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

education.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.S. and healthcare professions.Abstract The U. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. there will be approximately 10. In addition. . Department of Labor. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. quantitative survey is to examine the relationship between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style that may lend itself to the development of more effective leadership training and development programs to meet the upcoming challenges.000 billion annually. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12.033. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. The purpose of this cross-sectional. 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. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. predicts that by 2010.

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

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

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

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

Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .Table 19.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 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20. Comparison of Low.

Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. 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. 2000. Ireland & Hitt.S. 1990). 1997.033. The U. education. higher group performance levels (Keller. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. & Olivo. develop. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. Herman. Hitt. Gioia. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 1995). 2003. 2005). 1999). 1997. Drucker. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). and retain the best talent. 1988). 1 . attract.CHAPTER 1. Department of Labor. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line.S. companies must compete to find. 1999. U. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass.373 billion (Herman. 1998). and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. Specifically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006.gender. Goleman. Specifically. along with several books and dissertations. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Bass & Avolio. 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. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. 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. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. In total. and dissertations. 12 . 1995). Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. In addition. this study’s theoretical orientation hypothesizes a relationship between EI and transformational leadership such that EI is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for transformational leadership. books. 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. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. 1999). higher group performance (Keller. 22 articles were relevant to this study. 1988). 1985.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44

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

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

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

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

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

. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. 2003). social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 . There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2003). It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. As a social phenomenon..). While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable. 2004. p. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. Judge et al. 2001. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani.. Mandell & Pherwani. From the sociological perspective. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike.ingredient of leadership. as cited in Kobe et al. According to Mandell and Pherwani. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al.. and mutual benefits. Kobe et al.). Law et al. In addition. including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. 2001. 2003). 2004.. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women. 2003. relationships. 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. Mandell & Pherwani. 155).

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

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

2003a. 2002) was used to measure EI. Costa. & McRae. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. Ammeter. 2002) argued. as Prati et al. Douglas. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . Ferris. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont... However.g. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. 2003b). & Buckley. Schulte (2003) found that EI was strongly predicted by general cognitive ability and personality but did not aid in the prediction of Transformational Leadership in a sample of 194 using Bass and Avolio’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Transformational Leadership style. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. and others (Dearborn. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. leadership style. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness. However. Prati. According to Antonakis (2003). For example. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Bass & Avolio. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Research Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis for this study was designed to investigate the previous four research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no 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. 4. 68 . HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. H04: There will be no 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. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i. This was the only data collected that could link participants identity/confidentiality which was at the very core of ethical conduct for the researcher/practioner.e. 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. All e-mail addresses submitted by gatekeepers were put into an Excel file with a 2 header row consisting of e-mail addresses and the other assigning a unique ID Code.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. the MLQ. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. and the Bar-On EQi). 69 . were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality. and pen/paper copies were shredded. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file.

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

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

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

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

and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. 3. 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. 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. 74 . and if so. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. the nature and strength of that association.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. 4. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. as appropriate. 2005. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. 75 . log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. or scaled variables. outliers. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. p. If necessary.. 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. 65). 94). Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. 2005. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1.Data Analytic Strategy and Organization of Results Preliminary Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. p.g. missing and out-of. 72). Errors in scoring/data entry.

2 5. 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 60.8 3.6 76 .4 24.7 10.2 55.7 20.2 2.3 8.9 3.4 3.7 29.7 5.8 2.4 19.6 16.1 10.9 12.7 7.0 11.Table 1.5 5.1 25.9 6.7 5.1 11.8 1.5 45.5 4.8 5.1 22.2 12.1 39.

5 1.5 __________________________________________________________ Note. 77 .9 1. American Indian.000 44 27.9 10. Arabic or other.7 31. N = 158.6 Between $100–150.25 85. East Asian.8 Between $70–100.8 More than $150.3 20.7 34.1 9. 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. Respondent mean age was (M = 48. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.000 15 9. **Includes Pacific Islander. SD = 8.9 65.1 32.7 Current income Less than $40.9 12.000 17 10.0 2. maximum age 67.000 55 34.20).9 2.3 12.Table 1.7 16.4 8.8 Between $40–70.70. Minimum age 24.5 4.000 23 14.7 2.2 10.

and a median of 5.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. Addressing racial diversity. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7.4%.95 years of college education.6%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. n = 78). from between 3–6 to more than 16. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. for-profit organization. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. Most respondents earned from $40. or mean of 3. n = 121) in a private. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. The sample of the population in this study has an average. However. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. In terms of supervision responsibilities. Notably. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree.000 per annum (49.4%. n = 103).000–$100.32 subordinates. 78 . the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.7%.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. n = 106).6%.2%. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.1%. n = 72). n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. 25. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.15 direct reports. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. n = 135) male (60.

85). The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58.86 (SD = 13.730.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed.41).01). 102. Summed TLS Score.77 years. EQi component scores were. Total EQi Score.65 years. 79 . 105. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. 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. Adaptability.05). For the income this is going to be most apparent.49). 107. Intrapersonal.97 (SD = 13.900 and the median was $54. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.49 (SD = 14.63 (SD = 12. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. Interpersonal. the mean income was $68. The mean age of the subjects is 48. As far as income. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. in descending order. 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. and General Mood Components. Descriptive Statistics—The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the components and subcomponents of the EQi are displayed in Table 2.02 (SD = 13. 103. 105. Stress Management.00). with a nearly identical median of 48.02 (SD = 13.

66 101.61 105.93 13.64 107.21 105.04 12.28 103.49 103.67 13.31 103.Table 2.74 13.66 14.70 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 107.97 13.41 106.36 Total EQi Score 105.41 12.62 13.44 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.02 102.52 103.01 13.05 14. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.63 103.19 13.00 12. 80 .45 13.85 12.63 103.02 105.61 102.86 12.73 12.86 106. N = 157.49 13.17 104.60 14.54 103.

95 (SD = 0.96 (SD = 0.63 0. 2. N = 157.57 0.58). Idealized Influence (Attributed). TLS component scores were. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Individualized Consideration.59). *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). 2.09 (SD = 0. 3. Inspirational Motivation. Inspirational Motivation.52.59).57 0.35 (SD = 0.63).57). norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.18 SD 0. Individualized Consideration.35 3. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Mean TLS Score* M 3.08 3. 3.16 (SD = 0.26 3.S. 81 . Idealized Influence (Behavior). Mind Garden. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 3.59). in descending order. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.59). which are as follows.18 (SD = 0. and Intellectual Stimulation. 3.04 (SD = 0. 2.08 (SD = 0. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. 3.13 3.58 0.59 Note.52).Table 3.59 0. 3. 2004).13 (SD = 0.57).99 (SD = 0. 3. Intellectual Stimulation.26 (SD = 0.53).09 3.

95 2.99 3. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.Table 4.59 0.35 SD 0. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .S. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.59 0. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).13 3.59 0. or scaled variables.02 2.52 M 3.04 2. of a distribution (i. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.16 SD 0. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. 2001).96 3. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.53 0.59 0.52 0.55 0. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.375. Skew represents the even-ness.57 0.26 3. Norm group** M 3.63 0.58 0.08 3. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.e. **N = 3. TLS Component Scores: U. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. or symmetry.18 3. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.. Group Norms vs.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.09 3.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.

83 . with skew > +/–2. and not individual MLQ items.09.61. and (e) General Mood = . (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .83.18. and (c) 9. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.76. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.06. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . (a) MLQ 5 = 2. (b) Interpersonal = . Inspirational Motivation = –. (b) MLQ 23 = –2. (c) Stress Management = .85. (b) 6.66.73.80. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. respectively. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.40. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .64.70.0.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.63.49. but normally distributed.83. Intellectual Stimulation = –.16. (d) Adaptability = . the decision was made to keep them in their original form.0.67. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. 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. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.24.78. and Individualized Consideration = –1. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. 2001). Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.67.

37* IIB . General Mood IIA . Stress Management 4.32* IC . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). 84 .40* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables. Intrapersonal 2.05.35* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.52* .40* .46* IM .25* .29* .37* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.28* . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. Adaptability 5.05). To address the first research question. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).33* . *p < .31* .36* . Table 5.37* .48* . The significance level was set at (α = .30* .44* .43* Note.19 a .23* . a p < .01. IS = Intellectual Stimulation.41* .44* .37* . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. and IC = Individualized Consideration.Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi components predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses I—correlations between the five EQi and five TLS components.59* IS . N = 158. Interpersonal 3. Pearson’s r was obtained.

which was still significant at p < . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . 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.51. Inspirational Motivation (r = . All correlations were in the positive direction. p < .23 or higher.23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .001) and Inspirational Motivation.05.16. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. at r = . using the same Procedure Correlations.05).59. Most of the correlations ranged between .05). Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. with (α = .50. p < . (c) Self-Actualization (r = .19. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. Results are shown in Table 6. EQi component scores also increased. With one exception.001).20 and . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed.59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . 85 . p < .Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. (b) Happiness (r = .001). p < .45.

59* .44* . Self-Actualization 6.23* .33* .30* .34* . *p < .35* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.29* .43* .15 (ns) .11 (ns) . Happiness IIA . Interpersonal Relationships 9.31* IIB .26* .01.33* .39* .13 (ns) .43* . N = 157.16 a .15 (ns) . p ≥ . Assertiveness 4.24* .23* .39* IM .27* .45* . ap < . Social Responsibility 8.37* .03 (ns) . Problem Solving 14.40* .37* .33* .35* .38* .43* .24* . 86 . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). IM = Inspirational Motivation. Flexibility 13.31* .31* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.16 (ns) .17 a . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.50* .37* . Self-Awareness 3.51* IS .48* .36* .46* .37* .12 (ns) .Table 6.33* .45* . Self-Regard 2.28* . Impulse Control 11.38* .40* .32* .36* Note.24* .34* .40* .36* .25* .32* .37* .32* .25* IC .37* .38* .44* .21* .30* .30* .33* .40* . Independence 5.05). Reality Testing 12. Empathy 7.24* .05 (ns = nonsignificant. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).26* .28* .33* .19 a . Optimism 15.36* . and IC = Individualized Consideration. Stress Tolerance 10.

meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . 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. 170).26.30. 2005. 2001). the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. Correlations 87 . Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis. p < . no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. In summary. This is a potentially serious issue.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. EQi component scores also increased. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . All correlations were in the positive direction. p < .001). p.001). p < .001). Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable.24. all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = .

multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue.64.72. p < . However.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. p < . The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. based on the . None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ.01). p < . The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. Therefore. p < .90.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . 88 . 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.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .71.01).82. this intercorrelation is to be expected. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .01).

Self-Regard 2.00 .55* .26* .50* .82* . Stress Tolerance 13.40* .61* .27* .52* .38* .52* .15* .65* .32* Subcomponent 1.55* .41* .51* .61* .42* . Flexibility 11.43* .53* 1.00 1.25* .36* 9. Independence 5.66* .32* .36* .42* .59* .41* .43* .39* .55* .42* .51* 1.64* .60* .47* .55* .53* .61* . Social Responsibility 8.00 .39* .50* .49* .28* .58* .00 1. Empathy 89 7.15* .74* .61* .Table 7.35* .00 1.36* .40* .43* .42* .23* .23* . Self Awareness 3.38* .66* . Impulse Control .56* .37* .71* .60* .42* .00 .47* .00 .59* . Reality Testing 10.00 .37* .00 .50* .40* .32* .54* .52* .60* .51* .55* . Interpersonal Relationship .47* .45* 1.43* .50* .58* .62* .00 1.20* .25* .51* .41* .00 .42* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .33* . Assertiveness 4.72* .37* .60* .30* .56* . Problem Solving 12. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.40* .00 1.50* .00 1.50* .32* .24* .16* .39* .47* 1.50* 1.43* 1.33* .60* .53* 15 .40* . Self-Actualization 6.

Table 7. N = 157. 90 .00 15 .64* 1. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.00 Subcomponent 14. bns = nonsignificant. Happiness Note.05.01. Optimism 15. *p < . a p < .

00 4 . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Stress Management at Step 3. Results are shown in Table 9. Individualized Consideration Note.Table 8.55* . N = 157. *p < .54* . the Interpersonal component (R2change = . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. 1 1. followed by General Mood (R2change = . Stress Management at Step 3.287). Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. to a minimal extent. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.58* 1.00 5 . and. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. General Mood and 91 . Results are shown in Table 9.01.64* 1. Overall.62* .61* .60* .019). The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Intellectual Stimulation 5. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.57* 1.00 2 . Inspirational Motivation 4. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.72* 1.59* .00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.015). Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.00 3 . 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.

and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. R2 = .301 at Steps 3 and 4. R2 = .019 Note.01.000 .04 .05. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. N = 157. Neither Stress Management. **p < .034 4.162 .069 2.07 .301 at Step 2.316 –0.66 3. Table 9.04* 62.87 .66** . 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. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained. nor Adaptability.073 –. the EQi Intrapersonal. *p < . F change R2change .25 2. † TLS Summed = D. R2 = .320 at Step 5. R2 = .V. entered at Step 3.015 .Interpersonal components.25 .033 –.85 .008 .728 –0.000 .287 at Step 1. 92 . In summary. entered at Step 4.000 .24 .32 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).287 .

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

An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. a difference which was significant at p < . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3. bn = 62.16 0.44 2.67 2.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.50 2. *p < . 96 . Males scored a mean of 0.Table 12.48 104. Table 13.97 0.05.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. Significant findings are shown in Table 13. bn = 62. *p < . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.05.75 12.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.21 14.05.

Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest).64. SD = 14. respectively.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. females: M = 106. Descriptive statistics. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent.77. 97 . Interestingly.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents.08. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. These data are presented in Table 14. SD = 14. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender.

75 13.68 14. *n = 95.56 102.64 109. As a group.40 14.19 12.08 11.67 103. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender _________________________________________________________________________ Male Female EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104.84 11.80 102.33 105.50 109.62 103.89 103. N = 157.17 103.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.63 13.34 102.27 11.92 102. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.24 104.80 106.76 106.21 105.50 12.28 (14) 100. **n = 62.14 15.06 102.99 107.55 13. 11). 13).74 11.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.07 14.72 101. Empathy (4 vs.01 103.77 102.23 13. Social Responsibility 98 .09 109.53 12.37 12.16 103.97 15.18 14.48 13.47 104.78 13.34 12.57 13.37 105.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.70 13. Self-Actualization (9 vs.61 104.92 13.37 14.Table 14.93 13.74 15.43 11.41 11.26 103.80 14.

74 15.42* Note. (2 vs. Assertiveness. p = . and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. Females.21 105. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.18 14. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.80 102. 15). 12).67 SD 11. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).99 M 99.07 14. and Flexibility (6 vs. Independent-samples t test.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. Self-Regard (8 vs.(5 vs. 10).91a 2. 15). **p < . Males. As a group.05.57 12.39 109.01 102. 13). Table 15. 12). n = 62.86 11.36** 1.01.05. They also scored higher on the 99 . a difference which was significant at p < .07* 3. *p < . 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. Males scored a mean of 7.74 t 2.11 107. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.26 Females SD 13. a Marginally significant. n = 95. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents. among others.97 109.80 11. 10).01.

TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. but did not predict TLS for males. Regression analyses. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. To summarize. and independence (R2 change =. all of which were significant at p < . 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. or combination. Specifically.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. were important predictors of TLS in females. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.08). stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16.13). males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5.41) subcomponents.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Further. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females.05. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. They also scored 4.11) than did females (M = 105. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . As a follow-up.

41 .269 . The 15 EQi subcomponents were chosen for the analysis rather than the five components because significant gender differences were found on four EQi subcomponents compared to only one of the components.08 .73 1.000 .088 –.24 14.73 .263 at Step 4.04 2. It was thus decided that using 101 ..19 .378 at Step 3. N = 157.e.669 3.022 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).167 1. R2 (adj) = .176 at Step 1.55 –. **p < .81 1.131 .01. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .010 .000 .02 .606 .268 7.989 34.63** .248 at Step 3.255 at Step 2.755 .002 .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.99** . Table 16.302 .18 .261 at Step 1.21 –.253 at Step 2.85 .001 . R2 (adj) = .001 .12 2. bFor males: R2 (adj) = . Summary of Regression Analyses of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females EQi Subcomponents Step 1 Self-Regard Malesb Femalesc Step 2 Assertiveness Males Females Step 3 Independence Males Females Step 4 Stress Tolerance Males Females Beta a ta Fchange Sig.379 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .098 12.190 .67 –1.45 .05 . R2 (adj) = .097 . F change R2change .011 Note. R2 (adj) = .

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

2 56.7 53. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.7%. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.6 49.6%. Table 17.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.(Behavior).3 52.3 46.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51. **n = 62.4 50.3 48.4 50. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. The highest percentage of females (59.5 46. the highest percentage of females (54.8 43. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.3 46. Comparison of Low.5 53.8%.7 53.7 51. *n = 95.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.5 40. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component. N = 157.1 50.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.5 59. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . The highest percentage of males (52.4 54.7 47.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).1 45.

45 112.88 11. Secondly. 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 111.11 113.11 11. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.91). the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.00 112.92 111. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.66 114.64 112.28 11.00 9.30 10.29 SD 14. Table 18.76 110.04 16. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .15 10.55 114.24 111.68 12.85 12.51 111.09 10.66 11. Once this subsample was selected. First.14 11.12 110.75 9. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.75 10.50 114.83 111.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.98 111.

15 104.22 13.07 14.36 13.39 M 110.38 14.18 109.55 11.73 9.20 9.55 12.71 106.84 11.64 9.55 12.51 107.13 107.53 109.21 11.13 111.22 108.86 105.40 12.50 107.92 105.12 10.41 8.62 107.17 9.90 103.03 7.51 7.23 106.28 108.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .44 9. 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 104.39 9.Table 18.25 104.15 108.56 SD 10.28 110.23 108.28 107.26 112.50 11.42 109.68 10.50 11.

63 12.03 102.00 103.59 14.86 12.89 11.Table 18.50 105.26 105.12 10.66 10.47 12.78 103.50 SD 10.20 11.41 10.01 8.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.06 12.90 12.35 103.57 104. (c) Independence.96 105.79 105.67 10.43 11. (b) Assertiveness. 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.06 13.4 102. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .65 103.68 106.33 M 104.27 14.66 104.56 105.73 10.42 9.82 105.75 104.09 104. 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 102.85 14.14 105.81 17.77 101.

however. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .across the five TLS components. Males scored a mean of 5. (b) 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. Assertiveness. (b) Happiness. Males scored 107 .28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. which was also significant as shown in Table 19.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. While males scored 5. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. a difference which was significant at p < . (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. (d) Problem Solving. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Females scored a mean of 4. In summary. 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. (b) Independence.05.05. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. (c) Social Responsibility. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. Independent subsamples t test. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. (d) Empathy.

To do this.05 10.01* 2. Males. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112. 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.80 SD 10. categorical variables (low. however. EQi.09 108. a Marginally significant.78 8.43 t 1.05. Table 19.and high-scoring) 108 . Subsample N = 82.57 M 107.43 104. Females.33 111.e.05. n = 51. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.61 106. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. n = 31. *p < . who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).00 14.16 Females SD 13..significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. 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.04* Note.94a –2. p = .96 10.

Once the subsample was selected.0%. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. again based on each EQi subcomponent. Then. The highest percentages of males (61. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51.97). 109 .were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. More than one half of males (53.1%.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. The highest percentage of females (61. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness.5%. The highest percentage of males (50.6%. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. followed by 59.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.3%. Interestingly. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. However. n = 32).5% (n = 35) of females did so. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.

2 50.2 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 46.8 44.5 45.5 46.8 43.8 42.2 41.1 55.8 High % 38.3 55.8 45.5 53.8 50.5 59.8 54.9 43.1 56.0 47.4 45.8 49.2 55.3 45.8 50.2 51.6 54.2 61.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 = 95.0 54.0 110 .9 43.5 56.Table 20.4 53.5 46.8 38.0 48.9 44.2 57.7 51.7 54.5 53.3 52.8 58.0 45.0 52.5 40.2 56. Female** High Low % 53.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46. Comparison of Low.2 45.1 55.5 54.5 43. **n = 62.1 56.2 55.9 44.7 47.2 50.3 48.7 44.1 54.8 38.0 51.9 45.2 61.

53 0.48 3.52 3.55 SD 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.37 3.51 0.54 0.58 3.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.51 3.37 0.43 111 .5 3.49 0. followed by the lowest mean.60 0.52 3.49 3.55 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.61 3.47 0.48 0.54 0.55 3.47 0.57 0.49 3.47 3.47 0.49 0.55 3. Table 21.52 0.

40 0.35 3.44 0.51 3.21 0.38 3.55 3.37 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.39 0.22 3.42 3.43 SD 0.39 0.51 3.49 0.46 3.Table 21.41 3.40 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.37 3.30 0.44 3.45 0.45 0.42 0.37 3.6 M 3.45 3.42 3.36 3.35 112 .

57 0.57 0.43 0.Table 21.24 3.45 113 .2 3.61 0.14 0.22 3.1 3.08 3.18 3.51 0.53 0.25 3.57 0.24 3.5 0.19 3.2 3.22 3.15 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 3.59 0.2 3.58 0.53 M 3.61 0.58 0.28 3.6 0.24 SD 0.51 0.52 0.21 3.

They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.58 0.63 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.57 Descriptive statistics. Empathy.13 3.11 3.49 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.16 3.02 3.21 3.06 2.05 3.59 0.95 3.55 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .6 0. 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.Table 21. Optimism and Happiness.62 0.67 0.14 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.63 0. with the exceptions of Independence.08 SD 0.11 3.68 0.

Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Table 22. 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. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 115 .57 M 106. n = 54.05. a Marginally significant.04* M 111. Females SD 10.05. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Females. *p < .43 t 2.Motivation.80 Males scored 0. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. a difference which was significant at p < . Males. p = . In summary. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. n = 33. Independent subsamples t test.16 SD 14. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.

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

with women currently representing 50. When asked to provide a ranking of factors.S.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. In 2007. Mandell & Pherwani. and related occupations (U. Hay/McBer. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27.4% in 2005. Over the next decade. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. However. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. 2008).Sosik & Megerian. 47% law degrees. 2003).S Department of Labor. 80% of the U. women held 15. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. 2007). 30% of women earned medical degrees. 1999). In fact. 2000. professional.6% of the 48 million employees in management. However. 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. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe.S. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. workforce is growing in its diversity.2% last year (Hymowitz. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. In 2001. during the last 25 years women’s employment has increased by 30% or more in every age category up to age 55 while men’s employment has declined in every age group over age 25. The women 117 . 2003). down from 16.

while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. nearly $2. As a result of this ambiguity. businesses owned by women.S. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. In addition. Not surprisingly.3 trillion in annual sales. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. Identifying how gender differences in EI. In the overall U. 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. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. 2007).stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. 2007). if they exist.S. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules.5 million people and generate $1.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. the chance to pursue an opportunity.

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

No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. Assertiveness. and Stress Tolerance. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Assertiveness. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. and Social Responsibility. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Self-Regard. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. Stress Tolerance. 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. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher.

2004. Law et al. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? All but 2 of 15 EQi subcomponents were found to significantly predict differences in TLS component with Pearson’s r scores ranging from modest (r = .21) to moderate (r 121 .. Burgess. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.23) to moderate (r = . representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). 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. 2003). Walls. In addition. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Palmer. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . Thus. 2000..23 or higher. Kobe et al. 1998.” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Hay/McBer. 2001). Further.. 2001.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. Judge et al.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. 2002). & Stough.. 2004.

1998.= . a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. Stress Tolerance. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. For example.03 to . Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. 2002). 2000. drive. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . Thus. Mandell & Pherwani. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Impulse Control. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. or temptation to act. 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. Hay/McBer. As well. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. 122 . However.16. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. 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. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component.

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

and challenge their own beliefs and values. Striving to actualize potential involves developing enjoyable and meaningful activities that can lead to effort and an enthusiastic commitment to long-term goals (Bar-On. with males scoring a higher mean of . Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she orients followers to an awareness of problems and support followers to be creative and innovative. as well as those of the leader and the organization. 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. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. 2002.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.62 (p < .19 (p < . 2007). strive toward maximizing development of our competencies.05) as well. skills and talents. 1990).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. try new approaches. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses.” was rejected. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant. As a result. with males scoring a higher mean of 4.

18).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. all of which were significant at p < .05. Petrides & Furnham. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. 1995. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. 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 difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. While this current study supports previous research findings. 2000).10.17).41).” 125 . which this current study used.

are better at handling stress. According to Dr. ¶ 1).0%. “Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS?” The researcher used a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership style in detecting significant gender differences in the relationships among gender. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. are independent. To do this.7%. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. n = 31) scored above 126 . and should not come as a great surprise. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. President of MHS. More than one half of males (53. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. 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. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002.18). n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. and men’s and women’s use of EQi.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). Steven Stein. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias.

28. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. p < . 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 found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). p < .700 administrations of the EQi. who analyzed the scores on over 7. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. 2007). In addition. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. Thus. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. and Social Responsibility.” was rejected.64. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men.05).33. self-assuredness. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. p < . Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4.the mean across all of the TLS components.05). inner strength. the null hypotheses proposed for this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. Assertiveness. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Stress Tolerance.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.

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

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

Schutte et al. 2005. 2000). women scored higher overall. 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. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. as well as higher on all five components than males. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 92). It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity.8 vs.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108.. 1998.7) (p.7 vs. unlike findings of previous research. 63.58 vs.31). in the present research. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. 130 . The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003).2).31) and TLS (65. 2005. men scored a mean of 4. 2005). Butler.21 vs. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. unlike the present results.decoding (Byron. However.. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 101. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. Van Rooy et al. 98. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 104.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. Service Orientation. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. 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 well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. It is possible that. where superiors. different results would have been obtained. Developing Others. thereby reducing the potential for bias. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. peers. Alternatively. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors.peers. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. and subordinates. Conscientiousness. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. a measure 138 . Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. and Communication. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza.

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

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

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

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

(1999).html Bass. New York: The Free Press. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. M. B. Psicothema. M. R. Bass. B. & Avolio. Organizational Dynamics. B. M. (1994).Bar-On.84.1037/0003-066X. B.52. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online).uaemex. J. Bass. 18(3). Retrieved from ProQuest database.231.pdf Bar-On. R.. CA: Mind Garden.2... The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). B. J. doi: 10. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. B. & Avolio.. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. 541–554.htm Bass. Public Administration Quarterly.130 Bass. B. M. 143 . Leadership and performance beyond expectations. (2006). & Avolio. M. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. 375–377.org/bar-on-model/essay.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. (1993). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership.). M. R. & Avolio. B. 52(2). Menlo Park.242/demo/intro/tformlead. B. CA: Mind Garden. & Avolio.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. (2007). Bass. B. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. M. New Braunfels. & Avolio.. B. R. B.net/tc3/TC019239.php?i=25 Bar-On. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Leadership Quarterly. (1997). J. B. 13–25. J. Retrieved from http://redalyc. & Handley. International Journal of Public Administration. TX: Pro-Philes Press. 130–139.reuvenbaron. 18(Suppl. 19–31. doi: 10. Bass. Bass. B. J. M. B. Retrieved from http://205. 17(3/4). 17(1). (1993). Redwood City. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. doi: 10. B. (1999). M.. Retrieved from http://www. (1990). J. 4(3). M. (1990). 112–121. (1985).

B.haygroup. M. South Carolina State University.haygroup. 45(1).. 88(2).41 144 . 27(5). (2003).1.. Doctoral dissertation. K. 234–238. W.. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Journal of Applied Psychology. E. (2007). (2007).pdf Brody. 15(3). Retrieved from http://www. J. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Psychological Reports. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Murphy. Burton. 41–50. M. N. Psychological Inquiry. doi: 10. B.com/login. Retrieved from http://ei.htm Bryant. Retrieved from http://www.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. E. (2000). University of Nebraska..aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. Leadership. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. 5–34. doi: 10.. (1978). (2004). & Wheeler. D. L. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior.207 Bennis. A.capella. doi: 10.. J. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating.1037/0021-9010. Bass.Bass. Social Behavior and Personality.edu/login?url=http://search. R.2.2007. New York: Harper & Row. 35(1).35. J. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. I. (2003). (1990). Jung. 32–44. 47–64. & Berson.. Avolio.2224/ sbp.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. S. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. L. Lincoln. 44–46. M. Retrieved from http:// www.pdf Boyatzis. Doctoral dissertation. E. & Henninger.. 207–218.eiconsortium. J. (2003). J. (1996). sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Avolio.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. Y.htm Burns. & Atwater. 86(1).1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. doi: 10. B.eiconsortium. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. B.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. E. J. (2004). A.88.library . Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. 9(4). Hafetz. R.. Applied Psychology: An International Review. M. D.ebscohost.

S.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. doi: 10. J. L. and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles. October). No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. (1989). Journal of Management. leader. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. doi: 10. J. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. B.org/-report. Byron. 389–405. Retrieved from http://www. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. 57(4). D. A. (1998. L. M. C. Butler..org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. (2003). Retrieved August 10.eiconsortium. 14(3). Fort Collins.ccl.htm 145 ..6.1037/0022-3514.. W. & Monroe. May). & Brienza.eiconsortium ..964 Carli. Doctoral dissertation.eiconsortium . Journal of Business and Psychology. K.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. L.. Colorado State University. Gender and social influence. R. & Kaemmer. L. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wearing. J.aspx Cherniss. (2000). S. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. doi: 10. (2005). & Mann.htm Cannella. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.57 . 23(3). Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).. & Goleman. A. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract].org/ Center for Creative Leadership. 565–76. 2008. Doctoral dissertation.. 39(11/12). J. Journal of Social Issues. A. (1989). Georgia State University. 56(4).00238 Cavallo. Retrieved from http://www. 725– 741. L. (2002). Graham.. (1997). (1998).Butcher. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. K. (2001). 213–237. (2008. N. A short measure of transformational leadership.. L. C. doi: 10. Tellegen. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. A. Retrieved from http://www. 887–902. D.1111/0022-4537. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. Retrieved from http//www. doi: 10.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. G. Dahlstrom. A.

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

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

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

Retrieved from http://basepath.89. T. A.. G. 89(3).00.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. A.Judge.. Furnham. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. doi: 10. M. R. (2005).5.1037/15283542. (2004).755 Kaufhold. & Rickers. S.483 Leithwood. E.. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Salovey. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. A.pdf Law. & Posner.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. M. K... G. R.wiley. A. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Educational Administration. J. B. (2004). 5(1). (1995). 112–129. Journal of Applied Psychology. J.113 Lowe. R.89. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies.edu/login?url=http://search. & Piccolo. 173–180. D. doi: 10. & Beers.. doi: 10. S.3. N. 38(3).1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 .1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. Leadership Quarterly. Kroeck. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.1037/0021-9010. & Jantzi. T. K. doi: 10.. Wong. 7(3). L. (2005). P. N. (2000). 385–425.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.542 Judge. P. (2007). (2000.3. 12(3). 615–626. & Johnson. Journal of Applied Psychology. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Current Psychology.. S.1. M. June). 89(3). doi: 10. Côté.. 41–44. & Siefen. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences.ebsco host. 20(2)... Journal of Research and Technology Management. Journal of Applied Psychology. C. L. P.1037/0021-9010. K. (2001)... 125(4).1037/0021-9010. B. Noack. & Ilies. Kirkcaldy. D.. Education. 154–163. doi: 10.. 38(2). Emotion.5. European Psychologist. (2004). & Song. F. R.15304. (1996). doi: 10.com/cda/media/ 0. 542–552. Z. 89(5). J... 755–768. 483–496. 113–118.library. L. A. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. B. J.capella. K. Transformational leaders make a difference..com/login. & Sivasubramaniam. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence.. Colbert. R. Reiter-Palmon.89. doi: 10. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties.

capella. & Zeidner. G. M. Mathews.edu/login?url=http://search. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. doi: 10. (2004).).. Emotional intelligence: Theory.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . Salovey. Sluytrer (Eds. P. Journal of Research in Personality. findings. S. 15(3)..capella. (1999).edu/login?url=http://search. 267–298. & Salovey. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 32(3). (2002). Ontario. F. D. (1998). J.1146/annurev. D. Psychological Inquiry. (UMI No. What is emotional intelligence? In P. 197–215.. Annual Review of Anthropology. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. D. & Chabot.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. D. P.. 05B. Salovey & D.. (2002). J.. J. & Pherwani. Roberts. K. (1986). Mayer. & Caruso.unh. Dissertation Abstracts International. D. & Caruso. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space.library. D. 27(4). J. & White. Toronto. Journal of Business and Psychology. G. Salovey. About the MSCEIT. Canada: Multi-Health Systems.library. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. S.Lutz. D. D..sciencedirect. 15(3).aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer.com/ login. (2003)..library. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. B. 179–196. New York: Basic Books. R. (1997). 17(3). 15(2). M. The anthropology of emotions.com . Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.100186. 387–404. 9970564) Mandell. (2004a). 405–436. H. 1–29.002201 Malek. 67(1). P.15.. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. J.capella. C. Retrieved from http://www. D. M. Intelligence.. and implications. D.com/login.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. J..ebscohost. D. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. doi: 10. R.. & Salovey.. Carlsmith. 71). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). American Sociological Review. Psychological Inquiry. (2000). R. M. (2007). R. J.an. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ez proxy.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. 61. 253–296. Mayer. Caruso. P.

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

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

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

& Plemons..org/Search.aspx?search=Smith.. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. 38(3). (1999).. S. (1998. Department of Labor. 24(3).. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. J. A. K. Retrieved from http://www.. Journal of Allied Health. Group & Organization Management. A. (2000). R. C.%20M. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. 367–390. MA: Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved from http://ovidsp. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Personality and Individual Differences. Census Bureau of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics.. M. & McCarthy. Retrieved from http://www. (2000).capella. C.kandidata. 18–14. D.2004. A. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. Z. Douthitt. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. Nursing Research. L. (2008).ovid. S.. J.pdf U.paid.S. M.bls. & McDaniel.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full.%20(1998) Snodgrass.. M.%20K. Dallas.C..se/default.com. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein. Retrieved from http://www. S.A.. doi: 10. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. 75(6). F.05. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment.S.. & Fidell.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. Vandenberghe. J. Sojka. B. 37(1). & Viswesvaran. G. 331–338. doi: 10.023 154 . 37–43. L. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates.Smith. Tucker. J. S . Sosik. Retrieved from http://www.. April). (2005). Bureau of Labor Statistics. & D’hoore.bls.Needham Heights.. L. U. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2003). & Megerian.J. (2002). 689–700. W.tx.% 20&%20McDaniel. 2002. Barone.). L. 49(1). (2001).cgi Tabachnick. TX. J.siop. Alonso.library. Retrieved from ProQuest database.1016/j..edu/spb/ovidweb. Ellis. Journal of Education for Business. J. E. (2005). Wade. S. C.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy.

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

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

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

00 and $100.00 More than $150.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 and $150.00 Between $40.000.00 Between $100.00 158 .00 Between $70.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 and $70.000.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful