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

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 . . and to my Grandparents. . iii .

and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . . and your respected members who participated. And to my family and friends who have . . you my friend have been a gift from God. who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). thank you sincerely. who helped me start this journey. to Dr. . . . Lori La Civita. Bruce Gillies. . . . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. for the most part (smile!) . . the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . for making this research possible. 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 . . 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 . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . 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 . .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . . . . . To my original mentor. Dr. and to Dr. I love you all! iv . Joseph Damiani. a sincere and heart felt thank you to all.

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

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

Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix . Comparison of Low. 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.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21.

Drucker. Specifically. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. Department of Labor. Herman. U. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences.S. Hitt. & Olivo. The U. education.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. 2000. 1995). the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. Ireland & Hitt. higher group performance levels (Keller. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. attract. 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. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. 2005). 2003.CHAPTER 1. 1999. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. 1997. 1999).373 billion (Herman. 1998). companies must compete to find.S. Gioia. 1997. Department of Labor. and retain the best talent. 1988). 1 . 1990). develop. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10.033.

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

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

if a relationship is found to exist. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational. 4. In addition. 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. 3. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. 4 .Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 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. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and providing for subordinates welfare. being supportive. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. 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. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. 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. and coordinating the work of subordinates. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness.involves planning. 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. Unfortunately. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. As a result. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. Like trait research. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . organizing. an employee orientation and a production orientation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. Specifically. Using performance ratings and demographic data. 2003). coping (Purkable. 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. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. These are reviewed as follows. with mixed results. 2003). Regarding raters perceptions. Leadership. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. EI. Position. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. 2005). and Gender A number of recent studies have used a variety of EI measures to examine the impact of gender on EI and various indicators of leadership. contingent reward leadership. and management tenure 55 . contingent reward leadership. title. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. and manager success (Hopkins. 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. gender. 2003). Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings.

There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. Specifically. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. Emotional Self-Control. MSCEIT subscore 4. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. Purkable (2003) used the MSCEIT to examine the ways self-reported leadership practices and coping mechanisms of a sample of 50 government-contracting executives differed in relation to EI level. In each of these areas. and coping mechanisms. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. In addition to the MSCEIT. leadership practices. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 . and SelfConfidence. and coping mechanisms. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. Influence. leadership practices. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. Inspirational Leadership.

Specifically. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. but not male. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. The study used self and other ratings of EI. 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. 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. As noted previously.avoidance coping. Results showed a strong pattern of significant differences between men and women leaders such that gender influences not only the idea of successful leadership for men and women but also produces distinctly different routes to success for male and female leaders. Results of the first study found that better nonverbal emotional decoding skills were associated with higher supervisor ratings of overall job performance for a number of female. 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. 57 . 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. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. leadership styles.

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

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

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

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

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

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. 2004): 1. The testretest reliabilities ranged from .080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. 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 . and display a sense of power and confidence. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. mentoring and growth opportunities.81 to . Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . with a strong sense of purpose. 3. principles. 5.85. 2004) and was based on data from 2. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. 2. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. 4. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. respected and trusted. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors).96. and values. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 .Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems.

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

Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. and Self-Actualization. 2002). Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. to obtain a Total EQ. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. Assertiveness. Flexibility. 2002). (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. Bar-On. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. Social Responsibility. and their associated subcomponents. and Problem Solving.75 (n = 27.85 (n = 44) and . Independence. 2002). The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. Emotional Self-Awareness. and Interpersonal Relationship. 65 .. Version 12. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. In this current study all survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. respectively. were reported as .0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. 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.States and Canada. MHS Inc. 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).

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

” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67 . The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis.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). Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). individual data were not made available.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. the MLQ assessment. 2. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. 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. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research.

H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in 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 five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Research Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis for this study was designed to investigate the previous four research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 4. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 68 .3.

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

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

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

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

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

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. 4. and if so. 74 . HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. the nature and strength of that association. 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.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 3. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS.

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

6 76 .7 20.9 12.Table 1.1 25.1 11.7 5.9 6.0 11.8 2.5 45.2 2.7 10.3 8. 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 60.5 5.8 3.7 5.1 39.4 19.8 1.2 12.7 7.1 22.7 29.6 16.4 3.4 24.2 55.2 5.1 10.9 3.8 5.5 4.

Table 1.9 65.70.8 Between $70–100.000 17 10.8 Between $40–70.3 12. 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 32.1 9. 77 .7 2. Minimum age 24.6 Between $100–150.1 32. East Asian.7 31.7 34.7 Current income Less than $40.3 20.0 2. Arabic or other.000 44 27.9 10.000 55 34. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.5 1.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.000 23 14.000 15 9.9 2.25 85.9 12.2 10. N = 158. SD = 8. **Includes Pacific Islander. maximum age 67. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.20).7 16.8 More than $150.9 1.4 8. American Indian.5 4.

000–$100.6%. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree.1%. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. or mean of 3. n = 135) male (60. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category.6%. n = 72). The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29.7%. n = 121) in a private. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. Most respondents earned from $40. 78 . n = 103). n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. In terms of supervision responsibilities. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. The sample of the population in this study has an average. for-profit organization.15 direct reports. 25. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). and a median of 5.4%. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.000 per annum (49.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.4%.95 years of college education. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7.32 subordinates. n = 106). Addressing racial diversity. n = 78). Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). Notably. However.2%. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. from between 3–6 to more than 16.

For the income this is going to be most apparent. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.63 (SD = 12. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. Total EQi Score.97 (SD = 13. As far as income. 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.86 (SD = 13.41). 105. in descending order. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Interpersonal.00). the mean income was $68.02 (SD = 13. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.77 years.65 years. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. Adaptability.05). 103.49 (SD = 14. Intrapersonal.01).900 and the median was $54. 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. 107. 105. with a nearly identical median of 48. The mean age of the subjects is 48. Stress Management.730.49). Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. and General Mood Components. 79 . Descriptive Statistics—The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the components and subcomponents of the EQi are displayed in Table 2. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. EQi component scores were. 102.02 (SD = 13.85).The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. Summed TLS Score.

N = 157.52 103. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.67 13.02 105.61 105.45 13.01 13.60 14.21 105.62 13.05 14.00 12.36 Total EQi Score 105.93 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.41 12.28 103.86 12.44 13.85 12.54 103.70 13.19 13.73 12.Table 2. 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. 80 .46 102.49 103.61 102.97 13.49 13.66 101.02 102.63 103.86 106. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.17 104.41 106.31 103.04 12.74 13.66 14.63 103.64 107.

Mind Garden.99 (SD = 0. TLS component scores were.13 (SD = 0.16 (SD = 0.18 SD 0. which are as follows. 2.13 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed). 3. 2.59). N = 157.59). Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Mean TLS Score* M 3.52).35 (SD = 0. 3.95 (SD = 0. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. 3.26 (SD = 0. and Intellectual Stimulation.59 0. 81 .59).63). Idealized Influence (Behavior).S.52.63 0. 3.58).04 (SD = 0.53). 2. 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.57). Inspirational Motivation.26 3. in descending order. Inspirational Motivation.59 Note.57).09 (SD = 0.09 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed).08 (SD = 0.59). Idealized Influence (Behavior).57 0.18 (SD = 0.58 0.96 (SD = 0.57 0. Individualized Consideration. Intellectual Stimulation. Individualized Consideration.35 3. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). 3. 2004). 3.Table 3.08 3.

59 0. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives. of a distribution (i.18 3.35 SD 0. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.52 M 3.16 SD 0.04 2. or scaled variables. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.e.59 0.55 0. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.S.375. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.53 0. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.52 0.59 0. Norm group** M 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.Table 4. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.95 2. TLS Component Scores: U.58 0.57 0.59 0.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.96 3.08 3.09 3. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution. **N = 3.63 0. or symmetry.26 3.02 2.99 3. Group Norms vs. Skew represents the even-ness.13 3. 2001).

(b) Interpersonal = .67. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –.18. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . 2001). While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . (b) MLQ 23 = –2.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. with skew > +/–2.76.66. but normally distributed. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.64. Inspirational Motivation = –. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.0. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.67. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.24. and Individualized Consideration = –1. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.40.85.63. (b) 6. (d) Adaptability = .83.80. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. 83 . Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. and (c) 9. 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.70. respectively.61.49. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. and (e) General Mood = .09.16.73.83. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . Intellectual Stimulation = –.06.0.78. (c) Stress Management = . and not individual MLQ items.

Table 5.37* .59* IS .33* . Adaptability 5.25* . General Mood IIA . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).29* .44* .37* . Stress Management 4. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).41* .48* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. To address the first research question. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. and IC = Individualized Consideration.23* . *p < .43* Note. Intrapersonal 2. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.32* IC . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.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. Pearson’s r was obtained.19 a . N = 158. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.28* .05. 84 .36* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.37* . a p < .37* IIB .31* . Interpersonal 3.35* .40* .30* .46* IM .52* .40* . The significance level was set at (α = .05). IM = Inspirational Motivation. IS = Intellectual Stimulation.01.44* .

(c) Self-Actualization (r = .20 and . p < . with (α = . which was still significant at p < .16. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.001) and Inspirational Motivation.23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. (b) Happiness (r = . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. 85 .05). Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIa—correlations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components. using the same Procedure Correlations.23 or higher.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). All correlations were in the positive direction.001). Inspirational Motivation (r = . Most of the correlations ranged between .05. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . With one exception. p < .001).19.51. at r = .45. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. EQi component scores also increased.05).59. p < .50. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Results are shown in Table 6. all of the Pearson’s r’s were . p < .

IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). *p < . Reality Testing 12.35* .43* .37* .31* IIB .36* .51* IS .39* .23* .38* .33* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.38* .19 a .30* .36* .45* .40* .48* .37* . Happiness IIA .44* .28* . ap < .31* .33* . Self-Awareness 3. All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.33* .13 (ns) .29* .40* .31* . Independence 5.26* .28* . 86 .21* .39* IM .45* .25* IC .30* .34* .37* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.32* .46* .15 (ns) .33* .16 (ns) . IM = Inspirational Motivation.12 (ns) .43* . Social Responsibility 8.38* . Self-Actualization 6.27* .Table 6.40* .37* .30* . Empathy 7.24* . Impulse Control 11.11 (ns) .24* .36* .16 a .24* .44* . Optimism 15.36* Note.05).40* .37* . p ≥ . and IC = Individualized Consideration. N = 157.33* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.01.17 a .26* .24* .25* .33* .43* . Self-Regard 2. Flexibility 13.50* .15 (ns) .05 (ns = nonsignificant. Assertiveness 4.32* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).34* .32* .03 (ns) . Stress Tolerance 10. Problem Solving 14.37* .35* .23* .59* .

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

The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. However.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.01). multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.82. p < . Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than .90. 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. based on the . 88 . p < . Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . this intercorrelation is to be expected.01). Therefore. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = .71. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. p < .01). since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .72. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).64. p < .

26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .43* .52* .47* 1.26* .42* .32* .55* .74* .56* .65* .58* .47* . Self-Actualization 6.53* .55* .37* .43* .50* .61* .15* .72* .49* .40* .43* .42* .52* .40* .37* . Independence 5.47* .00 .66* .38* .59* .32* .36* .33* .71* .50* .40* .53* 1.60* .00 .20* .50* .32* .51* 1.52* .60* .51* .00 1.24* .00 1.43* 1.50* 1. Social Responsibility 8.51* .41* .41* .16* .51* .35* .55* .00 1.64* .50* .50* .00 1.61* .00 .30* .39* .55* .50* .82* .42* .38* .00 .00 .41* . Interpersonal Relationship .27* .36* 9.23* . Self-Regard 2.56* . Empathy 89 7.43* .62* . Reality Testing 10.60* .Table 7.60* .47* .40* .58* . Self Awareness 3.39* . Flexibility 11. Assertiveness 4.25* . Problem Solving 12.36* .23* .00 1.33* .00 1.32* Subcomponent 1.00 .00 .15* .53* 15 .54* .25* .42* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1. Impulse Control .61* .28* .59* .37* .60* . Stress Tolerance 13.55* .61* .42* .45* 1.66* .42* .39* .40* .

90 .Table 7.00 15 . a p < . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.01. Optimism 15. *p < . bns = nonsignificant. Happiness Note.64* 1.00 Subcomponent 14. N = 157.05.

60* .58* 1.01. followed by General Mood (R2change = .57* 1.55* . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Results are shown in Table 9. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Individualized Consideration Note. Inspirational Motivation 4. 1 1. Results are shown in Table 9. Intellectual Stimulation 5.Table 8. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.61* .54* . Overall.62* .00 2 . 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.015). Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. *p < . General Mood and 91 . N = 157. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .64* 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.00 3 .72* 1.59* .00 4 .019). to a minimal extent.287). about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. and. Stress Management at Step 3.00 5 . Stress Management at Step 3.

*p < .033 –.008 .07 .287 .000 .034 4.66 3.728 –0.019 Note.301 at Step 2.000 .000 .04* 62.85 .162 . **p < .073 –. In summary. Neither Stress Management. F change R2change . Table 9.Interpersonal components.287 at Step 1.01.04 .320 at Step 5.25 2.25 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.05.24 .V. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.32 . R2 = .87 . the EQi Intrapersonal. † TLS Summed = D.316 –0. R2 = . R2 = .015 .301 at Steps 3 and 4. 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. 92 .66** . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5). R2 = . entered at Step 3.069 2. N = 157. nor Adaptability. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. entered at Step 4.

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

50 2. Table 13.75 12. bn = 62.97 0. *p < . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. 96 . An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.05.48 104.16 0. Males scored a mean of 0.Table 12.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. *p < . a difference which was significant at p < .05.44 2.67 2.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. bn = 62. 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. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.05.21 14.

08. respectively. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest).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.77. Interestingly. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender.64. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. females: M = 106. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. Descriptive statistics. 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. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. 97 . Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. SD = 14. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. SD = 14.

28 (14) 100.62 103.07 14.57 13.27 11. Empathy (4 vs.Table 14.56 102.26 103.97 15.50 12.34 12.18 14.99 107.89 103.74 11.41 11. 13).80 106.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.43 11.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.47 104.77 102. Self-Actualization (9 vs.19 12.48 13.01 103.78 13.74 15.33 105.80 102.84 11. N = 157.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102. Social Responsibility 98 . 11). EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender _________________________________________________________________________ Male Female EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104.75 13.40 14.37 14.70 13. As a group.92 13.63 13.55 13.72 101.06 102.37 12.67 103.76 106.61 104.23 13.92 102.17 103.16 103.64 109. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.93 13.53 12.34 102.24 104.68 14.21 105.08 11.80 14.50 109.09 109.37 105. *n = 95. **n = 62.14 15.

They also scored higher on the 99 .39 109. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.26 Females SD 13. a Marginally significant.74 15. As a group.01. 12). males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents. 12).07* 3.21 105. Males scored a mean of 7.91a 2. 15).36** 1. Self-Regard (8 vs.18 14. 10). Assertiveness.(5 vs. a difference which was significant at p < .05. Table 15. 15). n = 95.01. n = 62.80 102. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.05.99 M 99.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.57 12. (2 vs.67 SD 11.01 102. among others. Males. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.74 t 2. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). **p < .42* Note.97 109. p = .07 14. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. 10). and Flexibility (6 vs. Independent-samples t test.11 107.86 11. Females. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. *p < . and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.80 11. 13).

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. all of which were significant at p < . males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . or combination. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. To summarize. Further.05. were important predictors of TLS in females.41) subcomponents. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. They also scored 4. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.11) than did females (M = 105. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. but did not predict TLS for males.13). TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. and independence (R2 change =.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. As a follow-up.08). this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . Regression analyses. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Specifically.

167 1. R2 (adj) = .302 .255 at Step 2.378 at Step 3. F change R2change .e.010 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.41 .253 at Step 2.67 –1.011 Note.63** .19 .097 .73 1.12 2..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. 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. It was thus decided that using 101 . R2 (adj) = . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.81 1.088 –.001 .098 12.176 at Step 1. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .04 2.21 –.131 . R2 (adj) = .85 .02 .05 .248 at Step 3. R2 (adj) = .45 .01. R2 (adj) = .73 .989 34. N = 157.268 7.190 .55 –.755 .24 14. Table 16.18 .99** . bFor males: R2 (adj) = .263 at Step 4.001 .000 .606 .002 .261 at Step 1. R2 (adj) = .669 3.08 .379 at Step 4.022 . **p < .000 .

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

7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).7 53. the highest percentage of females (54.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total Note. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.3 46.1 50.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.7 47.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.5 53.7 51. Table 17.7%. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.3 46.8 43.8%. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components. N = 157.(Behavior).4 50.6 49.5 59.1 45.5 46.3 52. Comparison of Low. **n = 62. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.5 40.7 53. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.6%.4 54. The highest percentage of females (59.4 50. The highest percentage of males (52. *n = 95.3 48.2 56. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.

Secondly. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.11 11.75 9.51 111.15 10. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.55 114.85 12. followed by the three lowest means for males and females. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.04 16.88 11.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .11 113.66 114.28 11. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.50 114.76 110.75 10.14 11. First. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.66 11.29 SD 14.92 111. Table 18. Once this subsample was selected.45 112.68 12.98 111.30 10.91). means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.12 110.00 112.09 10.64 112.00 9.24 111.83 111. 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.

42 109. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Independence Social Responsibility Empathy Females’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Behavior) Independence Self-Actualization Social Responsibility Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Problem Solving Independence Problem Solving Reality Testing Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Social Responsibility Impulse Control Problem Solving Impulse Control Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Impulse Control Social Responsibility Problem Solving 104.71 106.18 109.50 11.25 104.39 M 110.36 13.21 11.56 SD 10.12 10.28 107.13 111.55 12.Table 18.86 105.22 108.55 11.38 14.17 9.68 10.13 107.92 105.41 8.26 112.28 110.03 7.62 107.51 107.90 103.15 108.28 108.84 11.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .50 11.15 104.51 7.50 107.07 14.22 13.20 9.55 12.64 9.73 9.40 12.39 9.23 108.53 109.44 9.23 106.

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 102.43 11.59 14.67 10.41 10.56 105.65 103.78 103.26 105. 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.33 M 104.35 103.90 12.77 101.96 105.63 12. (c) Independence.57 104.06 13.89 11. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .27 14.86 12.20 11.06 12.73 10.01 8.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.03 102.Table 18.79 105.66 10.68 106.75 104.09 104. (b) Assertiveness.47 12.4 102.42 9.66 104.85 14.82 105.14 105.12 10.81 17.50 SD 10.50 105.00 103.

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

01* 2.05 10. Categorical variables.e. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).05. Females.61 106.78 8.16 Females SD 13. *p < .05. EQi.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.and high-scoring) 108 . To do this.00 14. n = 31. categorical variables (low.94a –2. Subsample N = 82.43 104. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112. p = .96 10. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.57 M 107. Table 19. however.04* Note.80 SD 10.33 111.09 108. 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.43 t 1.. 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. Males. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. n = 51. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. a Marginally significant.

Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The highest percentage of females (61. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents.5%. again based on each EQi subcomponent. Interestingly.6%. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. followed by 59. However. n = 32). 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. Then.3%. The highest percentages of males (61. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.5% (n = 35) of females did so.97). Once the subsample was selected.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers.0%. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. More than one half of males (53. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20.1%. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. 109 . The highest percentage of males (50.

9 44.5 56.2 61.3 48.8 49.8 44.5 54.2 61.9 44.9 45. Comparison of Low.7 51.8 43.0 52.0 47.2 50.2 45.5 45.1 55.0 48.4 45.6 46.0 51.3 55.5 43.8 38.1 56.5 40.2 51.3 52.1 55.7 54.8 High % 38.5 53.3 45. **n = 62.1 56.5 59.7 47.2 55.8 50.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61. Female** High Low % 53.Table 20.7 44.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total *n = 95.5 53.2 56.8 54.2 41.9 43.8 42.4 53.8 50.8 45.1 54.2 50.0 110 .0 45.2 57.5 46.0 54.6 54.9 43.5 46.8 58.8 38.2 55.

47 0.49 3.54 0. Table 21.47 3.49 0.54 0.5 3.51 3.61 3.37 3.43 111 .57 0.58 3.52 3.60 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 3.51 0.53 0.48 3. followed by the lowest mean.55 SD 0.48 0.52 3.49 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.55 3.55 3.52 0.47 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.49 3.37 0.55 3.47 0.

37 3.43 SD 0.45 0.37 0.38 3.44 3.51 3.42 3.40 0.45 3.49 0.40 0.37 3.34 0.Table 21.45 0.46 3.21 0.44 0.41 3.30 0.39 0.35 112 .36 0.55 3.37 0.36 3.6 M 3.39 0.22 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.42 0.51 3.35 3.42 3.37 0.

45 113 .15 3.57 0.61 0.43 0.61 0.58 0.19 3.24 3.57 0.2 3.2 3.Table 21.59 0.08 3.22 3.51 0.57 0.6 0.18 3.51 0.53 0.24 SD 0.58 0.21 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 3.52 0.53 M 3.2 3.28 3.22 3.24 3.5 0.1 3.25 3.14 0.

58 0.62 0.13 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation. Empathy.68 0.05 3.Table 21.11 3.06 2.57 Descriptive statistics. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.95 3.63 0.67 0.14 3. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.16 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed M 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.6 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .55 0.63 0.49 0.08 SD 0.59 0.11 3. Optimism and Happiness.02 3.21 3. with the exceptions of Independence.

a difference which was significant at p < . only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Idealized Influence (Behavior). n = 54.80 Males scored 0.05. Table 22. 115 . Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Males. a Marginally significant.05. Females SD 10. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. p = .04* M 111. Independent subsamples t test.43 t 2.Motivation.16 SD 14. n = 33. In summary. *p < .22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (EQi) males and females (N = 87) to determine whether their scores on the five TLS components differed significantly.57 M 106. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Females. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.05. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note.

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

In fact. Mandell & Pherwani.6% of the 48 million employees in management. 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. Over the next decade. 80% of the U. In 2001.4% in 2005. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. In 2007. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. 2003).S Department of Labor. 47% law degrees. However.S. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. 1999). professional. However.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. Hay/McBer.Sosik & Megerian. 2000.2% last year (Hymowitz. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. The women 117 . the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing.S. 2008). with women currently representing 50. 2007). 2003). 30% of women earned medical degrees. 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. workforce is growing in its diversity. women held 15. down from 16. and related occupations (U.

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

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

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

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

As well.03 to .16. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. Hay/McBer. 2003). a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. Mandell & Pherwani. 2002). Stress Tolerance. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. For example.” 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. drive. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. However. Impulse Control. 1998. 2000. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. 122 .= . or temptation to act. Thus. 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.

unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . thinking and behavior to new situations. Males scored a mean of 0. Nevertheless.19 (p < .” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. 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.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings.62 (p < . Males scored a mean of 4.Reality Testing. Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 2002). No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. BarOn. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. Thus. entails adjusting our feelings.

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

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.” 125 . Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.41). The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.On and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) suggesting their research has consistently found male leaders to have significantly higher intrapersonal capacity than do their female counterparts. all of which were significant at p < . 1995.18). numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. which this current study used. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. 2000).05.10. While this current study supports previous research findings. 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. Petrides & Furnham. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.17). Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.

and should not come as a great surprise.18). and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. ¶ 1). the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. President of MHS. According to Dr. 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. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias.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. Steven Stein. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4.7%.The research findings of this current study are consistent with Goleman (1998) and Bar-On (2002) where research indicated men tend to be stronger in Intrapersonal capacity (Assertiveness subcomponent). More than one half of males (53. n = 31) scored above 126 . are independent. To do this. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. are better at handling stress.

Stress Tolerance.05). The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. 2007). Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. p < . Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.700 administrations of the EQi. In addition.28. Assertiveness. p < . and Social Responsibility. inner strength.64. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. who analyzed the scores on over 7. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).” was rejected. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men.05). whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On.33. self-assuredness. p < .the mean across all of the TLS components. Thus. 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.

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

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

58 vs. 98. Van Rooy et al. 92). 2000).8 vs. 130 . or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. 63. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. 2005.. 2005. unlike the present results. Butler. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Schutte et al. 104.7 vs.. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). in the present research.decoding (Byron.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. women scored higher overall. unlike findings of previous research. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. 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. 101.7) (p. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. as well as higher on all five components than males.31).2). 1998. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 2005). However.21 vs.31) and TLS (65. men scored a mean of 4.

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

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

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

Self-Regard. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. and Stress Tolerance. In addition. inner strength. 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. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . According to BarOn and Handley (1999). the fear of failure. beliefs and thoughts. Frankel (2004) identified female leaders possessing low self-regard may in fact have a fear of failure and self-doubt in attempting to meet expectations and obligations as a result of competing in a male dominated power structure. could also attribute to lower scores. Having low self-regard as previously discussed. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence.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. 1997).. Assertiveness. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. 2002). Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. in the worst case. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. and their negative connotations in.

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

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

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

peers. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. a measure 138 . as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. where superiors. thereby reducing the potential for bias. Service Orientation. and subordinates. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. Alternatively. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. It is possible that. and Communication. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. Conscientiousness. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. Developing Others. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. The significant difference between self-ratings and the ratings of others may provide a better indication as to whether or not participants perceptions of their leadership style is accurate. different results would have been obtained.peers. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money.

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

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

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

(2003). 142 .1108/eb028980 Antonakis. & Hakstian. & Bass. M. & Bass.. Bar-On & J. GA. P.. C. 79(1). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). B.. & C. (2000). Washington.). J. M.apa.. & Stough. N. 29–50). A. Retrieved from http://www. J. H. Ontario. Transformational leadership. (2006). Bar-On. M. 11(4). (1994). P. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. M. J.. R. MA: Lexington Books. (1988). Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Journal of Education for Business. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. B. Redwood City. (2005.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. (2004). American Psychological Association. (2004). In R. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Avolio.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. Atkins. A. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. Baliga. A. Ferris. K. Hunt. Lexington. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. D. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. doi: 10. Avolio. G. Barchard. 64(3). N. J. Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. & Sivasubramaniam. Parker (Eds. In J. Toronto. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). 14(3). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. Douglas. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). R. & Dasborough. 355–361. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (2003). doi: 10. B. B.org/ethics/code2002.).. J. charisma and beyond. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. Leadership Quarterly. P. H. 261–295. R. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. CA: Mind Garden. Dachler. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Handbook of emotional intelligence. doi: 10. (2003). Schriesheim (Eds. DC: Author. B. Atlanta. Avolio.pdf Antonakis.. April). (2002). 437–462. Retrieved from ProQuest database.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. A. 18– 22.).

M. Psicothema. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. CA: Mind Garden. J. R. M. M. New York: The Free Press. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness.231. R. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. R. Retrieved from http://redalyc. 375–377. (2007). M. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.84. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. CA: Mind Garden. B. B. B. TX: Pro-Philes Press. & Avolio. Bass. B. (1994).mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. 18(Suppl. J. Menlo Park.. B.. New Braunfels. (1990). Bass. 4(3).Bar-On. 19–31. B. & Avolio. (1995). & Handley. B.1037/0003-066X.pdf Bar-On.org/bar-on-model/essay. doi: 10. M. International Journal of Public Administration. Retrieved from http://www. (1993). Bass. M. 13–25. B. 143 . M.. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual.html Bass. & Avolio. 130–139. Bass.net/tc3/TC019239. B. (1990). B. Public Administration Quarterly. J. 52(2). Retrieved from http://205. (1993). (1999).php?i=25 Bar-On.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. B. 17(1). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist.2.. Redwood City. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. 17(3/4). (1985). M. Bass. M. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). (1997). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. (2004).52.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. 18(3). Retrieved from ProQuest database.242/demo/intro/tformlead. B. & Avolio.. B.130 Bass. & Avolio. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. B. B. R. B. J. Organizational Dynamics. 112–121. doi: 10. M.reuvenbaron. (2006). (1999).. J.htm Bass. J. 541–554. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Leadership Quarterly. & Avolio. doi: 10. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores.uaemex.).

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

org/ Center for Creative Leadership. N. L. Retrieved from http://www.1177/014920639702300302 Carless.ccl. Byron. L. Gender and social influence. D. Dahlstrom. (2003). No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. C. doi: 10. A.aspx Cherniss. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. leader. 213–237. Butler. W. 57(4). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Butcher. Wearing. & Monroe. 565–76. Doctoral dissertation. L.. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. Journal of Social Issues..eiconsortium. 14(3). M. & Brienza. Retrieved August 10. (2002).htm Cannella. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers.eiconsortium . Georgia State University. L. Retrieved from http://www. and subordinate perspectives.htm 145 ... (1989). Colorado State University. 23(3). Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. K... J. October). doi: 10. L. May).org/-report.eiconsortium . & Kaemmer. J. doi: 10. A. Graham. 56(4).1037/0022-3514. K. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). J.964 Carli. (1989)... A short measure of transformational leadership. Retrieved from http://www. & Goleman. Tellegen.1111/0022-4537. 389–405. (1998).00238 Cavallo.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. R.. (1997). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 39(11/12). (2005). Journal of Business and Psychology. (1998. doi: 10.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. Journal of Management. 2008. Retrieved from http//www. D. & Mann. 887–902. A. G.6. S. Fort Collins. L. (2001). (2008. doi: 10. Sex Roles. C. S. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. A. Doctoral dissertation. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. A. (2000). B. 725– 741. J.57 .

J. (2000). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly.. & Shamir. (1994)..108.. 17–29. (2002). 523–530... Mountain View.). & Spangler. F. Dubinsky.1037/0033-2909. B. 146 . Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Dulewicz. 15(4). Copeland. Achieving results through transformational leadership. W. 17–21. 15(2). & Johnson. doi: 10. P. Yammarino. D. 10(6). Eden. B. A. 29(12). A theory of leadership effectiveness. 108(2). B. doi: 10.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. M. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. 31(4). Public Personnel Management.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen.. Dixon. 341–372. (1967). CA. Mayfield. H. & Higgs. 735–744.answers. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. 2008. 55(6). R. Eagly. E. E (1999). Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements.2. D. (1990). A. J. V. A. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (1995). Dearborn. Drucker. Miner.233 Eagly.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. M. J. Karau. J. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal. Jolson. J. H. C.. D. S. J. (1995). 5(2). K. L.d.Chief executive officer. Gender and reactions to dominance.. 45(4). New York: HarperCollins. from Answers. Retrieved August 31.. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. B. F. doi: 10. B. 233–256. 53–68. J. Management challenges for the 21st century. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Avolio.. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (1999). 135–159. Journal of Business Research. (2002). (n. E. T. A. doi: 10. (1999)... 467–480. Driskell..com Web site: http://www. Journal of Nursing Administration. D. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. & Salas. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. & Johnson. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. & Swerdlik. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management..1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. M. New York: Hill.

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

Ivancevich. R. R. Hersey.. A. & Hitt. doi: I0.capella. HR Focus. & Bono. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. H. 85(5)..aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. (2005).htm Hymowitz.com/login. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Wall Street Journal. too few people. Hopkins. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.wsj.751 148 . (1977).). M. G. (1993). T.ebscohost. K. Organizational Dynamics. emotional intelligence competencies.. (2003).eiconsortium. A..html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland. K. (1999). & Blanchard. (1993). 751–765. The impact of gender. H. A. M. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. (1997). America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. Doctoral dissertation. 75(9). VA: Oakhill Press. & Olivo. T. Hersey. Boston: Irwin. (1997).capella.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m.1037t/00219010. (2008.). 6–18.Herman. M. doi: 10. S1–S4. 74(6). 43–57.85. J.ebscohost. M. H.. Judge. On diversity. J. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. Gioia. Englewood Cliffs. 13(1).edu/login?url=http://search. 28(3). London: McGraw Hill. C. M. Upper Saddle River. Impending crisis: Too many jobs.).edu/login?url=http://search . Case Western Reserve University.. P.library. T. E. NJ: Prentice Hall. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed. Academy of Management Executives. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. R. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. P. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. Hitt. D. (2000). 15– 16. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. HR Focus. February 25). (2000).1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. & Blanchard. Winchester. (1998).com/ login. You’ve got to change to retain. Retrieved from http://online. R.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 .5. & Matteson. NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://www.library. Journal of Applied Psychology.

(2004). A.Judge. S. & Jantzi.755 Kaufhold. (2005). (2004). 483–496. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. Current Psychology.. G. Education. P.5. L. 113–118. S. R.. & Piccolo.. & Johnson. L. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. R. K. Kirkcaldy.. (2001). P. 615–626. doi: 10. Leadership Quarterly.. Furnham.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Z. 41–44. L. (2007). Journal of Research and Technology Management. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. & Siefen. D. A. D. 5(1).1037/0021-9010. N. (1995). & Song. A. 173–180.. 89(3).edu/login?url=http://search. & Sivasubramaniam.. (1996). doi: 10.89.com/cda/media/ 0.1. T. B. European Psychologist.00. 20(2). & Posner. G. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties.89.. Retrieved from http://basepath. 112–129. & Beers. C. B. Transformational leaders make a difference.1037/0021-9010.ebsco host.com/login. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies.89. R.. (2000. A.. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. M.. Journal of Applied Psychology. 7(3). 12(3). R.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. K.. E. 89(3). Kroeck. M.5. doi: 10.542 Judge.pdf Law. 38(2). J.3.15304. June).capella. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. (2005). doi: 10. Salovey.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . (2004).. Wong.. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10. J.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.483 Leithwood.3.1037/0021-9010. Colbert.. Noack. K. Emotion.113 Lowe. 385–425. P. 125(4). (2000).1037/15283542. & Ilies. 89(5).1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. 755–768.library. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Journal of Educational Administration. doi: 10.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. doi: 10. F. S. J. & Rickers. M.. 38(3). B. 542–552. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. 154–163. R. N.. K.wiley. T. Côté.. J. Reiter-Palmon. A.

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

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

V. T. & Heinitz. (2003b).60. leadership effectiveness.htm Rosener. Retrieved from http://www. A.. pp. Supervision (6th ed. Retrieved from ProQuest database. A. Emotional intelligence. 11(1).1002/per. C. Sex Roles. A.2007. L. & Furnham. R. (2003a). R. V. J. 121–133.eiconsortium. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract].. R. & Buckley. (2003).). G. (2000). Ways women lead. 119–125.003 152 . Boston: Allyn Bacon. 68(6). (2001). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Douglas.. Ammeter.. V.4. G. (2004). doi: 10. K. 42(5/6).. K. M. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. W. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. C.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. K. 425–448. 363–369.01. (1990). 11(4).. L. M. (1991). Doctoral dissertation. J.. R. T. Costa.1037/0022-3514. Emotional intelligence.630 Plunkett.. Retrieved from ProQuest database.capella. P. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. Case Western Reserve University.ebsco host. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.. (1992).library. L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.htm Rivera Cruz. & Furnham. B. Petrides.. doi: 10. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. Ammeter. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://www. 744–755.leaqua. Douglas. Purkable. B. 449–461. R. Ferris.Petrides.1016/j. A.. (2007). M.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t .com/login. Leadership and management styles.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. L.. Ferris. 60(4). 323–351). P.edu/login?url=http://search. Harvard Business Review. 15(6). Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model.. European Journal of Personality. In W. and team outcomes. Catholic University of America. R. P. 41–62. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. Prati. R. & Buckley. doi: 10. 18(2). & McRae. Prati. Plunkett (Ed.416 Piedmont. Leadership Quarterly. R.. R.eiconsortium.

94– 110. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. New York: Wiley. J..74.pdf Sanders. J. W. 9(4). 693–703. from Answers. Hopkins. D. Personality and Individual Differences.org/ Salovey.eiconsortium. Cooper. L. 167–177.edu/login?url=http://search .629 Sala. E. doi: 10. & Osborn. Cognition. 629–645. B. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.. 243–248. Race.htm Schutte. 21–31. W. P.com/topic/senior-management Smith..). L. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.. Doctoral dissertation. Our Lady of the Lake University. 2008. doi: 10. J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2003).1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. (2002).sciencedirect. Golden. N. Schulte. Retrieved from http://www. (n. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. (1998). and Matthews (2001). & Mayer. (2001)..ebscohost. Malouff. emotions. Zeidner. Retrieved August 31. Gender & Class. & Geroy. Haggerty.com/login. E. 16(4). doi: 10.unh.capella.1.243 Schermerhorn. Retrieved from http://www..1037/0022-3514. and Personality.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. & Bass. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. (2001). and socialization. Race. Hall. 74(3).3. Emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http:// www.Rudman. et al.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints.. 9(4). F. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Management. M. D. 9(3). Comment on Roberts. G. Organizational behavior (7th ed.library. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. J.capella.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. E. A. S. (1990).. (1998). Retrieved from http:// www. (2000). 25(2).3. Emotion. J.com.). (1990). Retrieved from ProQuest database.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. J. R..1037/1528-3542.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 .. 1(3). T. C.answers.library. E. J.. J.. 185–211. (2003). J. J.d.. Schaie. M. K. M. D..com Web site: http://www. Imagination.eiconsortium. Hunt. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.

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

40(1).. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations. (2003).com/login. Yukl. I. 34(10).library. G..1177/014920638901500207 Yukl.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu.001 155 . G. R. Lancaster. A. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. A. NJ: Prentice Hall.htm Weisinger.ebscohost.. Comer. B. Developing emotional intelligence.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. K. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. S. 8(2). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. C. Journal of Information Systems. 89–92. Journal of Management. J. Wolfe. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . Leadership in organizations (5th ed. W.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. doi: 10. 251–289. W. (2003).edu/login?url=http://search. Dubinsky. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. L. 16(1). (1990). F. Chew. Yammarino. 205–222. J. (1989). E. F.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.library.Viator. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. (2002). doi: 10. M. 39–52. Doctoral dissertation. M. (2000).). (2005). A. & Spangler. University of Minnesota.edu/ login?url=http://search.. & Bass. 975–995. Upper Saddle River. (2007). Nursing Management. 28–32.ebscohost. H. The perfect labor storm 2.2004. M.. D. I. J.capella. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 43(10). 15(2). leaqua.1016/j. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. PA: Poised for the Future Company. 99–125. B. L. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective.capella. H.library . (1997). Emotional intelligence at work.06.eiconsortium.capella. Academy of Management Journal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. The Leadership Quarterly. (2001). 15(2).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research.com/login.ebscohost.edu/login?url=http://search. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www .com/login.. Zhu. (1998). & Jolson. J.

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

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

00 More than $150.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 Between $40.00 and $100.00 Between $70.00 158 .000.000.00 and $70.000.000.000.000.00 and $150.000.00 Between $100.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful