000 23 14.1 9.5 4. 77 .Table 1.7 31. Arabic or other. Respondent mean age was (M = 48. maximum age 67. East Asian.8 Between $40–70. N = 158.25 85.8 More than $150.000 55 34.9 1.20).5 __________________________________________________________ Note.9 12. SD = 8.3 12.0 2.7 34.2 10.000 17 10. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately. Minimum age 24.70.7 16.5 1.7 Current income Less than $40.000 44 27.7 2. **Includes Pacific Islander.8 Between $70–100.4 8.9 65.

This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. n = 106). or mean of 3.15 direct reports.000–$100. Most respondents earned from $40.7%. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. n = 103).6%. n = 78). The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29.1%. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree.32 subordinates. In terms of supervision responsibilities. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. n = 121) in a private. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. However.2%. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. Notably.95 years of college education.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.4%. for-profit organization. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. n = 135) male (60. and a median of 5. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. The sample of the population in this study has an average. 25. 78 .000 per annum (49. Addressing racial diversity. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. n = 72). n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.6%. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates).4%. from between 3–6 to more than 16.

Stress Management.00). in descending order. 79 . and General Mood Components. 105.900 and the median was $54. 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. 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. Interpersonal.86 (SD = 13.730.02 (SD = 13. For the income this is going to be most apparent. Intrapersonal.97 (SD = 13.02 (SD = 13.77 years. As far as income. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. 105. 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. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.65 years. The mean age of the subjects is 48.01).85). 103.63 (SD = 12. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. 107. Total EQi Score. EQi component scores were.49 (SD = 14.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. 102. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.49). with a nearly identical median of 48. the mean income was $68.05). because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates.41).

93 13.97 13.54 103. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi ____________________________________________________ EQi components and subcomponents M SD ____________________________________________________ Intrapersonal Self-regard Assertiveness Independence Self-actualization Interpersonal Empathy Social responsibility Interpersonal relationships Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality testing Flexibility Problem solving General Mood Optimism Happiness 107.04 12.44 13.41 12.45 13.31 103.21 105.62 13.63 103.46 102.60 14.00 12.86 12.74 13.52 103.Table 2.66 14.66 101.64 107.36 Total EQi Score 105.02 105.63 103. 80 .28 103.73 12. N = 157.61 102.01 13.17 104.19 13.67 13.61 105. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.41 106.49 103.49 13. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.86 106.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.70 13.05 14.85 12.02 102.

26 3. 3.09 3.16 (SD = 0.09 (SD = 0.59).26 (SD = 0. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. in descending order. Idealized Influence (Behavior).59).18 (SD = 0.35 (SD = 0. 3. 2004).Table 3.95 (SD = 0. 3.13 3. Individualized Consideration.59 0. 2.08 3.35 3. Inspirational Motivation.58).63 0.63). 81 . Intellectual Stimulation.59).52). Individualized Consideration.08 (SD = 0.52. Idealized Influence (Attributed).S.57 0.53). norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. 3. 2. 3.57). and Intellectual Stimulation. Idealized Influence (Behavior). N = 157.99 (SD = 0. 3.59 Note.13 (SD = 0.59).18 SD 0. which are as follows.04 (SD = 0. 2. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3. Mind Garden. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).57).57 0. TLS component scores were. Inspirational Motivation.58 0.96 (SD = 0. 3. 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. Idealized Influence (Attributed).

. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.53 0.13 3.55 0. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.Table 4.04 2.63 0. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).58 0.375. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. TLS Component Scores: U.59 0. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.S.59 0.e.59 0.95 2. or symmetry. Group Norms vs. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.96 3.09 3.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.52 0.59 0.02 2. Norm group** M 3.35 SD 0.16 SD 0. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.52 M 3.08 3.26 3. **N = 3. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. Skew represents the even-ness. 2001). or scaled variables.57 0.18 3. of a distribution (i.99 3.

83.64.66. 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. Inspirational Motivation = –. Intellectual Stimulation = –. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .63. (b) 6.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.67. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.70. and (e) General Mood = .85. (c) Inspirational Motivation = .0.16. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. (c) Stress Management = . and Individualized Consideration = –1. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .24.40. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.18. with skew > +/–2. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2.80. (b) Interpersonal = . but normally distributed.49. and not individual MLQ items.83. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.67.78. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .73. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. 83 . respectively.61.0. (b) MLQ 23 = –2.06. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . and (c) 9. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. (a) MLQ 5 = 2.09. (d) Adaptability = . 2001).76.

General Mood IIA . a p < . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). Pearson’s r was obtained. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables. and IC = Individualized Consideration.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.46* IM .44* . 84 .40* .19 a .43* Note.37* .05).48* . *p < .35* .25* .30* .01.29* .23* .59* IS . Intrapersonal 2.37* . Stress Management 4. Adaptability 5.33* . N = 158. To address the first research question.37* IIB .37* .44* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.28* .52* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.41* . IM = Inspirational Motivation. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.31* .05. The significance level was set at (α = . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.36* .32* IC . Table 5.40* . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. Interpersonal 3.

59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. p < .05).16. Inspirational Motivation (r = .001) and Inspirational Motivation.23 or higher.45.19.05). The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. EQi component scores also increased. With one exception. at r = . p < . Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIa—correlations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components. Results are shown in Table 6. using the same Procedure Correlations. 85 . All correlations were in the positive direction. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Most of the correlations ranged between . (b) Happiness (r = .001).59.20 and . with (α = . The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. all of the Pearson’s r’s were . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .001). p < .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .51. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. p < .05. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. (c) Self-Actualization (r = . Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components.50. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . which was still significant at p < .

37* .05 (ns = nonsignificant.24* .43* .40* .33* .40* .32* .35* .15 (ns) .36* Note. Impulse Control 11.38* . Reality Testing 12.37* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.44* .27* .40* .13 (ns) .40* .37* .26* .31* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation. *p < .11 (ns) . Flexibility 13.43* .24* .45* .36* . Independence 5.25* .17 a .35* . Empathy 7.48* .37* . N = 157.28* .12 (ns) .38* .19 a .38* . Stress Tolerance 10.16 (ns) .39* .31* .50* . Optimism 15. Social Responsibility 8.26* .32* .45* .59* .33* .21* . Assertiveness 4. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).33* .15 (ns) . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.23* .51* IS .Table 6. Happiness IIA .46* . Self-Regard 2.30* .30* . Self-Awareness 3. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).43* .33* .01.36* .37* .30* .39* IM .29* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.16 a .36* .24* .32* . p ≥ .25* IC .44* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.28* .33* . Self-Actualization 6.05).23* .31* IIB . ap < . Problem Solving 14.33* . 86 .24* .34* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.37* .03 (ns) .34* .

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

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

Table 7.00 1.40* .36* .60* .50* 1.43* 1.20* .38* .51* .00 .55* .60* .52* .30* .45* 1.32* Subcomponent 1.52* .56* . Self Awareness 3.43* .00 1.25* .00 1. Social Responsibility 8. Interpersonal Relationship .60* .41* .33* .61* .40* .15* .25* .53* 15 .58* .60* .32* .42* .47* .55* .53* 1.41* .50* .51* .39* .16* .49* .65* .47* .33* .23* .62* .26* .74* .40* .43* .23* .50* .47* 1. Impulse Control .61* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1. Problem Solving 12.32* .36* .42* . Assertiveness 4.50* .37* . Reality Testing 10.55* .58* .00 .66* .37* .64* .71* .56* .54* .61* .00 .15* .40* .42* .53* .00 1.00 .55* .47* .59* .41* .40* .35* .50* .51* . Self-Regard 2. Independence 5. Self-Actualization 6.24* .00 1.50* .00 .38* .37* . Empathy 89 7.60* .61* .00 .51* 1.36* 9.52* .43* .00 .82* .59* .66* .50* .27* .42* .42* .39* .28* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .42* .39* .55* .43* .00 1. Flexibility 11.32* . Stress Tolerance 13.72* .

05.01. N = 157.64* 1. Happiness Note. bns = nonsignificant.00 15 . 90 . *p < . a p < .Table 7. 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. Optimism 15.

72* 1. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.58* 1. and. General Mood and 91 . about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.00 5 . The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.59* .Table 8. To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed. Intellectual Stimulation 5. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. *p < . followed by General Mood (R2change = . Inspirational Motivation 4.019). Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. Overall.287). Results are shown in Table 9. N = 157.55* .01.00 3 . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.64* 1. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. Individualized Consideration Note. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.62* .00 4 . the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Stress Management at Step 3.61* .54* .57* 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.015). to a minimal extent. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. 1 1. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Results are shown in Table 9.00 2 .60* .00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Stress Management at Step 3.

320 at Step 5.287 at Step 1. 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.301 at Step 2. F change R2change .87 .25 2. R2 = .V. *p < .Interpersonal components. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.069 2. R2 = .000 .301 at Steps 3 and 4. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5). Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.07 . the EQi Intrapersonal. Neither Stress Management.85 . entered at Step 4.287 .019 Note.728 –0.01. R2 = . Table 9.015 .316 –0.008 . **p < .25 .033 –. 92 .04 . entered at Step 3.034 4.66** .000 .32 .04* 62.000 . † TLS Summed = D. R2 = .05.162 . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.24 .073 –.66 3. nor Adaptability. N = 157. In summary.

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

96 . bn = 62.48 104. *p < .50 2. bn = 62.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.05. Table 13. a difference which was significant at p < . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.75 12.Table 12.05.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.16 0.21 14.67 2. Males scored a mean of 0. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.44 2.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.97 0. Significant findings are shown in Table 13. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. *p < .

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

48 13.57 13.14 15.80 14.68 14.08 11. N = 157. 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 104.23 13.28 (14) 100.17 103. 13).24 104.09 109.80 102.62 103.37 14.19 12.67 103. As a group.26 103.72 101. **n = 62. Empathy (4 vs.78 13.47 104.75 13.40 14.76 106.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.80 106. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.41 11.50 109.61 104.27 11.63 13.37 12.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.97 15.77 102.53 12.34 102.89 103. 11).74 15.16 103.92 13.70 13.Table 14.64 109.33 105.74 11.92 102.84 11. *n = 95.43 11.37 105.18 14.01 103.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.93 13.55 13.07 14.34 12. Self-Actualization (9 vs.99 107.50 12. Social Responsibility 98 .56 102.21 105.06 102.

36** 1. **p < .74 15. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).18 14. a Marginally significant. and Flexibility (6 vs. *p < . p = . Males scored a mean of 7.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.67 SD 11. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.74 t 2. n = 62.11 107. 13).21 105.01.05. 12). Assertiveness. Females. (2 vs.01 102. Self-Regard (8 vs.99 M 99. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.05. Stress Tolerance (4 vs.26 Females SD 13. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.07 14.57 12.42* Note.80 11. 12).80 102.97 109. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. 15). Table 15.39 109. Males. They also scored higher on the 99 . among others. n = 95.91a 2.(5 vs. As a group.07* 3. 10). Independent-samples t test. a difference which was significant at p < . An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. 15).01. 10).86 11.

Specifically. all of which were significant at p < . stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Regression analyses.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. and independence (R2 change =.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. To summarize. As a follow-up. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. but did not predict TLS for males.41) subcomponents.05. Further. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.08).13). The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. or combination. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 .01) although this difference was only marginally significant. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. were important predictors of TLS in females. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. They also scored 4. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. 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.11) than did females (M = 105.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.

63** .176 at Step 1.255 at Step 2. R2 (adj) = .261 at Step 1.19 .269 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.263 at Step 4.. **p < .001 .989 34.e. R2 (adj) = .379 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .011 Note. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .097 .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.010 .45 .99** . 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) = .01.131 .05 .73 .55 –.85 .669 3.755 .378 at Step 3.248 at Step 3.000 .18 . F change R2change .606 .000 .73 1.08 .302 .088 –.167 1. It was thus decided that using 101 .24 14.001 .67 –1.04 2. 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.41 .02 . N = 157.098 12.81 1.21 –.253 at Step 2.002 . Table 16.12 2. R2 (adj) = .268 7. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales). R2 (adj) = .022 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .190 .

n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed). (b) Idealized Influence 102 .the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i.e.0%. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females.. the three highest TLS component scores). The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the five TLS components. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen.and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. and exactly one half of females (50. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the 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. To do this.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17.e. More than one half of males (53. Categorical variables. Finally..7%. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. 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. categorical variables (low. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. The highest percentages of males (53.7%.

n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.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. Table 17. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .4 50.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.3 48.7 47. *n = 95.6%.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).4 50.8%.5 53.3 46. the highest percentage of females (54.5 46. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow. The highest percentage of males (52.7 51.7%.7 53.7 53.6 49.(Behavior). The highest percentage of females (59.5 40.1 45.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51. N = 157.5 59.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.2 56. Comparison of Low.3 52.3 46.4 54. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.8 43. **n = 62.1 50. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.

The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.15 10. Table 18.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.00 9.64 112.75 10. Once this subsample was selected.98 111.24 111.91).88 11. Secondly.12 110.51 111. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.11 113.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 . again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.92 111.55 114. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.66 114.09 10.11 11.28 11.45 112.75 9.50 114.85 12. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.00 112.66 11. 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 111.04 16.14 11.76 110. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.29 SD 14. First.30 10.83 111.68 12.

55 12.21 11.71 106.55 12.17 9.26 112.22 108.36 13.15 108.73 9.18 109.15 104.39 M 110.13 107.44 9.40 12.41 8.12 10.39 9.38 14.13 111.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .86 105.Table 18.22 13.53 109.50 11.50 107.56 SD 10.51 107.64 9.23 106.03 7.07 14.90 103.55 11.51 7.68 10.25 104.84 11.92 105.42 109.50 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 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 104.28 108.23 108.28 107.28 110.62 107.20 9.

96 105. (b) Assertiveness.75 104.00 103.73 10.4 102.26 105.33 M 104. 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.14 105.63 12.85 14.67 10.09 104.77 101.65 103.50 SD 10.86 12.12 10.89 11.66 10.20 11.27 14.50 105.59 14.35 103.68 106.81 17.06 13.82 105.Table 18.66 104.47 12. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .41 10.78 103.90 12.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.43 11.06 12.01 8.42 9. (c) Independence.56 105. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component 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 102.79 105.03 102.57 104.

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

04* Note. Females. categorical variables (low. however. Categorical variables.57 M 107.00 14. Subsample N = 82.e.43 104.01* 2.94a –2.33 111.05. The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents.61 106. n = 31. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1.05 10.78 8. *p < . a Marginally significant.and high-scoring) 108 . Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.09 108.. Table 19.05.43 t 1. p = .80 SD 10. n = 51. EQi. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.16 Females SD 13. Males. To do this. the goal here was to identify significant gender differences in using TLS based on a subsample of males and females identified as high scorers on the 15 EQi subcomponents (i. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.96 10. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).

obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. Then.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. However.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. More than one half of males (53. The highest percentages of males (61.97). means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females.0%.5%. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. Once the subsample was selected.6%. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. 109 .5% (n = 35) of females did so. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. followed by 59. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. Interestingly. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents.1%. The highest percentage of males (50. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.3%. The highest percentage of females (61. again based on each EQi subcomponent. n = 32).

and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total *n = 95.8 50.8 45.8 42.5 53.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.0 45.3 45.1 55.9 44.8 58.9 45.2 50.2 50.4 45.8 38.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61.0 110 .9 43.6 46.3 52.5 40.7 47.2 56.7 51.5 53.5 45.0 48.5 54.Table 20.5 43.1 56.2 61.8 54.1 55.0 54. Female** High Low % 53.2 51.1 56.8 43.2 61.2 55.1 54.3 55.8 38.8 High % 38.0 52.8 50.2 57.2 41.5 46.5 59. Comparison of Low.4 53.8 44.3 48.2 45.7 54. **n = 62.2 55.5 46.0 47.9 43.9 44.7 44.0 51.6 54.8 49.5 56.

49 3. followed by the lowest mean.47 0.51 3.57 0.55 3.52 0.47 0.5 3.48 3.49 0.61 3. Table 21.54 0.49 0.55 3.48 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 3.47 3.60 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.58 3.55 3.52 3.53 0.52 3.37 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.55 SD 0.47 0.54 0.43 111 .49 3.51 0.37 3.

45 0.40 0.37 3.21 0.22 3.41 3.42 0.39 0.55 3.37 0.46 3.37 3.6 M 3.45 3.Table 21.30 0.44 0.51 3.35 112 .37 0.36 3.42 3.38 3.36 0.44 3.49 0.35 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.51 3.37 0.45 0.43 SD 0.34 0.39 0.40 0.42 3.

57 0.57 0.24 3.08 3.28 3.52 0.Table 21.58 0.2 3.53 M 3.1 3.45 113 .19 3.2 3.51 0.43 0.15 3.61 0.22 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.21 3.61 0.6 0.57 0.51 0.58 0.25 3.59 0.24 SD 0.5 0.18 3.14 0.53 0.2 3.24 3.22 3.

11 3.06 2.6 0.63 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.58 0.02 3.62 0.08 SD 0.63 0.21 3.95 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .05 3. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.13 3.68 0.Table 21.55 0. with the exceptions of Independence. 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 3.14 3. Optimism and Happiness. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.16 3. Empathy.67 0.57 Descriptive statistics.11 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.59 0.49 0.

05. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (EQi) males and females (N = 87) to determine whether their scores on the five TLS components differed significantly.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Males. 115 . Idealized Influence (Behavior).80 Males scored 0. n = 33. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. a Marginally significant.16 SD 14. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.05. Females.Motivation. Females SD 10. In summary. Table 22.05. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. 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. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.57 M 106. a difference which was significant at p < . Independent subsamples t test. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. p = .04* M 111. n = 54. *p < .43 t 2.

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

and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. with women currently representing 50.S Department of Labor. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. 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% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. In 2007. However. 2000. Mandell & Pherwani. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. In fact. women held 15. The women 117 . 2003). in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. workforce is growing in its diversity. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. 2008). 2003). However.6% of the 48 million employees in management. 47% law degrees. down from 16. and related occupations (U. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. 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. 30% of women earned medical degrees. 80% of the U. professional. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions.4% in 2005.S.S. 2007). Over the next decade. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. 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. 1999). In 2001.2% last year (Hymowitz. Hay/McBer.Sosik & Megerian.

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

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

Assertiveness. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. 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. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Additional analysis to further delineate the relationship among gender and its influence on EQi in predicting TLS used a subsample of males and females scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score. Self-Regard. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. and Stress Tolerance. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. Stress Tolerance. and Social Responsibility.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. Assertiveness.

this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. In addition.. Mandell & Pherwani. 2001. Burgess. 1998.23 or higher. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .. Further. 2003. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003)..59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. Kobe et al. The significance of this research finding is that it lends itself in providing empirical support of previous research findings that identify a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs in which individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs were found to score high on the other as well (Goleman.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. Law et al.. 2004. Hay/McBer.23) to moderate (r = .” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. & Stough. Palmer. 2003). 2002). 2004. Thus. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . 2001). rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Walls. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. Mandell & Pherwani. 2000. Judge et al.21) to moderate (r 121 . Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? All but 2 of 15 EQi subcomponents were found to significantly predict differences in TLS component with Pearson’s r scores ranging from modest (r = .

2000. 2003). 2002). or temptation to act. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. For example.16. Impulse Control. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable.= . As well. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. drive. 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.03 to . 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. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from .51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. However. Stress Tolerance. Thus. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. 122 . is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. Mandell & Pherwani. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 1998. Hay/McBer.” 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.

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

try new approaches. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. with males scoring a higher mean of 4. 2002. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant.” was rejected.62 (p < . the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . 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. with males scoring a higher mean of .05) and is consistent with BarOn and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) who found through their research that successful senior leaders have a significantly higher intrapersonal capacity and this attribute is generally found in male leaders. skills and talents. 2007). which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. As a result. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner.19 (p < . Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.05) as well. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. and challenge their own beliefs and values. 1990). Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she orients followers to an awareness of problems and support followers to be creative and innovative. as well as those of the leader and the organization.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. all of which were significant at p < . and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.05. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. which this current study used. Petrides & Furnham. 2000).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. 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. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.” 125 . 1995. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. While this current study supports previous research findings.18). suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts.17).10.41).

and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3.0%. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. According to Dr.7%. and should not come as a great surprise. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50.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).18). the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. 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 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. are better at handling stress. ¶ 1). “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. n = 31) scored above 126 . are independent. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. More than one half of males (53. To do this. President of MHS. Steven Stein.

whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. 2007). Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. p < .700 administrations of the EQi. self-assuredness. Thus.33.” was rejected. who analyzed the scores on over 7.64. 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. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4.05). inner strength.05).28. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. p < . p < . In addition. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness.the mean across all of the TLS components. and Social Responsibility. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 .

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

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

31). 98. unlike findings of previous research. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. unlike the present results. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. in the present research. 2005). as well as higher on all five components than males. However. 101. Butler. 63. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. The present finding that males scored higher on the Intrapersonal component of the EQi than females is partly consistent with results of Goleman’s (1998) and Bar-On’s (2002) research. 2005..21 vs. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity.58 vs.31) and TLS (65. 92). men scored a mean of 4. 130 . The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). Schutte et al. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 1998. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 2005. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.8 vs.decoding (Byron.7) (p. 104. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. 2000).7 vs.2). Van Rooy et al. women scored higher overall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Redwood City. B.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. 143 .. B... doi: 10. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. B. & Avolio.242/demo/intro/tformlead.Bar-On. Psicothema. International Journal of Public Administration. (1985).htm Bass. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. R. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Retrieved from http://205. J.). New Braunfels. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. (2007). Bass. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). B. M. 19–31. (1999). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. M. 541–554. & Avolio. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. B.231. 17(1).reuvenbaron. B. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. B. 18(3). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. Bass. J. CA: Mind Garden. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. (1990). (1997). & Avolio.net/tc3/TC019239. Retrieved from http://redalyc. Leadership Quarterly. & Avolio. doi: 10.html Bass. & Avolio. 18(Suppl. New York: The Free Press. doi: 10. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). 130–139. M. J. Public Administration Quarterly.php?i=25 Bar-On. B. (1993). Menlo Park.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501.52. B. 4(3). R. B..org/bar-on-model/essay. B. M. 375–377.. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 17(3/4). R. 52(2). B. & Handley. R. J. M. Bass.pdf Bar-On. 13–25. Organizational Dynamics.uaemex. J.2.. (2004). M. CA: Mind Garden. TX: Pro-Philes Press. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. B. Bass. M. (2006).130 Bass. (1990). B. B.84. (1994). J.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. 112–121. & Avolio. Retrieved from http://www. M.1037/0003-066X. (1999). (1995). B. Bass. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. M.

Bass. (1978). E. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.1. J.Bass. (2000). E.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. J. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. University of Nebraska.. 207–218.2224/ sbp. R. (2007). M. J.. Social Behavior and Personality. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century.88.htm Bryant.pdf Boyatzis. 32–44. Doctoral dissertation.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. B.eiconsortium. 35(1).2. 88(2). Psychological Reports.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. (2004). Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. 27(5).capella. doi: 10. South Carolina State University. B. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. doi: 10. 47–64. L. M.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link.htm Burns. E. (2003).. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. R. 9(4). (2007). Doctoral dissertation.35. (2004).41 144 . The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. L. doi: 10. & Henninger. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. 5–34. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. E.2007. N. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. & Wheeler. Avolio. J. Hafetz. 44–46. Leadership. J.edu/login?url=http://search. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.ebscohost.. 234–238. A. (2003). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. S.eiconsortium.library . Jung. W. Y. Retrieved from http://ei. Retrieved from http://www. B. (1990)..com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. I. 86(1). The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Journal of Applied Psychology. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review. doi: 10. 45(1). M. & Atwater. B. D. New York: Harper & Row. 41–50. 15(3). Murphy. Retrieved from http:// www..haygroup. Burton.com/login. A.1037/0021-9010. Retrieved from http://www. M.. Lincoln. Psychological Inquiry. & Berson. Avolio. K.pdf Brody. (1996). (2003).haygroup..aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. J.. D.207 Bennis.

J. Doctoral dissertation. L. May). and subordinate perspectives. S. 887–902.00238 Cavallo. & Goleman. October).57 .eiconsortium . Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. K.. Fort Collins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.htm 145 . Butler.org/ Center for Creative Leadership.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. (2000). (1998.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. Retrieved August 10. 56(4). Journal of Management. J. B.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. L.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless.Butcher. 23(3). N. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. A.htm Cannella. Journal of Business and Psychology. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring.. M. K. (2002).. A. Georgia State University.. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. doi: 10.eiconsortium. Tellegen. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. 725– 741.. L. Retrieved from http://www.1111/0022-4537. L. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. Dahlstrom. D. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Retrieved from http//www. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. (2005). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. & Kaemmer.6.1037/0022-3514.. & Mann. (2001). leader. (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.964 Carli. R. Sex Roles. (2008. 213–237. C. W. (1998). Wearing. A short measure of transformational leadership. doi: 10. A. Graham. Journal of Social Issues. doi: 10. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). doi: 10. Byron. J.org/-report.ccl. G.. J.eiconsortium . L. & Brienza. Doctoral dissertation. A. A. (1989). 2008. (1989). L. 14(3). (1997). D... S. Retrieved from http://www. 57(4). 389–405. Gender and social influence.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. doi: 10. C. Colorado State University. & Monroe. Retrieved from http://www.aspx Cherniss. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. 39(11/12). 565–76.

.. 15(4). 17–21. Dixon. C. D. A. (2002). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Karau. D. Miner.. from Answers. & Johnson. M. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. E (1999). F. 108(2). Mayfield. Dulewicz. A. D. Dearborn. (1994). 15(2). Retrieved from ProQuest database.. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. A theory of leadership effectiveness. J. (1967). B. 17–29.com Web site: http://www. New York: HarperCollins. Public Personnel Management. Yammarino... 5(2). & Johnson. (1990)... Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. A. J.1037/0033-2909. 2008. Copeland. 146 .d. 467–480. B. & Salas. (1999). E. J. L. & Swerdlik... Retrieved from PsycINFO database.. Jolson. Psychological Bulletin. Drucker. Gender and reactions to dominance. New York: Hill. doi: 10. 341–372. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. & Shamir. M. (1999).. 135–159. J. 31(4). W. doi: 10. V. (2002). B. S.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. H. A. Journal of Nursing Administration. (n. Retrieved August 31.233 Eagly. B. doi: 10. F. doi: 10. 45(4). Leadership Quarterly. 29(12). Avolio. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Management challenges for the 21st century. B. Eagly. Mountain View.). 53–68.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 735–744. M. E. 10(6). D. Journal of Business Research.Chief executive officer. (2002). Achieving results through transformational leadership. T. 233–256. Dubinsky. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. K.. P. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. J. (2000).108.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler.. (1995). J.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. 55(6). Academy of Management Journal. Driskell. 523–530. H. (1995). & Higgs. R. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. J. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. CA. Eden.answers.2. & Spangler.

Frankel. 10(6). A. J. F. doi: 10. M. London: Routledge. Hater. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman.. W. Retrieved from http://www. 15(3). Saunders. (2008). J.73.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner.695 Hay Group. Working with emotional intelligence. & Bass. Z. O. A. Doctoral dissertation. Thousand Oaks. (1983).eiconsortium. O. L.haygroup. 10(3). C. D. Gellis. CA: Sage. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.edu/login?url http://search. (2001). & Dickson.com/login. 237–252.org/?fa=main. L.apa. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. New York: Warner Business Books.capella. Retrieved from http://www. 741–748.1037/0021-9010.4. 25(1). (2003). ECI fact card. Furnham. Social skills in interpersonal communication. H. (1998). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. doi: 10.library.gov.ebscohost. Moving forward with emotional intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology..htm Hargie. Psychological Inquiry. (2000). New York: Basic Books. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. L. 695–702.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. 222–227. P.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. E. Retrieved from http://www. J. Retrieved from http://psycnet. R. (1988). (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. (1995). (1995).uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. Social Work Research.dfee. Nice girls don’t get the corner office. C. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment).doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . Block.Field. C. (2004)..org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. 17–25.). M..pdf Hay/McBer. Grubb. R. D. & Rawles. New York: Bantam. Gohm. (2004). B. & Martell. 73(4). (1995). Virginia Commonwealth University.

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

doi: 10.. 113–118.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . & Sivasubramaniam..Judge. Leadership Quarterly. doi: 10. Furnham. Journal of Educational Administration.89. S. (2005). doi: 10. P. C. 5(1). K. Journal of Applied Psychology. B. N.755 Kaufhold. (2007).. B. 7(3). Journal of Applied Psychology. 12(3). The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. (1996). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school.edu/login?url=http://search. B. & Song. Transformational leaders make a difference. doi: 10.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. Z. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. (1995). Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. & Beers.com/login.. M. (2004). Colbert. Kirkcaldy. A.89. A.1037/0021-9010. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. F. (2004). doi: 10. 41–44.1.3. & Piccolo. N. 542–552.00. doi: 10.. Current Psychology. M..15304.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. 615–626. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89(3). doi: 10. 38(3).com/cda/media/ 0. T. (2004)... Noack. 125(4). Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. 89(5). Côté. E. P.. D. (2005).wiley. K.. & Siefen.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. Reiter-Palmon. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. M. European Psychologist. A. D. June). 755–768. Emotion. (2000). R. (2000. & Jantzi.. R. & Ilies.. S.. 112–129. P. & Johnson.. Wong.. 154–163.1037/0021-9010. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. 20(2). R. L.. 38(2). L.3. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties.542 Judge.89. K. G. L. Retrieved from http://basepath. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. (2001). J. Journal of Research and Technology Management. R. & Rickers.ebsco host.483 Leithwood.. G. S.1037/0021-9010. A. 385–425. & Posner.113 Lowe. R. Education.capella. 483–496.1037/15283542. Salovey..5. Kroeck. A.library.. doi: 10.5. T. K.pdf Law. 89(3). J. 173–180. J.

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

M. P..aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. (2004). Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M. D. (2001). N. 13(4). C. 100–106. R. Parker. Wrightsman (Eds. M. D. from Answers. Psychological Inquiry. Oatley. 2008. 27–34. R. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. 27(5).library. B.).org. (2003).).com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. 29–43.capella. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. San Diego. R.library. L. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. 14(1). Perry. The International Journal of Conflict Management.1016 /j.html 151 . C. R. 5–10.. & Fuller. Ball. 22(1).. P. J. Journal of Individual Differences. (1991). Burgess. Walls.2006.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. J. Retrieved August 31. K..ebscohost. In J. H. (n. Z.. Eastabrook. Salovey. Jones. R.. CA: Academic Press. (2004b). doi: 10. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. MLQ international norms.04.. & Stacey.d.com/login . D.ebscohost.au/iier14/perry. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. (2004).. & L. Retrieved from http://www. & Carsky.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. Retrieved from ProQuest database.edu/login? url=http://search. & Caruso.com/login.pdf Morrison. 26(2). doi: 10.capella. Measurement and control of response bias. E. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. D. doi: 10. (1997). Psychological Inquiry. L. Issues in Educational Research. L. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. 335–344. 216–238. 15(3).mind garden. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. Shaver. Robinson.answers. A. Journal of Nursing Administration. D. & Stough.Mayer.. S. 24(6).022 Paulhus. Saklofske. M.com Web site: http://www. J. Inc. B. J. & Taylor.iier..edu/login?url=http://search.com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. N. 17–59). 381–400.paid..aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. L.. Wood. (2002). I. Retrieved from http://www. S. 15(3). 249–255. (2004).. (2005). Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions.

P. (2000). T. Emotional intelligence. Case Western Reserve University. 15(6). C.. & Buckley. Retrieved from ProQuest database.416 Piedmont. & Furnham. (2004).capella. M. R. T. R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and team outcomes.. Ammeter.003 152 . R. Douglas.eiconsortium.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b.leaqua. 323–351). Sex Roles. Plunkett (Ed.ebsco host. & McRae.edu/login?url=http://search. J. Ways women lead.. Catholic University of America. R.. A. R.1037/0022-3514. In W. Ammeter. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent.. G. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Boston: Allyn Bacon. 42(5/6). L. R.. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. Prati. 60(4). Retrieved from http://www. B. 68(6). G. R. K. 121–133.2007. 363–369. (2007). M.60. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis.1016/j.). 744–755. Petrides. 11(1). leadership effectiveness. doi: 10.1002/per. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2003). & Buckley.01. V. (1992). B. Leadership and management styles.. 18(2). 41–62. (2003b).com/login.. (1990). V.htm Rosener. A. L. W. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Doctoral dissertation. 449–461. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. C. J. Doctoral dissertation. Prati. & Heinitz. K. Retrieved from http://www. (2003a). doi: 10. V. Retrieved from ProQuest database. K.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . 119–125.. M..4. A. (1991). doi: 10. R. M. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Purkable.. European Journal of Personality.eiconsortium. 11(4). Costa. (2001). L..Petrides. P.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. Douglas.. & Furnham. pp. Supervision (6th ed. Ferris. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.htm Rivera Cruz. 425–448. Ferris. A.630 Plunkett. Harvard Business Review. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. P.library. Emotional intelligence. Leadership Quarterly. R. L..

edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer.. L. Retrieved August 31. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. (1990). Golden. (2001). Hunt. (1998). Retrieved from http://www. (2002). M. E. A.unh. (2001). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.1. 16(4).org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. E. Retrieved from http:// www. T. 9(3).sciencedirect. W. Organizational behavior (7th ed. K. 1(3).htm Schutte..edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. J.3. J. D. doi: 10. Schaie. J.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. Race. J.edu/login?url=http://search . 243–248. Emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.). E.. S. J.. J.answers. and Matthews (2001).. 167–177. (n.capella. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. doi: 10. Hall.pdf Sanders. Emotion. & Geroy.. 25(2). Imagination. (2000). 2008.d.. 185–211. 9(4). Hopkins.243 Schermerhorn. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.com. Retrieved from http://www. Schulte. Our Lady of the Lake University. J.. P. Gender & Class. W. from Answers..ebscohost. (2003). Retrieved from http:// www. Cooper. Malouff.library. J. & Osborn.capella. D.. 21–31. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. 74(3).. et al. Haggerty. Cognition.eiconsortium. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management.. emotions. G. M.com/topic/senior-management Smith. F. Retrieved from ProQuest database.eiconsortium. E. Race.com Web site: http://www.1037/0022-3514. J. (1998).).74.Rudman. and Personality.. 94– 110.org/ Salovey.library. M. J. C. (2003). 9(4).. N. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.629 Sala. Journal of Management. Comment on Roberts.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. & Mayer. (1990).3.com/login. Zeidner. 629–645. J. Personality and Individual Differences. Doctoral dissertation. New York: Wiley. doi: 10. & Bass. D.1037/1528-3542. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. and socialization. B. 693–703. L.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . R.

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

Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Retrieved from http://www . Leadership in organizations (5th ed. 15(2).eiconsortium. M. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. Retrieved from http://ezproxy .capella. C. A. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. J. (2003).edu/login?url=http://search. Zhu. NJ: Prentice Hall.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.com/login. J. H. K.. (1998). A. I. Comer. 205–222. Emotional intelligence at work. (2001). 39–52. 28–32. Yammarino. L. 99–125. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.ebscohost. W. Dubinsky.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. Journal of Information Systems. 40(1). & Spangler..library.ebscohost.). (1990). I. (2007).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. The perfect labor storm 2.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. (2005). Human Relations. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.capella.edu/ login?url=http://search. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective.2004. 251–289. doi: 10. 43(10). Doctoral dissertation. 89–92. G. G. M.. University of Minnesota.library. 15(2). doi: 10. Academy of Management Journal.. 8(2). 34(10). E. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2003). Developing emotional intelligence. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. L. J. (2002).1016/j..06. M.Viator. S. & Bass.001 155 . W.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. Wolfe. leaqua.library .. D. Chew. (2000).capella. PA: Poised for the Future Company. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. A. B. Nursing Management. 975–995. B.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. Journal of Management.htm Weisinger. F. The Leadership Quarterly.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. (1989). & Jolson. Yukl. H.ebscohost. 16(1). doi: 10. Upper Saddle River.com/login. R. F.edu/login?url=http://search. Lancaster. (1997). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence.

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 .

000.00 Between $40.000.00 158 .00 and $100.00 and $70.000.00 Between $100.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 More than $150.000.000.000.000.00 and $150.00 Between $70.