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

Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges. predicts that by 2010. quantitative survey is to examine the relationship between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style that may lend itself to the development of more effective leadership training and development programs to meet the upcoming challenges. The purpose of this cross-sectional. there will be approximately 10. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. education.Abstract The U. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. and healthcare professions. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. Department of Labor.033.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S. In addition. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. .000 billion annually.

and to my Grandparents.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. . iii .

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

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

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 . Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Group Sample Table 5. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Group Norms vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18.List of Tables Table 1. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2.S. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. Comparison of Low. TLS Component Scores: U. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Table 10. 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. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20. Comparison of Low.Table 19.

develop. Department of Labor. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. 2000. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. Gioia. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. The U. 1 . it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Herman. Leadership research suggests that securing and retaining appropriate personnel will remain an issue and that transformational leadership may be key in developing a social architecture capable of generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21stcentury organizational challenges (Bass.CHAPTER 1. Specifically. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. 1999. 2005). and retain the best talent. attract. & Olivo. education. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. higher group performance levels (Keller. 2003.373 billion (Herman.033. 1997. 1998).000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S. Ireland & Hitt. 1990). U. 1999). Drucker.S. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. Hitt. 1988). companies must compete to find. 1995). The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 1997. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Department of Labor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not on “how” to effectively lead. and handsome. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. cooperative. and skills (Yukl. Personality traits include being self-confident. adaptable. 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. energetic. popular. 1990). Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. However. these studies failed to create a list of traits that would guarantee leadership success as different studies found different traits associated with leaders that became too long to be of practical significance (Yukl). of leaders such as personality. 2002). Task-related 13 .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. motives. and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. These early leadership theories were content theories. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. and emotionally stable. or traits. tall. and diplomatic. Social characteristics include being charismatic. assertive. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. tactful. values. social.

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

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

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

Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. and those that are motivated by relationship. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. those that are motivated by task. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. 17 . The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. Together. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. leader-member relations. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. Fiedler offers two leadership styles. 1967). contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. 2002). task structure. 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 theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates. unstructured tasks. Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. D3. An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. Furthermore.defined tasks. Four leadership styles (S1. empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. and weak leader position power. S2. The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. 2002). The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. However. and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. and D4). D2. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. and strong leader position power. 1993). Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). S3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results of a study by Morrison. 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. Jones. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). 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. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. Fifth. and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings. leader/unit perception. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Second. using a sample of 275 nurses. First. and job satisfaction. Kroeck. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. and its effect on job satisfaction.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. Lowe. organizational perception. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. the sample size must have been reported. Third. 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. Fourth. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate.

behaviors has a greater degree of significance on job satisfaction than other types of leadership (i.e., transactional, laissez-faire leadership). Research by Judge and Bono (2000), based on 14 samples of leaders (N = 169) from over 200 organizations, investigated the relationship between personality and transformational leadership using the MLQ and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised and found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and certain personality variables including extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Results (based on 626 correlations from 87 sources) revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership that generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs, reinforcing the evidence that transformational leadership does result in more satisfied and motivated subordinates as well as organizational effectiveness. Another study by Gellis (2001) was designed to evaluate a model that delineates two types of leadership processes, transformational and transactional leadership, within social work practice as measured by the MLQ, using a sample of 187 clinical social workers employed in hospitals. The objectives were to determine the degree to which social work managers were perceived to use transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and to identify which leader behaviors were best able to predict social work leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and extra effort by hospital social workers. Results indicated that all five transformational factors and one transactional factor, contingent reward, were significantly correlated with leader outcomes of effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort. In a research study by Viator (2001) on leadership, commitment, and job performance, data were obtained through a mail survey with 416 usable responses 28

obtained. Participants who primarily worked in the functional area of information system assurance and business consulting perceived that their supervisors demonstrated higher levels of transformational leadership, compared to participants from two other service areas (financial auditing and tax services). Transformational leadership was directly and positively associated with role clarity, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and indirectly associated with job performance, across all three functional areas. In a longitudinal, randomized field experiment, Dvir, Ede, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) tested the impact of transformational leadership, enhanced by training, on follower development and performance. Experimental group leaders received transformational leadership training, and control group leaders, eclectic leadership training. The sample included 54 military leaders, their 90 direct followers, and 724 indirect followers. Results indicated the leaders in the experimental group (transformational leadership training) had a more positive impact on direct followers’ development and on indirect followers’ performance than did the leaders in the control group (eclectic leadership training). Conducting a meta-analysis, Antonakis et al. (2003) reanalyzed data generated by previous studies that had used the MLQ (Form 5X) in different conditions by controlling sample homogeneity, using both published and unpublished sources creating two independent studies examining the validity of the measurement model and factor structure of Bass and Avolio’s MLQ. The first study used a largely homogenous business samples consisting of 2,279 pooled male and 1,089 pooled female raters who evaluated same-gender leaders supporting the nine-factor leadership model proposed by Bass and 29

Avolio as the model was configurally and partially metrically invariant—suggesting that the same constructs were validly measured in the male and female groups. The second study used factor-level data of 18 independently gathered samples of 6,525 raters clustered into prototypically homogenous contexts, used gender as a contextual factor along with examining two contextual factors, environmental risk and leader level, in testing the nine-factor model and found it was stable (i.e., fully invariant) within homogenous contexts. Results of these two studies indicated strong and consistent evidence that supports conclusions about the validity and reliability of the MLQ. Because large independently gathered samples were used, the generalizability has been enhanced. A study by Bass et al. (2003) examining the predictive relationships for the transformational and transactional leadership using the MLQ 5X, used a total of 72 U.S. Army platoons, each made up of three rifle squads and a heavy weapons squad, participating in the joint readiness training exercise, in order to rate unit potency, cohesion, and performance. The core leadership in a platoon rests with the platoon sergeant (a noncommissioned officer) and the platoon leader (usually a commissioned second lieutenant). Because the average number of light infantry combat soldiers in a platoon (all men) is typically around 30, the total number of participants rating the platoon leaders and platoon sergeants was 1,340 and 1,335, respectively. Both transformational and transactional contingent reward leadership ratings of platoon leaders and sergeants positively predicted unit performance. Ozaralli (2003) investigated transformational leadership in relation to empowerment and team effectiveness. As part of an integrative model of leadership, transformational leadership style of superiors is proposed to be related to the strength of 30

& Jolson. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. the more effective the team will be. dissertations. Bass. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. transactional. and laissez-faire leadership. and unpublished reports published from 1887 to 2003) the criteria used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis referenced transformational leadership as well as related terms such as charisma.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. charismatic leadership. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. 1994. In total. and vision. Yammarino. communication and team performance. 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. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. Comer. Dubinsky. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. and 1 unpublished data set). Similarly. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. Avolio. & Atwater. 1996. Carless. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. book chapters. 18 dissertations. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization.(2000) theory of human values. and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. and are in accord with the cultural differences found to be associated with women’s differential display of EI across contexts noted by Rivera Cruz (2004). Measuring EI Schutte et al. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. Schutte et al. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. Smith (2002). Results of these studies. possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. although inconsistent. intrapersonal. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. E. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. E. Alonso. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. In a study by J. Smith). In contrast. Van Rooy. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. These are the test of EI 45 . Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are reviewed as follows. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. 2005). 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. EI. gender. Regarding raters perceptions. Specifically.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. 2003). Position. Leadership. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. 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. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. Brooks (2003) examined whether a sample of 57 effective managers in one financial organization scored higher in EI than managers with lower performance ratings and compared EI levels and demographic characteristics of the sample. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. 2003). coping (Purkable. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. contingent reward leadership. title. Using performance ratings and demographic data. 2003). and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. and management tenure 55 . contingent reward leadership. with mixed results. and manager success (Hopkins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and display a sense of power and confidence. 5. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. 2004) and was based on data from 2.96. respected and trusted. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. 2004): 1.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . Followers identify with and want to emulate them. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own.85. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. principles. 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. 2. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors).53 to . Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. and values. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics.81 to . with a strong sense of purpose. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. 3. mentoring and growth opportunities.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . 4.

The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. participants are asked to rate the frequency of their perceived leadership style using such items as “I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. if not always = 4. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves.000 respondents from the United 64 . or frequently. if not always). and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. However. sometimes = 2. and to successfully cope with daily demands. consisting of four items each. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. rather than performance or success itself. fairly often = 3. The coefficients ranged from . all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier.73 to . once in a while = 1.94 (Bass & Avolio). transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. 2002). For example. 2004). challenges and pressures. to understand and relate well with others. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. therefore. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0.coefficients for each leadership factor. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities.

0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. 2002). MHS has developed and offers online assessment tools and Scoring Organizers in which researchers can generate scored MS Excel datasets that include only scores which can be imported into any spreadsheet or statistical software program. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. Version 12.85 (n = 44) and . and Self-Actualization. Social Responsibility. Emotional Self-Awareness. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. and Interpersonal Relationship. 65 . (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months.. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. 2002). Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Flexibility. Bar-On. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. Assertiveness. and their associated subcomponents. to obtain a Total EQ. and Problem Solving. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. Independence. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems.75 (n = 27. MHS Inc. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. were reported as .States and Canada. 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. respectively. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. 2002). 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and if so. 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. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4. 74 . Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. the nature and strength of that association. 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. 3.

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

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.0 11.5 4.7 5.2 2.9 6.8 1.9 3.8 2.8 3.4 24.4 19.1 22.3 8.6 16.7 7.1 25.2 5.7 10.7 20.1 39.4 3.2 12.1 10.7 29.6 76 .Table 1.9 12.5 5.7 5.2 55.5 45.8 5.1 11.

3 20.000 23 14. East Asian.9 65. Respondent mean age was (M = 48. 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 32.0 2.8 More than $150. Arabic or other.6 Between $100–150.8 Between $40–70.2 10. N = 158.4 8. SD = 8.9 10.Table 1.3 12. maximum age 67.000 17 10.000 55 34. American Indian. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.1 32.7 31.5 1.7 16.9 12.7 34. **Includes Pacific Islander.000 44 27.9 2.20). 77 .1 9.25 85.9 1. Minimum age 24.7 Current income Less than $40.000 15 9.8 Between $70–100.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.5 4.70.7 2.

The sample of the population in this study has an average. from between 3–6 to more than 16.95 years of college education. However. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.6%. 25. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.4%.7%. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). Notably.2%.15 direct reports. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. Addressing racial diversity.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. Most respondents earned from $40.000 per annum (49.000–$100. n = 121) in a private.6%. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.4%. for-profit organization. or mean of 3. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. 78 .1%. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. n = 72). the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). n = 103).32 subordinates. In terms of supervision responsibilities. and a median of 5. n = 135) male (60. n = 78). n = 106).

97 (SD = 13.41). Stress Management.63 (SD = 12.86 (SD = 13. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. EQi component scores were. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. 107.65 years. 105.02 (SD = 13.900 and the median was $54. The mean age of the subjects is 48. 79 . The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58.02 (SD = 13. 102.77 years. Total EQi Score. 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. with a nearly identical median of 48.730. the mean income was $68. For the income this is going to be most apparent. 105. Descriptive Statistics—The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the components and subcomponents of the EQi are displayed in Table 2.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. 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. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.01).00). 103. Summed TLS Score. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Interpersonal. As far as income.05).85). Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. Intrapersonal. and General Mood Components. Adaptability. in descending order.49 (SD = 14.49).

44 13. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.01 13. N = 157.49 13.62 13.67 13.17 104.28 103. 80 .4 ____________________________________________________ Note.85 12.Table 2.41 12.21 105.02 105.66 101.45 13.97 13.31 103.93 13.46 102. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi ____________________________________________________ EQi components and subcomponents M SD ____________________________________________________ Intrapersonal Self-regard Assertiveness Independence Self-actualization Interpersonal Empathy Social responsibility Interpersonal relationships Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality testing Flexibility Problem solving General Mood Optimism Happiness 107.61 105.86 12.66 14.04 12.41 106.49 103. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.63 103.05 14.86 106.63 103.52 103.19 13.70 13.73 12.64 107.36 Total EQi Score 105.60 14.61 102.74 13.54 103.00 12.02 102.

58). which are as follows.26 (SD = 0.59). Idealized Influence (Attributed).59).57 0.18 (SD = 0. 3.63).26 3.59).09 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Behavior).58 0. 2.63 0.04 (SD = 0.Table 3.13 (SD = 0. 3. in descending order. 3.59 0.13 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 2. Inspirational Motivation.18 SD 0.53).59). 3. TLS component scores were. Individualized Consideration. 3. Mind Garden.52).S. 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.57). Individualized Consideration.09 3. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.35 3. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).08 (SD = 0.35 (SD = 0.57). 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. Intellectual Stimulation.96 (SD = 0.16 (SD = 0.59 Note.57 0. 81 . N = 157. Inspirational Motivation. and Intellectual Stimulation. Idealized Influence (Attributed). 2004).95 (SD = 0.52.08 3. 2. 3.99 (SD = 0.

0 indicate a non-normal distribution.95 2.96 3. of a distribution (i. **N = 3. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.02 2. Norm group** M 3.04 2.26 3. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.e.99 3.18 3..59 0. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.52 0.13 3.08 3.S.59 0.16 SD 0.52 M 3.59 0. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.57 0. or scaled variables.55 0. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).53 0. Skew represents the even-ness. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .375. Group Norms vs. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.63 0.35 SD 0. TLS Component Scores: U.59 0.Table 4. or symmetry. 2001). This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.58 0. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.09 3.

85.16. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.70. Intellectual Stimulation = –. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .64.73. with skew > +/–2. and (e) General Mood = .0. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2.67. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . and not individual MLQ items. (c) Stress Management = . and Individualized Consideration = –1. and (c) 9. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.83.49.63.61.24. the decision was made to keep them in their original form.06.78.80.0. Inspirational Motivation = –.76. (b) Interpersonal = .66. 83 . Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. 2001). (d) Adaptability = .67. respectively. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered.83. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. but normally distributed.09.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. (b) MLQ 23 = –2. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . (b) 6. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. and (e) Individualized Consideration = .18. Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbach’s alpha (α) was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities.40.

40* .44* .59* IS .37* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).19 a .01. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.37* IIB .31* .25* . The significance level was set at (α = . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. General Mood IIA . Interpersonal 3. Adaptability 5. To address the first research question.43* Note.41* .36* .29* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.48* . IM = Inspirational Motivation. Intrapersonal 2.52* . Table 5. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.33* . Pearson’s r was obtained. Stress Management 4.05. a p < . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.28* .40* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.05). *p < .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. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.46* IM .35* .32* IC .30* .44* .37* . 84 .23* . and IC = Individualized Consideration. N = 158. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).37* .

Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIa—correlations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components. Inspirational Motivation (r = .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. With one exception. with (α = . all of the Pearson’s r’s were .001) and Inspirational Motivation. p < . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.45.51.19. at r = . (c) Self-Actualization (r = .20 and .001).59. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . using the same Procedure Correlations. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed.05. Results are shown in Table 6. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.50. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.16.05). Most of the correlations ranged between . EQi component scores also increased. which was still significant at p < .05). p < . All correlations were in the positive direction. p < . (b) Happiness (r = . which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. 85 .001). p < . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).23 or higher.

31* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).37* .51* IS .37* .30* .24* .24* .39* .31* IIB .38* .01.38* .05).11 (ns) . Happiness IIA .25* IC .25* .27* .43* .45* .37* . Interpersonal Relationships 9. p ≥ .35* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).13 (ns) . Problem Solving 14.39* IM .37* .21* .33* .45* .05 (ns = nonsignificant.36* .33* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.16 a .16 (ns) .36* .32* . *p < .35* . Impulse Control 11.15 (ns) . Self-Regard 2.59* . Flexibility 13.46* .23* .36* . ap < .28* . Self-Actualization 6. and IC = Individualized Consideration.40* .40* .44* .12 (ns) . Self-Awareness 3. Empathy 7.33* .23* .43* .24* .36* Note.17 a .30* . 86 . Stress Tolerance 10.40* . Reality Testing 12.33* . N = 157.29* .50* .Table 6.40* . Independence 5.26* .15 (ns) .44* .48* .32* .19 a .33* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.37* .24* .30* .03 (ns) .26* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.43* .34* . Optimism 15.28* . Assertiveness 4. Social Responsibility 8.37* .31* .34* .33* .38* .32* .

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

p < . Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. However. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. 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 . To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed.71.72. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).90. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . p < . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Therefore. p < . based on the . p < . since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .01). The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .01). The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. 88 . this intercorrelation is to be expected.82.64.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8.01). The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7.

00 .61* . Independence 5.60* . Interpersonal Relationship .16* .00 .42* .43* .39* . Self-Regard 2.33* .00 .42* .27* .66* .62* .64* .41* .37* .00 1.51* 1.32* .60* .37* .32* Subcomponent 1.55* .55* .50* 1.15* .39* .00 1.50* .25* .24* .36* .61* .32* .52* .00 .39* .43* .00 1.38* .40* .35* .51* . Assertiveness 4.49* .45* 1. Empathy 89 7.60* .26* .40* .54* .72* .00 1.00 .59* . Stress Tolerance 13.20* .23* .Table 7. Reality Testing 10.00 1.00 .56* .15* .58* .47* .61* .43* .43* 1.71* .66* .52* .47* . Flexibility 11.51* .38* .43* .50* .30* .47* . Impulse Control .56* .36* . Social Responsibility 8.40* .42* .28* .65* .42* .40* .53* 1.50* .50* . Self-Actualization 6.53* 15 .55* .00 1.41* .50* .32* .42* .61* .82* .59* .42* .37* .00 .51* . Self Awareness 3.25* .47* 1.41* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .52* .36* 9.40* . Problem Solving 12.55* .58* .23* .33* .60* .53* .50* .74* .60* .55* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.

90 .00 15 .05. a p < .Table 7.64* 1. Happiness Note.01. *p < .00 Subcomponent 14. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. bns = nonsignificant. N = 157. Optimism 15.

00 2 . Results are shown in Table 9.60* . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.58* 1. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. and. To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Stress Management at Step 3. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.72* 1. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.019).55* . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. to a minimal extent.57* 1. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.00 4 .64* 1.Table 8. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.59* . Overall.54* . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.00 3 . the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Individualized Consideration Note.61* . N = 157. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .62* . Inspirational Motivation 4.00 5 .287). Results are shown in Table 9. General Mood and 91 . 1 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.015). *p < .00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.01. Stress Management at Step 3. followed by General Mood (R2change = . Intellectual Stimulation 5.

R2 = .V.000 .301 at Step 2.301 at Steps 3 and 4.069 2.287 . N = 157. F change R2change . R2 = .033 –.05.85 .019 Note.25 2. In summary.66 3.07 . **p < .Interpersonal components. entered at Step 4.034 4. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.008 . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.000 .015 .073 –.162 . entered at Step 3. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. Neither Stress Management.04 . Table 9. R2 = . nor Adaptability.32 . 92 .000 .24 .25 . the EQi Intrapersonal.01.287 at Step 1. † TLS Summed = D.87 .66** .04* 62. 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.320 at Step 5.728 –0. *p < . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).316 –0. R2 = .

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

Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.05. 96 .75 12. a difference which was significant at p < .16 0. *p < . Males scored a mean of 0.21 14. bn = 62.67 2.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.44 2. bn = 62.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. *p < .97 0.50 2.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.48 104.05. Table 13.Table 12. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.

(b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.64. SD = 14. SD = 14. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. These data are presented in Table 14.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. Descriptive statistics.77.08. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. Interestingly. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. 97 . respectively. females: M = 106. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females.

78 13.16 103.47 104.80 106.07 14. Empathy (4 vs.75 13. 13). 11).23 13.43 11.70 13.19 12.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102. Self-Actualization (9 vs.34 102.97 15.77 102.80 102.24 104.57 13.56 102.72 101.08 11.76 106.89 103.33 105.53 12.26 103.68 14.99 107.48 13.80 14.63 13.37 14. Social Responsibility 98 .17 103.74 15. As a group.28 (14) 100.50 12. *n = 95.50 109.61 104.27 11. 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 104.09 109.06 102.40 14.37 12.62 103.67 103.92 102.01 103.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99. **n = 62.41 11.93 13.18 14. N = 157.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.74 11.84 11.14 15. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.55 13.37 105.34 12.21 105.Table 14.92 13.64 109.

15). a difference which was significant at p < . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. 15). 10).05.74 t 2.99 M 99. and Flexibility (6 vs.67 SD 11.36** 1.07* 3. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.18 14. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). a Marginally significant. n = 95. Males.11 107. Self-Regard (8 vs. (2 vs.(5 vs. 13). Table 15. p = . **p < .80 102. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs.80 11.39 109. 12). An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.57 12. 10). Males scored a mean of 7.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. Independent-samples t test.01.86 11.42* Note. *p < . Females.05.91a 2.74 15.07 14.26 Females SD 13.97 109. among others. Assertiveness. They also scored higher on the 99 . 12).01. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.01 102. As a group. n = 62.21 105. Stress Tolerance (4 vs.

and the only one that predicted TLS in males. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. were important predictors of TLS in females. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. or combination. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Further. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the 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.41) subcomponents.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. all of which were significant at p < . The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. Specifically. Regression analyses.08).01) although this difference was only marginally significant. They also scored 4. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. To summarize. As a follow-up.05.11) than did females (M = 105.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. but did not predict TLS for males. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. Both assertiveness (R2 change = .13). and independence (R2 change =.

04 2. **p < .253 at Step 2.261 at Step 1.45 . 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.001 .606 .378 at Step 3.010 . R2 (adj) = .08 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .088 –..81 1.19 .18 .e.263 at Step 4.255 at Step 2.167 1.02 .379 at Step 4.248 at Step 3.001 . R2 (adj) = .000 .24 14.989 34. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).73 . It was thus decided that using 101 .097 .67 –1. R2 (adj) = .63** .05 .098 12.011 Note.73 1.000 .131 .669 3.85 .01. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.41 . F change R2change .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.21 –.302 .190 . N = 157.268 7. Table 16.755 .022 .176 at Step 1.99** .55 –. R2 (adj) = . 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.269 .12 2. bFor males: R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .002 . R2 (adj) = .

and exactly one half of females (50. (b) Idealized Influence 102 .. Finally.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. the three highest TLS component scores). and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i.. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).7%. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. three highest and lowest EQi scores on the 15 subcomponents) for males and females who scored higher than the mean on the five TLS components. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.e. 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.the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females.7%.0%.e. categorical variables (low. More than one half of males (53. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The highest percentages of males (53. The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the five TLS components. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. Categorical variables. To do this.

3 46.7 51. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.6%. Table 17. *n = 95.3 46.4 54. the highest percentage of females (54. The highest percentage of males (52.4 50. **n = 62.5 40. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.(Behavior).7 53.7 53.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.1 45. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.1 50.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. The highest percentage of females (59. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .3 52.8%.4 50.7 47. N = 157.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.2 56.8 43.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51. Comparison of Low. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.5 59.5 53.5 46.3 48.6 49.7%.

Secondly.85 12.15 10. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.00 112.04 16.92 111.91). the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.50 114.11 113.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .14 11.45 112.55 114.11 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. First. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.00 9.09 10.83 111.75 9.66 114. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.68 12.30 10.98 111.28 11.24 111.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.29 SD 14.51 111. Once this subsample was selected. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.75 10.88 11.12 110.64 112.76 110. Table 18.66 11.

13 111.23 108.03 7.23 106.55 12.18 109.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .15 104.42 109.36 13.12 10.26 112.07 14.13 107. 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 104.71 106.53 109.86 105.40 12.20 9.17 9.55 12.22 108.25 104.28 108.28 107.28 110.41 8.39 9.Table 18.38 14.90 103.84 11.39 M 110.21 11.15 108.50 107.55 11.44 9.92 105.50 11.51 107.50 11.73 9.68 10.56 SD 10.22 13.62 107.51 7.64 9.

14 105.42 9.66 10.59 14.66 104.78 103.03 102.77 101.43 11.89 11.33 M 104. 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 102.41 10.82 105. (b) Assertiveness.73 10.47 12.79 105.06 13.57 104.09 104.20 11.63 12.67 10.27 14.86 12.56 105. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .26 105.50 105.85 14.01 8.06 12.68 106.35 103.Table 18.96 105.50 SD 10.75 104. (c) Independence.00 103.12 10.4 102.90 12.81 17. 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.65 103.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.

Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19.05. While males scored 5. 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.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. a difference which was significant at p < .across the five TLS components. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. (d) Problem Solving.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. (d) Empathy. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.05. In summary. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Females scored a mean of 4.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. (b) Independence. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. (b) Happiness. Independent subsamples t test. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . however. (c) Social Responsibility. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (TLS) males and females (n = 82) to determine whether their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly from one another. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. (b) Social Responsibility. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. Males scored a mean of 5. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. Males scored 107 . which was also significant as shown in Table 19. Assertiveness. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components.

57 M 107.05.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.94a –2.01* 2. EQi.61 106. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.05 10. n = 51. Table 19.04* Note. a Marginally significant.05. Males. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).43 104. however. *p < . p = . The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents.and high-scoring) 108 .. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.09 108.00 14.16 Females SD 13.43 t 1. n = 31. 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. categorical variables (low. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1.78 8. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. Females. Categorical variables. Subsample N = 82.96 10.e. To do this.80 SD 10.33 111.

n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.5% (n = 35) of females did so. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females.0%. n = 32). More than one half of males (53. The highest percentages of males (61. again based on each EQi subcomponent.97). The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. 109 .5%. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean.6%. The highest percentage of females (61.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. Interestingly. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Then. Once the subsample was selected.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. However. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. followed by 59. The highest percentage of males (50.1%. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.3%. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.

2 56. **n = 62.5 53.5 53.2 50.4 45.9 45.7 47.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 = 95.4 53.2 55.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.0 48.0 54.8 50.0 51.8 38.0 47.8 44.8 42.2 57.1 56.3 52.5 46.2 61.0 45.5 40.8 54.2 61.8 38.8 45.8 High % 38.8 43.Table 20.9 43.7 51.0 110 .9 44.5 59.0 52.3 45.5 45.1 56.6 46.5 46.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61.6 54.1 55.2 50.5 56.8 50. Comparison of Low.9 43.2 41.7 44.3 55.5 54.1 54.2 55.8 58.2 45.5 43.8 49.7 54. Female** High Low % 53.1 55.2 51.3 48.9 44.

47 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 3.54 0.57 0.47 0.49 0.55 SD 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.55 3.55 3. Table 21.43 111 .37 3.60 0.54 0.49 3.52 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.61 3.47 3.48 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.52 3.52 3.49 3.58 3.51 3.37 0.55 3.47 0. followed by the lowest mean.48 0.5 3.

38 3.37 0.6 M 3.51 3.39 0.55 3.30 0.36 3.49 0.37 0.34 0.44 0.42 3.22 3.37 3.42 0.40 0.45 0.42 3.43 SD 0.45 3.39 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 3.44 3.Table 21.35 112 .45 0.37 0.46 3.40 0.36 0.37 3.41 3.51 3.21 0.

1 3.58 0.22 3.59 0.24 3.51 0.28 3.51 0.45 113 .Table 21.18 3.08 3.25 3.57 0.21 3.15 3.14 0.22 3.24 3.43 0.5 0.24 SD 0.57 0.53 M 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 3.2 3.61 0.2 3.58 0.2 3.61 0.53 0.6 0.52 0.19 3.57 0.

63 0.95 3.68 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.11 3.49 0.06 2.11 3. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.21 3.02 3.Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed M 3.59 0.6 0.16 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation. Empathy. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .62 0.57 Descriptive statistics.13 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.55 0. with the exceptions of Independence. Optimism and Happiness.08 SD 0.58 0.05 3.67 0.63 0.14 3.

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.57 M 106. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. 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. *p < . Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females.04* M 111.16 SD 14. a Marginally significant.05. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure.05. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Idealized Influence (Behavior). a difference which was significant at p < .05. In summary. Females.80 Males scored 0. Females SD 10. n = 54. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. Table 22. n = 33.Motivation. p = .43 t 2. Independent subsamples t test. 115 . Males.

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

47% law degrees. during the last 25 years women’s employment has increased by 30% or more in every age category up to age 55 while men’s employment has declined in every age group over age 25. In 2007.S Department of Labor.Sosik & Megerian. 1999). with women currently representing 50. women held 15. professional.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies.S. Mandell & Pherwani. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe.2% last year (Hymowitz. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. Hay/McBer. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. 2008). Over the next decade. 80% of the U. 2003). 2003). The women 117 .6% of the 48 million employees in management. 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.S. However. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. 2000. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. In 2001. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. workforce is growing in its diversity. 30% of women earned medical degrees. However. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. and related occupations (U. down from 16.4% in 2005. In fact. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. 2007).

Identifying how gender differences in EI. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. nearly $2. Not surprisingly. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe. the chance to pursue an opportunity.S. As a result of this ambiguity. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. In addition.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. 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. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development.S. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 .5 million people and generate $1.3 trillion in annual sales.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. businesses owned by women. 2007). Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. if they exist. 2007). In the overall U.

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

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

2004.” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. 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 = . 2000.21) to moderate (r 121 . Palmer.. Kobe et al. Mandell & Pherwani.. The significance of this research finding is that it lends itself in providing empirical support of previous research findings that identify a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs in which individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs were found to score high on the other as well (Goleman. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003).. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . 2004. Hay/McBer. Mandell & Pherwani.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. In addition. 2003. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Burgess. 2002). 2001. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. 1998. Judge et al. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. Walls.23) to moderate (r = . Further. & Stough.. Thus. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.23 or higher. Law et al. 2001). this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2003).

” The significance of this research finding is that it further supports empirical studies that demonstrate there is a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs (Goleman. However. Stress Tolerance. For example. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. 2003). As well. 2002). demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. 2000.03 to .16. 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. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. Mandell & Pherwani. or temptation to act. Impulse Control. Hay/McBer. 1998.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing.= . is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . Thus. drive. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. 122 .

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

05) and is consistent with BarOn and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) who found through their research that successful senior leaders have a significantly higher intrapersonal capacity and this attribute is generally found in male leaders.19 (p < .05) as well. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. As a result. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant. as well as those of the leader and the organization. with males scoring a higher mean of . 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. 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. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. 1990).relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. skills and talents. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . 2002.62 (p < . with males scoring a higher mean of 4. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. 2007). try new approaches. and challenge their own beliefs and values.” was rejected.

Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. 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. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. all of which were significant at p < . numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence.17). which this current study used.18).” 125 . and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. 2000). 1995. Petrides & Furnham.05.10. While this current study supports previous research findings. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.41). Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.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.

and men’s and women’s use of EQi. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. are independent.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). More than one half of males (53. To do this. ¶ 1). and should not come as a great surprise. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. are better at handling stress.0%. According to Dr. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. 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 4.18). President of MHS. n = 31) scored above 126 . “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias.7%. Steven Stein. 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. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. “Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS?” The researcher used a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership style in detecting significant gender differences in the relationships among gender.

whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On.05). and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). 2007). and Social Responsibility. 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. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. self-assuredness. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance.” was rejected. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. p < .64. In addition. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. inner strength. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5.05).28.33. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. p < . who analyzed the scores on over 7.the mean across all of the TLS components. Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. p < . Thus.700 administrations of the EQi. 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.

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

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

Van Rooy et al. women scored higher overall. Butler.58 vs. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 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. 98. 2000).62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 2005. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. 1998. 63.21 vs.. 101. 92)..7 vs. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. unlike the present results. as well as higher on all five components than males. in the present research. 2005). men scored a mean of 4. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. Schutte et al. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS.31) and TLS (65.decoding (Byron. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. 130 . which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. unlike findings of previous research.7) (p. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107.8 vs.31). who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. 2005.2). 104. However. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19–31. M. J. B. Retrieved from http://redalyc.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. Retrieved from http://205. (1985). J.. doi: 10. M. Bass. B. Menlo Park. J. New Braunfels. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. CA: Mind Garden. (1990). B. B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. (1995). Psicothema. R.).231. B. J.pdf Bar-On. & Avolio. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. R. & Avolio.242/demo/intro/tformlead. B. M. B. (1999). B. 17(1). & Avolio. 13–25. B.130 Bass.52. R. (1990). Leadership Quarterly. B. 112–121. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. (1993). A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. J. 18(Suppl. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. M. B. & Handley.org/bar-on-model/essay. & Avolio.reuvenbaron. (1993). M. 4(3). (2007). R. Bass. Bass. doi: 10. B. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). 143 . 18(3).84. New York: The Free Press. M. 130–139.2. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. B.. M. Redwood City.1037/0003-066X.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501.php?i=25 Bar-On. (1994). Public Administration Quarterly. Bass. (1999).html Bass. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. M. (1997)..uaemex. International Journal of Public Administration. B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). B. (2006). M. & Avolio. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. doi: 10.Bar-On. 17(3/4). Bass. (2004)... Leadership and performance beyond expectations. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. J. M. Retrieved from http://www. CA: Mind Garden. 375–377. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. 541–554. TX: Pro-Philes Press. B.net/tc3/TC019239. Organizational Dynamics. & Avolio. 52(2).htm Bass.

Murphy. Retrieved from http://www.library . Psychological Reports. 32–44. (2003). M. J. (1996)..pdf Brody. S.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract].88. Avolio. doi: 10. 5–34. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). 15(3).edu/login?url=http://search. Journal of Applied Psychology. E. N.. 47–64. 35(1). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. R..Bass.1037/0021-9010.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. J. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. 27(5).eiconsortium.com/login. 45(1). B. Doctoral dissertation.35. Retrieved from http://www. 41–50. doi: 10. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. L. J. 207–218. New York: Harper & Row. Retrieved from http://ei.41 144 . (1990). 86(1).. M. M. L.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article.2224/ sbp.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis.haygroup. B. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.haygroup.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. Retrieved from http:// www. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Doctoral dissertation. Bass. Burton.1. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women.capella.htm Burns. & Atwater. (2007). & Wheeler. A. 88(2). A. (2004).1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. I. Leadership. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. J. South Carolina State University. D.ebscohost. University of Nebraska.207 Bennis. & Henninger. 9(4).. Hafetz. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Y. Lincoln. J. B.eiconsortium.htm Bryant. D.. (2003). E. Psychological Inquiry. W. E.. 234–238. R. (2004).. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. doi: 10. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. M. Avolio.pdf Boyatzis.2007. & Berson. K. Jung. E. (2003).org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. doi: 10. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. (2000)..2. B. J. Social Behavior and Personality. (2007). (1978). 44–46.

14(3). K. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. (2005). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. J. & Brienza. doi: 10. A. Doctoral dissertation. 565–76.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. & Kaemmer. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).. L. Journal of Business and Psychology. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. B.Butcher. (2003). L. doi: 10..eiconsortium. L. D. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. A.. & Mann. Retrieved from http://www. 39(11/12).. A. May). 56(4). Colorado State University. S. D. 23(3). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior.57 . Butler.964 Carli. 57(4).org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. Retrieved from http//www. & Goleman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 725– 741. Retrieved from http://www. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. Retrieved from http://www.6. C. and subordinate perspectives. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. (2002). 213–237.. Dahlstrom. (2000). A. J. doi: 10. Fort Collins. S. A. (1998). J. doi: 10.htm Cannella. doi: 10. L. W. (1989). (2001). October). leader. R. (2008. J. Sex Roles. L. (1998. G.eiconsortium . Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved August 10.1111/0022-4537.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. Journal of Management.eiconsortium .00238 Cavallo..1037/0022-3514. C. L. A short measure of transformational leadership. Gender and social influence. (1989).aspx Cherniss.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. Wearing. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Tellegen.1177/014920639702300302 Carless.org/-report.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. M. (1997). N. & Monroe. 887–902. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. Graham. 389–405.htm 145 .ccl. Journal of Social Issues.. Byron. K.. 2008. Georgia State University.

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

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

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

1037/0021-9010. 542–552. A. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. L. R. 41–44. Z. J. Journal of Research and Technology Management.89. & Song.Judge. C. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. M.. R. 5(1).00.. Noack. doi: 10. (1996). S. 125(4). & Beers. (2000. doi: 10. P. 7(3). 112–129. D. 12(3). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.com/cda/media/ 0. M. Furnham. D. N. Leadership Quarterly. B. B. M.capella. & Posner. doi: 10. J. 89(3). G. B. A. 483–496. 385–425. European Psychologist. Colbert. 38(2).89. N. T.. & Sivasubramaniam.. & Johnson.5. L.. T.edu/login?url=http://search.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. P..1037/15283542.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.1. & Jantzi. 615–626.wiley. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. R.89. 89(5).3.3. 755–768. J. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence.. (2000).com/login. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. A. J. E.. R. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2001). Salovey.. (1995).5.. 173–180. 113–118. Journal of Educational Administration. S. L. K. F. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators.1037/0021-9010.ebsco host.113 Lowe. (2004).. Transformational leaders make a difference. (2005). June). Reiter-Palmon. doi: 10..library. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10. doi: 10.755 Kaufhold. K. 89(3).1037/0021-9010.483 Leithwood. Current Psychology. (2007). doi: 10. K.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. Retrieved from http://basepath. A. doi: 10. & Ilies.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 .. (2005). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. 20(2). & Rickers. & Piccolo. 154–163.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.pdf Law. Côté. (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology.. 38(3). Wong.. A..542 Judge. & Siefen.. Emotion. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. (2004). P. S. Kroeck. Kirkcaldy..15304. R.. K. Education. G.

R. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. Sluytrer (Eds. 32(3).15.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. Dissertation Abstracts International. P.. & Chabot.. D. D. (1998). C. Seven myths about emotional intelligence.unh. D. findings.. 253–296. (1999). Carlsmith. B. 1–29. R. P. Toronto.). G. Journal of Research in Personality. Salovey. M. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 405–436.. D.sciencedirect. (2003). 27(4). 15(2). D. What is emotional intelligence? In P. D. Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.. S. About the MSCEIT. Emotional intelligence: Theory.Lutz.capella. 15(3). A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life.an. G.ebscohost. 9970564) Mandell. J. D.com/login. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Ontario.capella. 17(3). M. (2004).ebscohost. doi: 10. J. K. 197–215. (1986). D. & Salovey. J. doi: 10.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . 267–298. (1997). 15(3). Annual Review of Anthropology. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. Psychological Inquiry. S. (2007).edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. D. Salovey & D. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. 05B. Roberts. Mayer.. D. J. Mayer. J. R.. M. & Zeidner. 67(1).capella..library. & Caruso. & Salovey. doi: 10.1146/annurev. Mathews. Retrieved from http://www.edu/login?url=http://search. & Caruso. H.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer.com/ login. Caruso.library.. J. D. 387–404. 179–196. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. R. Retrieved from ProQuest database.library. American Sociological Review.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. 71). & White.. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. Retrieved from http://www. P. The anthropology of emotions. 61. J. and implications. Salovey. (2000). (2002). Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. M.com . Journal of Business and Psychology. F. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). P.002201 Malek... (2004a)..100186. (UMI No.edu/login?url=http://search. & Pherwani. (2002). Psychological Inquiry.

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

Leadership Quarterly. European Journal of Personality. V. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. 11(1). A. C.library. L. K. (1991).. In W. V. and team outcomes.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . & Buckley.. B. K. G. 744–755. W. R. pp. 121–133. 15(6). The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. L. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract].. Retrieved from http://www.2007. & Furnham. R. R. M. Supervision (6th ed.630 Plunkett. 449–461.01. 323–351).leaqua. R. (2000).. 425–448. Harvard Business Review. & Heinitz. Catholic University of America. Ammeter.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsco host.htm Rivera Cruz.1002/per. R. T. Douglas. Doctoral dissertation. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. doi: 10. Petrides. Ammeter. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 60(4). R. M. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract].1037/0022-3514. L.htm Rosener. Costa. Purkable. P. & Furnham. M. Boston: Allyn Bacon. A.. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.eiconsortium. & Buckley. 119–125.eiconsortium. 42(5/6).003 152 .com/login. G. R. B.. Douglas... doi: 10.416 Piedmont.. (2001). (2007). A..capella. 11(4). L. (2003a).1016/j.. M. Doctoral dissertation. P. T. doi: 10. Prati. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Emotional intelligence.). (2003).Petrides. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. J. (1990). K. R. A.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. Sex Roles. (2004). Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Emotional intelligence. (2003b). Ferris. (1992).4.. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. P. 41–62. leadership effectiveness. R. Retrieved from ProQuest database. J. & McRae.60. Prati. Retrieved from http://www..aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. C. 18(2). Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. Ferris. V.. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. 68(6). Ways women lead. Leadership and management styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Plunkett (Ed. 363–369.

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

). S..bls. Personality and Individual Differences. F.. Census Bureau of Labor. Alonso. & D’hoore. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. M. B. & McCarthy. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. (1999). (2005). Retrieved from http://www. S.%20M. (2005).%20(1998) Snodgrass. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. E. 2002. L. & Fidell..se/default.. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure.aspx?search=Smith. D.edu/spb/ovidweb.A. Dallas.2004.05.kandidata.cgi Tabachnick. 38(3). S .C. J. 18–14. C. Retrieved from http://www.1016/j..library. J.%20K. W.pdf U. (1998.. 689–700. J. Ellis. 37(1). A. Department of Labor. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. (2002).. & McDaniel. 367–390. M. Retrieved from ProQuest database.S. Wade. J.. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership.. Retrieved from ProQuest database..Needham Heights. Sojka. April). doi: 10.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. L. C.org/Search.S. 331–338. A.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. S. L. Z. Journal of Education for Business. Tucker. M.capella.tx. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. & Viswesvaran.com. & Megerian. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nursing Research. (2001). Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.023 154 . Retrieved from http://ovidsp..1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein.Smith.paid.ovid. Journal of Allied Health. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. J. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. Retrieved from http://www. TX.bls.. C. Barone. R. Group & Organization Management. 37–43. 49(1). K. 24(3). Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). Sosik. Retrieved from http://www. L. (2000). doi: 10. S. A.% 20&%20McDaniel... U. (2003). G.siop.J. MA: Allyn and Bacon. J. 75(6). (2008). Douthitt. Vandenberghe. & Plemons.

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

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

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

00 Between $40.000.00 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 $40.000.000.00 and $100.00 Between $70.00 More than $150.00 158 .00 and $150.000.000.000.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful