This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, 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
© Michael A. Syndell, 2008
there will be approximately 10.S. and healthcare professions. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. In addition. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. 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.033. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. The purpose of this cross-sectional. . education.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force.000 billion annually. 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. predicts that by 2010.Abstract The U.
who laid the cornerstone of my being. iii .Dedication I would like to dedicate this to my Mother and Father who were unable to be here to share this milestone in my life . . . and to my Grandparents.
. who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). Bruce Gillies. . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr.Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. and your respected members who participated. . . and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . . 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 . . . who helped me start this journey. Dr. a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. 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 . . you my friend have been a gift from God. . . . . To my original mentor. to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . . . . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . to Dr. for the most part (smile!) . for making this research possible. . Joseph Damiani. the voice of reasoning (smile!) . And to my family and friends who have . Lori La Civita. . . and to Dr. thank you sincerely. It is my strong belief that the results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge in human resource development focused on workforce retention and growth of its human capital . I love you all! iv .
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
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 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. TLS Component Scores: U. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17. Group Norms vs. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. Group Sample Table 5. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11.S. Comparison of Low.List of Tables Table 1. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 8. 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. 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. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15.
Comparison of Low. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20.Table 19.
Department of Labor.033. Herman. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. education. 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.S. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. develop. 2005). 1 . Gioia. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass.S. 2000. 1997. 1997. higher group performance levels (Keller. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. Hitt. 1990). 1995). Ireland & Hitt. Specifically. Department of Labor. The U. 1999). it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. attract. 1998). Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. companies must compete to find. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. 1988). and retain the best talent. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman.373 billion (Herman. Drucker. 2003. & Olivo. U. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. 1999.CHAPTER 1.
given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. 2 . Hay/McBer. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. & Salovey. Furthermore. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. 1998. and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. Mandell & Pherwani. 1998). Caruso. Goleman. select and retain such personnel.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. Mandell & Pherwani. 2001). 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.S. Mayer. 1999). and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. 1998). 2000. conflict resolution styles (Malek. 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. 2003. Goleman. 1999. Ogilvie & Carsky. research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman. 2000). 1997. 2002.. Therefore. Sala. 2003). more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. and the need to effectively identify. 2000.
The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. Hay/McBer. while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. recruitment interviewing. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. selection and management development. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop. organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. 1998. job profiling. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. and the extent to which. 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. 2000. 2003). Mandell & Pherwani.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. 3 . if any. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. In addition.
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. 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. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Significance of the Study Identifying emotional competencies (EC) associated with or used in a transformational leadership style may be useful in creating leadership training and development programs.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 2. 4 . 3. 4. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. In addition. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And.
social responsibility and interpersonal relations. 2002). reality testing and problem solving. In 5 . Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). Stress Management and Mood. whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. making major corporate decisions. A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. Emotional Intelligence (EI). understand. the ability to be aware of. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. Executive Management. self-actualization. The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. including the ability to be aware of. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility. Adaptability. the ability to deal with strong emotions. and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On. and relate to others. 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. 2002). and express oneself. Interpersonal. and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. understand. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. 1998). self-regard. independence and assertiveness.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC).
The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level management by monitoring the activities of subordinates and making tactical decisions on subordinates performance. The sum total of knowledge. Chief Operating Officer. 2000). Leadership. 2002). and strategies (Schermerhorn. & Osborn. Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. Leadership Style. expertise.carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. Chief Marketing Officer. how it can be done effectively.d. and energy available within organizations members. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. Chief Information Officer. Hunt. mission. which may enhance organizational outputs. which are generally shortterm ones. and the Director of Human Resources.d. whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose. 2002). The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (Yukl. Middle Management. each of which has specific functional responsibilities. n. n.). Intellectual Capital (IC). These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer. 6 .). and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management.
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) Individual. (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). Retention. including verbal. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). (d) Intellectual Stimulation. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. and Organizational Effectiveness. 1998). and (e) Individualized Consideration. mathematical. 2000). Group. and three outcome constructs. (c) Inspirational Motivation.Multiple Intelligences. intentions. 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. one nontransactional leadership construct. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). 2004). The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods. and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. three constructs of transactional leadership. and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward.. environmental. musical. spatial. and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. movement oriented. Senior Management.
and to be led. n. Social Skills. work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman. and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. The ability to get people to want to change. nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). (c) Intellectual Stimulation.operations that are generally of a long-term nature.). Social Intelligence. 1998). and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. and the Demographic Questionnaire. Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study. cooperation). (b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. (b) Inspirational Motivation. 1997). which involves motivating individual/organizational change. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence. 1998). listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate).d. Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). EQi. to improve. (d) participants 8 . The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence).
Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. such as correlational analyses. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. and multivariate procedures.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel. Since data will be collected at one time point. Finally. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. nonexperimental research design based on data obtained from self-report questionnaires will be used to investigate the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. such as linear regression will 9 . since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. interest or motivation to respond. Univariate statistical techniques. Secondly. and (e) the results will provide valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research. the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. That is. thus skewing the pattern of responses. 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. First. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. Nature of the Study A cross-sectional.
10 . Transformational Leadership. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. statistical analysis. selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology used in this study. and chapter 5 will conclude the study with a discussion of the results and their implications. variable. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style.be used. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. The dependent. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. or outcome.
PsycINFO. using numerous multiple key word searches. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. transformational leadership style (TLS). and Transformational Leadership Style and 11 . (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. and gender. 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. and (e) gender and EQI. and gender. EQi. The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study.CHAPTER 2. PsycARTICLES. Emotional Intelligence. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. (d) gender attributes and leadership style. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. Academic Search Premier. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global. their relationship. 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). EI. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. and psychology journals. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. (b) leadership. and a synthesis of research findings. The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. Business Source Premier. A summary concludes the chapter. (c) Transformational Leadership Style. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI.
Bass & Avolio. 1995).gender. 1999). and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 1995. In addition. 2006. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. along with several books and dissertations. this study’s theoretical orientation hypothesizes a relationship between EI and transformational leadership such that EI is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for transformational leadership. books. higher group performance (Keller. 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. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 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. 1985. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 12 . Goleman. Specifically. After completing the data analysis used in this study another review of the literature was completed to examine additional research findings that may have been pertinent to this particular study published between 2006 and 2007. 1988). In total. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. 22 articles were relevant to this study. and dissertations.
Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. However. and handsome. social.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. 1990). 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). and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. Task-related 13 . focusing on “what” an effective leader is. motives. These early leadership theories were content theories. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. cooperative. popular. tactful. energetic. of leaders such as personality. not on “how” to effectively lead. tall. charming. or traits. adaptable. Social characteristics include being charismatic. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. Personality traits include being self-confident. assertive. 2002). Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. and diplomatic. and skills (Yukl. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. values. and emotionally stable. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership.
no leader possesses all of the traits. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. having initiative. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. self-confidence. and being results-oriented. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. and cultures.characteristics include being driven to excel. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. the characteristics of the followers. Yukl (1989. desire to lead. Furthermore. 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. No two leaders are alike. and the nature of the external environment. the type of organization. traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). intelligence. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. 2002). Thus. accepting of responsibility. integrity. 14 . the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. 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. leading to the concept of situational leadership. levels of management.
or emotional traits. the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. termed consideration and initiating structure. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). consistently appeared. Initiating structure. college administrators. Studies conducted at the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan identified two leadership styles and two types of leader behaviors (two-factor theory).The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. 2002). The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl. administering it to samples of individuals in the military. Two factors. and student leaders. The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. sometimes called task-oriented behavior. The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. As a result. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. 15 . considerate 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. mental. manufacturing companies.
The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. Unfortunately. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . Like trait research. 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. and coordinating the work of subordinates. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. an employee orientation and a production orientation. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. being supportive. organizing.involves planning. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. and providing for subordinates welfare. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. 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. As a result. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s.
The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. leader-member relations. Fiedler offers two leadership styles. task structure. It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. 17 . 2002). whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. Together. Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. and those that are motivated by relationship. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. Fiedler’s contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. and position power. contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. 1967). Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. those that are motivated by task.
Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. Furthermore. and strong leader position power. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. D3.defined tasks. However. Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. 1993). An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. D2. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). S3. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. Four leadership styles (S1. and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. and D4). 2002). Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. S2. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. and weak leader position power. the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates. empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. unstructured tasks.
either transactional or transformational. and outcomes. and situational variables (Yukl. and providing for their welfare. 2002). Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. However. Specifically. being supportive. The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable. behavior. such as trait. 1993). Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . influence processes. employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. Hersey & Blanchard. Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization.and directivity (S2). Finally. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. low-directive style (S3). Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. work standards. recognizing followers accomplishments. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern.
Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. 20 . 1990. Bass & Avolio. Or they are corrected by negative feedback. who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. threats. Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. In contingent rewarding behavior. Transformational leadership contains four components. 1997. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). intellectual stimulation. inspirational motivation. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. 2004). reproof. and individualized consideration (Bass. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes.organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. leaders either make assignments or they may consult with followers about what is to be done in exchange for implicit or explicit rewards and the desired allocation of resources. In contrast. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. or disciplinary actions. 1985. 1990). and reward. praise. When leaders engage in passive management-byexception.
The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. In addition. behavior. Yukl. 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. He further stated that “leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux” (p. the integrative theory of leadership research. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. Hopkins & Geroy. p. in Bass’s view. 76). 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. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees. 2004. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. However. unlike Burns. behavioral.g. 2003. 52).1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. Furthermore. and situational/contingency variables. 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. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). “cognitive. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . 2003. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990.. 1989). Judge & Piccolo. Sanders. thus bringing into his theoretical framework.
previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. 2000). weaknesses. Leithwood & Jantzi. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. However. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. 1990. Another departure Bass takes from Burns’s concept of Transformational Leadership style is his assertion that these leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of attending to positive moral values and brings up leaders such as Adolf Hitler and others of similar character. focusing on a common purpose. Bennis. 22 . and comparative advantages. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. 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. 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. the organization’s strengths. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. 1985. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron.
Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. commitment. & D’hoore. present their most important values. inspirational motivation. cooperation. Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. idealized influence (attributed). transformational leaders inspire the confidence. Transformational leadership. respect. while at the same time winning their respect. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon. transactional. Vandenberghe. As well as accomplishing tasks through others. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. 1993). transformational. 2000). confidence. loyalty. 1993). emphasize trust. take stands on difficult issues. and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. and the ethical consequences of decisions. Over time. and individualized consideration. 1999). It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. 1992). The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. intellectual stimulation. and emphasize the importance of purpose.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23 . idealized influence (behavior). and willing cooperation (Plunkett. in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio.
consider their individual needs. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. Further. 2004). expert resources. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. and advise and coach. followed by action planning. abilities and aspirations. Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. traditions. listen attentively. will-do attitude. further their development.(Bass & Avolio. meticulousness. Cannella and Monroe 24 . and creativity (Dixon). awareness of internal and external customer needs. Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. The authors suggested that the MLQ could help to reduce the cost of manager selection and increase the chances of selecting appropriate top managers able to make followers aware of the importance and value of desired organizational outcomes because it focuses on the perception of subordinates. Second. 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. The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. challenge followers with high standards. 1999). and beliefs.
Although they may not be close by. Transactional leadership. and management-by-exception (passive). negotiate for resources. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. Laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. and 25 . The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors.proposed that charisma may be less important to the decision making process and more important in terms of its effect on subordinates because having a charismatic relationship with subordinates enables the leader to implement decisions with less resistance (Canella & Monroe). and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. management-by-exception (active). conferences. exchange promises and 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. reports. and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. clarify expectations. are absent when needed. laissez-faire. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. contingent reward. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. 1995). exchange assistance for effort. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. and provide commendations for successful follower performance. Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. fail to follow up requests for assistance.
The 26 .e. Snodgrass. Yammarino. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. & Sivasubramaniam. A research study by Dubinsky. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. & Plemons. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. Jolson. 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. Bryant. Avolio. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves. 2001. Gellis. & Berson. Wade. educational. Bass & Avolio. 2008). 2003. subordinates reported about their managers. using the MLQ-360 assessment. Douthitt. 2003. 2003. and commercial organizations. it does have its place under the right circumstances.productivity records. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. Jung. A total of 174 usable matched reports (i.. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. In addition. 1992). A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. 2004. Avolio. health care. Ellis. Bass.
a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. 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. the sample size must have been reported. The results of a study by Morrison. Fifth. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Jones. 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. First. Second. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. and job satisfaction. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. and its effect on job satisfaction. using a sample of 275 nurses. 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. Kroeck. Lowe. leader/unit perception. organizational perception. Third. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. Fourth. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness.
behaviors has a greater degree of significance on job satisfaction than other types of leadership (i.e., transactional, laissez-faire leadership). Research by Judge and Bono (2000), based on 14 samples of leaders (N = 169) from over 200 organizations, investigated the relationship between personality and transformational leadership using the MLQ and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised and found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and certain personality variables including extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Results (based on 626 correlations from 87 sources) revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership that generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs, reinforcing the evidence that transformational leadership does result in more satisfied and motivated subordinates as well as organizational effectiveness. Another study by Gellis (2001) was designed to evaluate a model that delineates two types of leadership processes, transformational and transactional leadership, within social work practice as measured by the MLQ, using a sample of 187 clinical social workers employed in hospitals. The objectives were to determine the degree to which social work managers were perceived to use transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and to identify which leader behaviors were best able to predict social work leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and extra effort by hospital social workers. Results indicated that all five transformational factors and one transactional factor, contingent reward, were significantly correlated with leader outcomes of effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort. In a research study by Viator (2001) on leadership, commitment, and job performance, data were obtained through a mail survey with 416 usable responses 28
obtained. Participants who primarily worked in the functional area of information system assurance and business consulting perceived that their supervisors demonstrated higher levels of transformational leadership, compared to participants from two other service areas (financial auditing and tax services). Transformational leadership was directly and positively associated with role clarity, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and indirectly associated with job performance, across all three functional areas. In a longitudinal, randomized field experiment, Dvir, Ede, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) tested the impact of transformational leadership, enhanced by training, on follower development and performance. Experimental group leaders received transformational leadership training, and control group leaders, eclectic leadership training. The sample included 54 military leaders, their 90 direct followers, and 724 indirect followers. Results indicated the leaders in the experimental group (transformational leadership training) had a more positive impact on direct followers’ development and on indirect followers’ performance than did the leaders in the control group (eclectic leadership training). Conducting a meta-analysis, Antonakis et al. (2003) reanalyzed data generated by previous studies that had used the MLQ (Form 5X) in different conditions by controlling sample homogeneity, using both published and unpublished sources creating two independent studies examining the validity of the measurement model and factor structure of Bass and Avolio’s MLQ. The first study used a largely homogenous business samples consisting of 2,279 pooled male and 1,089 pooled female raters who evaluated same-gender leaders supporting the nine-factor leadership model proposed by Bass and 29
Avolio as the model was configurally and partially metrically invariant—suggesting that the same constructs were validly measured in the male and female groups. The second study used factor-level data of 18 independently gathered samples of 6,525 raters clustered into prototypically homogenous contexts, used gender as a contextual factor along with examining two contextual factors, environmental risk and leader level, in testing the nine-factor model and found it was stable (i.e., fully invariant) within homogenous contexts. Results of these two studies indicated strong and consistent evidence that supports conclusions about the validity and reliability of the MLQ. Because large independently gathered samples were used, the generalizability has been enhanced. A study by Bass et al. (2003) examining the predictive relationships for the transformational and transactional leadership using the MLQ 5X, used a total of 72 U.S. Army platoons, each made up of three rifle squads and a heavy weapons squad, participating in the joint readiness training exercise, in order to rate unit potency, cohesion, and performance. The core leadership in a platoon rests with the platoon sergeant (a noncommissioned officer) and the platoon leader (usually a commissioned second lieutenant). Because the average number of light infantry combat soldiers in a platoon (all men) is typically around 30, the total number of participants rating the platoon leaders and platoon sergeants was 1,340 and 1,335, respectively. Both transformational and transactional contingent reward leadership ratings of platoon leaders and sergeants positively predicted unit performance. Ozaralli (2003) investigated transformational leadership in relation to empowerment and team effectiveness. As part of an integrative model of leadership, transformational leadership style of superiors is proposed to be related to the strength of 30
and vision. Dubinsky. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. Similarly. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. communication and team performance. 1998. 1994. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. Bass. and 1 unpublished data set). the more effective the team will be. book chapters. Carless. Comer. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. transactional. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. & Jolson. 18 dissertations. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. 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. charismatic leadership. dissertations. 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. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. Yammarino. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. In total. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Avolio. & Atwater. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. and laissez-faire leadership. 1996.
the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). financial services.050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). transactional. More specifically. and electronics industries). food. and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. the convergent. chemical. computer services. A survey study by Zhu. was explored. electrical equipment. and criterion validity of two instruments. Chew. and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. including subjective assessment of organizational performance. 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. and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore. automotive parts. pharmaceutical. The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. These 32 . absenteeism. textile and clothing. divergent. pulp and paper. home appliances. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). administered a total of 1.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. and organizational outcomes.
subjective (e. and faith 33 . satisfaction) as well as objective (e. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. over and above transactional leadership.. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. as measured on the MLQ. are defined as follows: 1. The latest version of the MLQ. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches.g. Moreover. trust. With regard to criterion validity.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects.g.. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader.e. Form 5X.. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. has been used in more than 200 research programs. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect. 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. doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Leadership types. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders.
how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. e. b.b. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . c. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. 2. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio.94.74 to . 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. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. c. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. c. 2004). d. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. 34 . b.
as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work. 2000). These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. Bass & Avolio. with four questions for each scale. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. which could lead to a possible total score of 20. 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. which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). Carless (1998) examined gender differences in transformational leadership in a sample of 345 middle-level managers and 588 subordinates in a large Australian banking organization using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X. Kouzes & Posner. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. Transactional leadership has three scales. transactional leadership and nonleadership. it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. However.The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. Carless. 1995). Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 . 1990. & Mann. 2004).) The MLQ has individual subtests. 1995). which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. Wearing. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. Transformational leadership has five individual scales.
However.g. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. praising individual and team contributions. 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.managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal. such as participatory decision making. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers. and attention to individual needs. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. On the other hand. 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.. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. This hypothesis was also supported by the results of manager selfassessment in that there were no differences between men and women managers regarding the more masculine or task-oriented leadership behaviors such as innovative thinking and visionary leadership. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men. which is what 36 . The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors.
2004a). Indeed. & Caruso. 37 . Carless reasoned. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. some of which are contradictory. this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. 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. 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. On the other hand.accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). 2003). Salovey. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates. exist. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. However. numerous definitions. and to read and direct them in other people. Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu. Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer.
Sojka. 2004a. Mayer et al. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. These two definitions. 2000. Tucker et al. mental processes: 1. argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others. 2003). which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey. 2. 38 .. 1997. Vitello-Cicciu. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. From these characteristics. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. 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. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000).. 2000). Mayer & Salovey. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. 3. 2000. & McCarthy. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by. Barone. to distinguish among them. but interrelated. or repressed within others.
For this reason. conceptually coherent. culminating in the formation. 2004. cohesive. 39 . is problematic. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. These issues are explored next. and the multiple social science fields on the other. Roberts. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. they hold that EI escapes definition. In particular. Gohm. 2004b). Mayer et al. Mathews et al.Although this is a clear definition. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. they claimed. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct.. (2004) began by arguing that the concept of EI has been imposed upon psychology from without rather than having emerged from within and in accordance with validated scientific concepts and theories. and psychologically based definitions of EI. emotional intelligence. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody. Mathews et al. and empirically valid definitions. not of empirically validated. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. 2004a. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. EI Controversies Mathews. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. 2004. Thus.
in these writers view. In this view. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing.Reflecting on Mathews et al. emotion is a scientifically valid. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. During the 6 million years of human evolution. immaterial. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . physiologically evidenced. Oatley. 2002). and measurable construct. Massey argued. However. Rather. 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. The denial of emotions. in Gohm’s view. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. Oatley (2004) noted that Van Brakel listed 22 different definitions for the concept as a way of showing the inherent difficulties involved in the task of defining emotions. Oatley (2004) noted that the problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. 2004b) have adduced biological evidence that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological reactions in the brain. the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. others (Gohm.. 2004. Mayer et al.’s (2004) argument. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define.
1986. Massey). Indeed. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. it a learnable skill. 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. In this view. 2002). but they do not expand or increase them. 2004b) reported. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. Mayer et al.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. 1986. the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. In contrast. 2000). noted. Massey. For example. (2004a. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. They advocate an approach to stress reduction and avoidance of psychological burnout that includes learning to read EI levels in others and developing their own EI capacities so 41 . The 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. The need to maintain group cohesion and to implement social structure and governance created evolutionary pressures that motivated the development of the emotive center of the brain.
they could manage and direct their emotional reactions and energies as well as those of others. In so doing, Kaufhold and Johnson argue individuals in high-stress occupations would be able to maintain a productive and psychologically healthy work environment. Tucker et al. (2000) provided a similar idea, contending that research has shown that EI consists of a learnable set of emotional and cognitive skills. According to their theory, the ability to comprehend emotions in oneself and in others, and to manage and harness emotions in ways that help attain one’s goals, is learnable. That is, individuals can be trained in the reading and management of emotions and, more importantly, can be taught to manage others through a cognitive approach to relationships and tasks that is sensitive to emotions (Tucker et al.). However, such theoretical assumptions have not yet been supported with empirical evidence, though some educational institutions, presupposing both the validity of the theory and the learnability of EI, have integrated EI learning and skill development into their curricula (Kaufhold & Johnson, 2005; Tucker et al.).
Gender and EI Evidence supporting gender differences in EI is mixed. Early studies found that women were more socially skillful than men (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, 1995) and that they scored higher on existing EI tests (Mayer et al., 1999; Schutte et al., 1998). Mandell and Pherwani (2003) also found that women managers were more skilled in managing the emotions of themselves and others. Petrides and Furnham (2000) studied the self-estimated and actual EI levels in 260 participants, equally divided between male and female, in order to examine whether gender functions as a significant independent 42
variable as it relates to EI levels. The EI measure they used was the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte et al.). Petrides and Furnham questioned whether the empirically proven female tendency towards self-effacement and the male preference for self-enhancement, repeatedly upheld in self-estimated IQ levels, held true for EI as well. Results showed that it did, with male self-estimations of EI levels higher than female estimations. Further analysis of whether self-estimated EI levels corresponded to actual levels showed that the men’s and women’s self-estimations were equivocal. Petrides and Furnham’s results did not show a significant gender difference in total measured EI. However, they did show a significant difference on the social skills factor, with women scoring higher than men. This result was in the opposite direction from the difference in self-estimated EI, in which men’s self-estimates were higher than women’s. In other words, the process of self-estimation is biased, though, as Petrides and Furnham suggested, the nature and source of this bias is not clear (Petrides & Furnham). However, Petrides and Furnham (2000) noted some limitations of the study, one of which was that the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte et al., 1998) “has certain problems and the four factors we have derived have not been sufficiently validated” (Petrides & Furnham, p. 453). They stated that with regard to measured trait EI, the results of their research were inconclusive and it needs to be replicated with a better measure of EI. In a study of parents estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences, Kirkcaldy, Noack, Furnham, and Siefen (2007) found that mothers gave lower self-estimates than fathers of their own mathematical (logical) and spatial intelligence. Both parents rated their sons as having higher intrapersonal intelligence than 43
daughters. Intrapersonal intelligence is an individual’s ability to assess one’s own moods, feelings, mental states, and to use this information adaptively. It is one of Gardner’s (1983) personal intelligences, the other being interpersonal intelligence, and is similar to the concept of EI. Burton, Hafetz, and Henninger (2007) conducted a study of gender differences in relational and physical aggression using the Bar-On EQi as the measure of EI. They found that women scored higher on the Bar-On Interpersonal overall factor. This included higher scores for women for the components Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal Relationship subscales than men. Rivera Cruz (2004) examined gender-based differences in EI in two contexts, work and home. Her study was based on the theory that gender role dynamics influence the ways in which men and women display EI behavior, and that the extent and characteristics of that difference is driven primarily by cultural factors. Results of the study showed there was a difference in EI behavior between the two contexts of work and the personal, with increases when gender is included as a factor. Specifically, women showed significant differences in 7 of the 21 competencies of the EI framework used in the study, and men showed differences in 6 of these competencies. Moreover, women were found to display higher levels of EI competencies at home, than men did at work. These results support the theory that gender role dynamics and cultural characteristics influence the way women and men behave. Further correlation analysis found that differences in women’s behavior were associated with Hofstede’s (1997) masculinity/femininity dimension of culture and Boyatzis, Murphy, and Wheeler’s
possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. Schutte et al. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. E. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. Smith (2002). and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. In a study by J. In contrast. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians.(2000) theory of human values. intrapersonal. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. E. although inconsistent. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. These are the test of EI 45 . 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). Van Rooy. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. Measuring EI Schutte et al. Results of these studies. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. Smith). but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. Alonso. Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated.
this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. Bar-On. 1998) which focuses on ability. 2002) test. and peers. social awareness. 2007). the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS. measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals. 2008). Salovey. 2005). which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. & Chabot. known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. according to the publisher. Mayer. Carlsmith. currently in its second revised version. the ability to 46 . and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. self-awareness. collected from superiors. colleagues. and social skills.competencies. Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool. the ECI measures a set of specific emotional intelligence indicators that together estimate an individual’s capacity for integration in group work settings and ability to manage and direct others through the reading and harnessing of expressed or suppressed emotions (Goleman). According to Goleman. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT. the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI. the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. In addition. Côté.). the most important are the second and third competencies. For these reasons. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. self-management. However. & Beers. the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. Boyatzis.
Petrides & Furnham. As noted by Parker et al. 2007).93). Eastabrook. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. two Area scores. The five composite 47 . Bar-On. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. 2005). 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. The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments.. other measurement instruments.. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. The test has excellent reliability (r = . 2002).understand the meaning of different types of emotions. & Taylor. 2001). Total EI score.). Consequently.. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker. MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies. four Branch scores. and convergent validity as well. Saklofske.91 (Mayer. Mayer et al. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. however. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales.79–. and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. with r’s ranging from . and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. It yields 15 main scores. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability. discriminant. (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. Wood.
] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b. others and life in general. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001).] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a. (Bar-On. 2006.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal. 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed. (2005). adaptability.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b. and Watkin (2000). Specifically. 2001).] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e.] Adaptability (change management) [a. understand and accept oneself [b.] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c. and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham. Parker et al. Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 .] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2. stress management.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a. these are [1.] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3.] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b. p.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4.
import of each set and subset in it. and understanding of. like many self-report inventories. Judge. Moreover. Colbert. 2003). This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. 2004. a situational judgment test. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items.” EI has been identified as an important 49 . or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. However. Mandell & Pherwani. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. Law. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. research has also indicated that. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked. C. 2003. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. Kobe. 2004. honest and faking good. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. the nature of EI and its development over time. 2003). the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. 2001. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. Wong & Song. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good. Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey. & Ilies.
and mutual benefits. 2004. 2003). as cited in Kobe et al. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani. Judge et al.. 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. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges. Mandell & Pherwani.. According to Mandell and Pherwani. 2001. 2004. 2003). In addition. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. 2003. Kobe et al. 155).. relationships. There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.. From the sociological perspective. 2003). social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 .ingredient of leadership.). including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. As a social phenomenon. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable. p. Mandell & Pherwani. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. Law et al. 2001.). The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies..
as further contended by Law and colleagues. EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. loyalty. Rather. leaders are created by followers. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. (2004). (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. (2004) argued. According to Judge et al. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. As Law et al. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. However. they argue. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. trust. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. This is an important distinction.to inspire the support. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. Judge 51 . Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. 2003. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Kobe et al. Thus.
Law et al. enthusiasm. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. On the other hand. 2001. In other words. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough).. prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates. Mandell & Pherwani. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others.. they have emotional intelligence). 2003). In short. cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient.et al. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. leaders who display negative emotions. 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. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. arouse similar feelings in team members. 52 . such as support. Kobe et al. 2002). The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions.. and optimism. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. Dearborn. 2004. such as anger and pessimism. 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.
2002) argued. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. Bass & Avolio. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. However. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. leadership style. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. 2003b). Ferris.. However. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. According to Antonakis (2003). As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. as Prati et al. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. 2003a..Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. Ammeter. Douglas. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. & McRae.g. Costa. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness. For example. 2002) was used to measure EI. and others (Dearborn. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. 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. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. Prati. & Buckley.
2004. transformational leadership. EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence. Law 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. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. 2003. 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.. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 . this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one. as Prati et al.. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. 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. internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI. However. 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. That is. 2001.. 2004. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. 2003). Judge et al. Mandell & Pherwani. Indeed. Specifically.of a leader’s leadership style and that individual’s EI or between and a leader’s perceived leadership effectiveness and their EI. Kobe et al. (2003a) point out. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions.
Leadership. title. with mixed results. 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. coping (Purkable. These are reviewed as follows. Regarding raters perceptions. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. and Gender A number of recent studies have used a variety of EI measures to examine the impact of gender on EI and various indicators of leadership. 2005). and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. gender.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. Specifically. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. EI. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. contingent reward leadership. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. and management tenure 55 . contingent reward leadership. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. Brooks found that high ratings and high EI were not significantly related at the 95% confidence level but were significantly related on three ECI competencies at the 90% confidence level. 2003). results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. Using performance ratings and demographic data. Position. 2003). with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. and manager success (Hopkins. 2003).
and whether men and women executives differed in EI. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. and coping mechanisms. and coping mechanisms. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. Emotional Self-Control. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 . Inspirational Leadership. and SelfConfidence. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. MSCEIT subscore 4. Influence. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. In each of these areas. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. Specifically. In addition to the MSCEIT. leadership practices. Purkable (2003) used the MSCEIT to examine the ways self-reported leadership practices and coping mechanisms of a sample of 50 government-contracting executives differed in relation to EI level. leadership practices.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others.
but not male. 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. 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. 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. leadership styles. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. The study used self and other ratings of EI. Specifically. 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. As noted previously. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women.avoidance coping. 57 . one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. Results of the first study found that better nonverbal emotional decoding skills were associated with higher supervisor ratings of overall job performance for a number of female. and success.
Hater & Bass. However. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. 1998). Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless. 2004.. Judge et al. 1998. In addition. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e.. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different.Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies.. Schutte et al. 1998). 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. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles). on the other hand. Mandell & Pherwani. Women leaders.g. individual achievement-oriented behaviors. On the other hand. 2004. 1997.. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. 2001. 2003.g. 58 .. must behave more androgynously. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent.. 2003. Law et al. Kobe et al. Goleman. 1988). there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass. 1990. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. to be successful.
1998. Mandell & Pherwani. 2000.. 1999. Hay/McBer. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i. 59 . the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. Does EI predict transformational leadership style. The latter findings are supported by J. 2003). there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership..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. E. Schutte et al. Moreover. personal or business) may interact with gender role and cultural expectations to influence the ways in which men and women managers exhibit EI behavior (Rivera Cruz. and (a) if so. Further. Petrides & Furnham. 2007).. Mandell & Pherwani.. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. However.e. To summarize. as with transformational leadership style. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al.’s (2005) studies. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al. 2004). 2000. Thus. and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question.
METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. procedures used in addressing the research questions. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. recruiters. and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. using e-mail communications. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp.CHAPTER 3. data collection instruments and study variables. nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. sample selection. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. an online business contact marketplace where marketers. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation.. The remainder of this chapter describes the target population. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. data analysis. between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . if any. 1999).
Senior. ranging in size from small to large.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. market. three constructs of transactional leadership.S. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. e-mail. health care. 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). phone. Executives. food and beverage. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. and a host of other business and service providers. legal services. advertising and marketing. and the use of U. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. For the purpose of this research 61 . 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. financial services. 2004). to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. nonprofit. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants.
62 . (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). (d) Stress Management. Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA).study. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. In brief. (c) Adaptability. (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. as well as their ethnicity and income level. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. 2002). (b) Interpersonal. These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. 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). only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs.
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. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. 2.96. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. 4. with a strong sense of purpose.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. respected and trusted. and values.81 to . Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. 3. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . principles. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). mentoring and growth opportunities. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . 2004): 1. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. 5. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. and display a sense of power and confidence.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . 2004) and was based on data from 2. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own.53 to . and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership.85.
sometimes = 2. consisting of four items each.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0. therefore.94 (Bass & Avolio). to understand and relate well with others. including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves. and to successfully cope with daily demands. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. fairly often = 3. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. or frequently.coefficients for each leadership factor. once in a while = 1. if not always).000 respondents from the United 64 . participants are asked to rate the frequency of their perceived leadership style using such items as “I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. rather than performance or success itself. 2004). all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. The coefficients ranged from .73 to . For example. 2002). All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. if not always = 4. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. However. challenges and pressures.
(b) Interpersonal—Empathy. MHS Inc. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. MHS has developed and offers online assessment tools and Scoring Organizers in which researchers can generate scored MS Excel datasets that include only scores which can be imported into any spreadsheet or statistical software program. and their associated subcomponents.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. Independence. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. Social Responsibility. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. Version 12. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. 2002). Items are measured on a 5point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very seldom/not true for me) to 5 (very often/often true of me).75 (n = 27. were reported as . 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. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems. and Self-Actualization. 2002). The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. and Problem Solving. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.States and Canada. and Interpersonal Relationship. Emotional Self-Awareness. Bar-On. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. to obtain a Total EQ. Assertiveness. 2002).. respectively.85 (n = 44) and . 65 . Flexibility.
age.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. industry. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. race/ethnicity. the criteria needed to be met for participation. the risk and benefits of participation. education level. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. In this current study all online survey responses. 66 . title best describing the respondent’s current position. the purpose of research. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. 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. Procedures After securing formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to solicit potential participants for research and submitting it to Capella’s Institutional Review Board for approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. years employed by current organization. the expected time of completion. years held in current position. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. and number of direct reports under supervision.
Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. 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). the MLQ assessment. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67 .” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. individual data were not made available. 2. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix).
H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.3. 4. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Research Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis for this study was designed to investigate the previous four research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 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. 68 . HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.
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. 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. Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office having sole access.e. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted. a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access.HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file. the MLQ.. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. These data in the form of an e-mail address being supplied to researcher were at the core of confidentiality. 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. 69 . This was the only data collected that could link participants identity/confidentiality which was at the very core of ethical conduct for the researcher/practioner. and the Bar-On EQi).
which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. and required. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. naked to the participants eye. 70 . Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to.This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. were automatically deleted from the WebSurveyor e-mail campaign file to prevent the intrusion of follow-up e-mail reminders and maintaining their privacy APA ethical standards as well (APA). All data collected were pooled for analysis. before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. 2006) ethical standards. In addition. 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. after submitting consent. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way. 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. This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA.
Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). 94). 667). 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. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. 2005. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. p. missing and out-of.g. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies.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. This was followed by univariate analyses. Errors in scoring/data entry. p. 571). 72). 65). as appropriate. Finally. When necessary.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. outliers. Analyses examining group differences (e.. These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. 2005. p. p.
p. if so.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. In addition. as well as to control for the effects of gender. the nature and strength of that association. and. 72 . 160). 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. p. 2005. 170). Expected Findings The results of this research was to indicate whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field.
CHAPTER 4. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. 2. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. As previous research. while not substantial.
Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. 4. and if so. the nature and strength of that association. 3. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 74 .
components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. Errors in scoring/data entry. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1.. and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. p. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. 75 . missing and out-of. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. outliers. 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. 2005. 2005. p. 72).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. as appropriate. p. If necessary. 94).g. or scaled variables. 65).
9 6.1 22.9 12.2 2.7 7.7 5.Table 1.5 5.1 10.1 39.5 4.0 11.4 19.3 8.1 11.8 5.2 12.8 1.7 20.2 5.8 3.7 5.6 76 .4 3.4 24. 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 60.7 29.2 55.7 10.1 25.9 3.6 16.8 2.5 45.
000 44 27.7 2.000 15 9.0 2.25 85.1 9.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.70.7 34.000 23 14.9 65. 77 .9 12.Table 1. SD = 8. 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 32.000 55 34.3 12.8 Between $70–100. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.9 2. East Asian.1 32.8 Between $40–70.5 1. American Indian.3 20.4 8.000 17 10. Minimum age 24.9 10.9 1. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.7 16. maximum age 67. **Includes Pacific Islander.6 Between $100–150.20). Arabic or other.2 10.8 More than $150.5 4. N = 158.7 Current income Less than $40.7 31.
n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education.1%. from between 3–6 to more than 16.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.000 per annum (49. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. However. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree.32 subordinates. n = 121) in a private. or mean of 3. Most respondents earned from $40. Addressing racial diversity. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). n = 135) male (60. Notably. n = 78). The sample of the population in this study has an average.2%. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. and a median of 5.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates).4%. n = 72).6%.7%. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.6%. 78 . n = 106). Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. n = 103). In terms of supervision responsibilities.4%.15 direct reports. 25. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7.95 years of college education. for-profit organization.000–$100.
49). Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed.02 (SD = 13.85). This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.730. Intrapersonal.63 (SD = 12. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105.01). Stress Management.97 (SD = 13.900 and the median was $54. 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. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.02 (SD = 13. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. Interpersonal. EQi component scores were. 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. Total EQi Score. the mean income was $68. For the income this is going to be most apparent. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.49 (SD = 14.86 (SD = 13. 79 . The mean age of the subjects is 48.41). 105. Adaptability. As far as income.77 years. and General Mood Components. with a nearly identical median of 48. 102.00).05). Summed TLS Score. in descending order. 105. 107. 103. 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 3.65 years.
73 12.70 13.01 13.86 106.62 13.85 12. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.63 103.63 103.66 14.64 107.49 103.46 102.05 14.86 12.74 13. N = 157.41 106.17 104. 80 . This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.67 13.19 13.04 12.02 105.97 13.66 101.93 13.54 103.41 12.00 12.28 103.49 13.60 14.Table 2.61 105.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.31 103.52 103.44 13. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi ____________________________________________________ EQi components and subcomponents M SD ____________________________________________________ Intrapersonal Self-regard Assertiveness Independence Self-actualization Interpersonal Empathy Social responsibility Interpersonal relationships Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality testing Flexibility Problem solving General Mood Optimism Happiness 107.61 102.02 102.45 13.21 105.36 Total EQi Score 105.
N = 157.04 (SD = 0. which are as follows. in descending order. 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).59).18 (SD = 0.96 (SD = 0. 2. 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 3.26 3.57).35 3. 2.S.52.53).58). Individualized Consideration. 2. 81 . Mind Garden.59 Note.52). Individualized Consideration.59 0.08 3.95 (SD = 0.57 0. 3. TLS component scores were. Idealized Influence (Attributed).26 (SD = 0. Inspirational Motivation. and Intellectual Stimulation.09 3. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.Table 3. Intellectual Stimulation.59). Idealized Influence (Behavior).13 (SD = 0.16 (SD = 0. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.18 SD 0.08 (SD = 0.35 (SD = 0.59). 3.57 0. 2004).09 (SD = 0.58 0.99 (SD = 0.57). Idealized Influence (Attributed).63 0. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.59). Inspirational Motivation. 3.13 3. 3. 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).63). 3.
55 0.09 3.52 0. TLS Component Scores: U.52 M 3.59 0. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.96 3.99 3.e.53 0.02 2. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. Group Norms vs. 2001).08 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.57 0.S.59 0. or scaled variables.Table 4. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157.16 SD 0.13 3.26 3.375. 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. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .58 0. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.35 SD 0.59 0. Norm group** M 3.95 2.59 0.18 3. of a distribution (i.63 0.04 2. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.. Skew represents the even-ness. **N = 3. or symmetry.
(c) Stress Management = .83.24. Inspirational Motivation = –.61. 2001). and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.70.16. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .66. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . (b) Interpersonal = .78. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . and (e) Individualized Consideration = .64.0. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. and (c) 9. and Individualized Consideration = –1. with skew > +/–2. (b) 6.67. but normally distributed.09.73. (a) MLQ 5 = 2.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.63. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .18. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. Intellectual Stimulation = –. and (e) General Mood = . (d) Adaptability = .83. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .0. and not individual MLQ items. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. (b) MLQ 23 = –2. the decision was made to keep them in their original form.49.80. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.67. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.40.06. 83 . Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbach’s alpha (α) was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities. respectively. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2.85. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered.76.
23* .05. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).41* . The significance level was set at (α = . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.33* . Interpersonal 3. 84 .05).40* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components. IM = Inspirational Motivation. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.01.19 a . and IC = Individualized Consideration.44* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. Adaptability 5. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).48* .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.32* IC .30* . N = 158.37* IIB . General Mood IIA .44* . Intrapersonal 2. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.37* .37* .43* Note.59* IS . *p < . Table 5.52* .37* .28* .31* .40* . a p < . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. Pearson’s r was obtained.25* .29* . Stress Management 4.35* .36* .46* IM . To address the first research question.
45. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . p < .16.05). 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. p < .59. Results are shown in Table 6. With one exception. Inspirational Motivation (r = .05. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. at r = . Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. using the same Procedure Correlations. p < . 85 . p < . EQi component scores also increased.001) and Inspirational Motivation.51.23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .19. with (α = . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .50. All correlations were in the positive direction. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Most of the correlations ranged between .001).20 and .05).001).23 or higher. (c) Self-Actualization (r = . which was still significant at p < . The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. (b) Happiness (r = .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation).
27* .36* Note. Assertiveness 4.45* .39* IM .28* .48* . Self-Actualization 6.36* .11 (ns) . ap < .36* . p ≥ .32* .24* . Problem Solving 14. Stress Tolerance 10.40* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.43* .39* .35* . Reality Testing 12. IS = Intellectual Stimulation.33* .Table 6. Self-Awareness 3.30* .28* . Self-Regard 2.59* .37* .37* .35* .31* IIB .37* .05).30* . N = 157.34* .30* .33* .40* .25* IC .13 (ns) .34* .38* .33* .50* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.37* . Impulse Control 11.32* .12 (ns) . Happiness IIA . and IC = Individualized Consideration.33* .37* .31* .05 (ns = nonsignificant.43* .46* .19 a .36* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.38* .40* .33* . Empathy 7.43* .15 (ns) .24* .45* .44* .32* .24* .01.26* .31* .17 a . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).37* .51* IS . 86 .23* .25* .15 (ns) .16 a . Optimism 15. Independence 5. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).24* . *p < .33* .40* .29* .38* . Social Responsibility 8. Flexibility 13. Interpersonal Relationships 9.23* .21* .26* .44* .03 (ns) .16 (ns) .
(b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. p < . which can occur when variables are too highly correlated.001). 2005.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. 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. 2001). Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis. p < . A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than .26.30. p < . In summary. EQi component scores also increased. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. All correlations were in the positive direction. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = .001). 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.24.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. p. Correlations 87 . no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable.001). the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. 170).
Therefore.01). The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .82. p < . based on the . None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than .72. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.90. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . p < . p < . To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).01). The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue.64. However. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8.71. this intercorrelation is to be expected.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. p < . 88 . Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.01). Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.
47* .56* . Independence 5.55* .00 .00 1.36* . Self Awareness 3.20* .26* .60* .51* . Assertiveness 4. Stress Tolerance 13.40* .00 .52* .55* .47* 1.50* .25* .00 1.72* .64* .60* .43* 1.53* 1.38* .42* .55* .74* .51* 1.51* .55* .60* .43* .41* . Flexibility 11.42* .40* .32* .30* .32* . Social Responsibility 8.00 1.00 1.52* .36* .50* . Empathy 89 7.39* .42* . Self-Actualization 6.37* .00 .47* .66* .51* .56* .41* .53* 15 .41* .61* .50* .23* . Self-Regard 2.39* .45* 1.36* 9. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.58* .60* .00 .25* .38* .43* .39* .49* .33* .61* . Interpersonal Relationship .53* .66* .00 .00 .37* .59* .50* .61* .32* .33* .55* .50* .00 1.61* .50* 1. Impulse Control .23* .71* .32* Subcomponent 1.58* .62* .60* .40* . Problem Solving 12.15* .27* .35* .15* .28* . Reality Testing 10.42* .Table 7.50* .43* .42* .16* .65* .82* .47* .00 1.54* .43* .24* .52* .40* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .37* .42* .59* .00 .40* .
05.01. N = 157. Optimism 15.64* 1. bns = nonsignificant.Table 7. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. *p < . a p < . Happiness Note.00 Subcomponent 14.00 15 . 90 .
58* 1.01.72* 1. the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.59* . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. Intellectual Stimulation 5. to a minimal extent. Stress Management at Step 3.019).61* .287).00 3 . N = 157. 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. Results are shown in Table 9. 1 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. Individualized Consideration Note.55* .00 4 . Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.015). Results are shown in Table 9. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .64* 1. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.00 5 . Overall.Table 8. General Mood and 91 . *p < . Inspirational Motivation 4. followed by General Mood (R2change = .00 2 . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.57* 1.54* . Stress Management at Step 3.62* . Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.60* . and.
019 Note.728 –0. † TLS Summed = D.000 . **p < .66** .316 –0.033 –.034 4.66 3.287 .04* 62. Neither Stress Management.Interpersonal components.24 .073 –. R2 = . R2 = .301 at Step 2.32 . nor Adaptability. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.85 .25 2.01. F change R2change .301 at Steps 3 and 4. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).04 .000 . R2 = . 92 .287 at Step 1.069 2.015 . entered at Step 3. N = 157. the EQi Intrapersonal.87 . *p < . R2 = . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained. 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.05. entered at Step 4.V.162 .008 . In summary. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.25 . Table 9.000 .07 .320 at Step 5.
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
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
01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.05. *p < .05. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. bn = 62.75 12. Table 13.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.44 2. 96 .05.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.16 0. 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. Males scored a mean of 0.67 2. *p < . Significant findings are shown in Table 13.97 0.21 14.Table 12.50 2. bn = 62. a difference which was significant at p < .48 104.
Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. Interestingly. These data are presented in Table 14.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. respectively. SD = 14. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. females: M = 106. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. Descriptive statistics. 97 .64. SD = 14. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents.08. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.77. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females.
63 13.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.99 107.75 13.74 15.89 103.14 15.09 109.80 106.18 14.21 105. 13). N = 157.62 103.41 11.34 102.01 103. **n = 62.92 102.80 102.07 14.17 103.68 14.50 109.76 106.26 103.50 12. Social Responsibility 98 .67 103.24 104.70 13.16 103.48 13.77 102. Empathy (4 vs.78 13.19 12. 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. As a group.57 13.97 15.56 102.37 12.34 12.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.47 104.64 109.43 11.Table 14.92 13.93 13.84 11.74 11.37 14.37 105. *n = 95.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.06 102.72 101.53 12.33 105.40 14.08 11.55 13.23 13.28 (14) 100.80 14.61 104. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.27 11. Self-Actualization (9 vs.
They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs.01. p = . 12). Self-Regard (8 vs. Independent-samples t test. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).74 t 2.36** 1.07* 3.91a 2. Females. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.86 11. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs.80 11. a Marginally significant. 15).18 14. (2 vs. 10). Assertiveness. *p < .80 102.97 109. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.39 109. As a group.07 14. and Flexibility (6 vs.05.11 107. Table 15. among others. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. 15).21 105. They also scored higher on the 99 .67 SD 11. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. n = 95.01.57 12.99 M 99.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females.74 15. Males scored a mean of 7. 12). a difference which was significant at p < .26 Females SD 13. 10). Males. 13).(5 vs. n = 62. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.05.01 102. **p < .42* Note. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.
and independence (R2 change =. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. or combination. Regression analyses.08). and the only one that predicted TLS in males. To summarize. but did not predict TLS for males.05. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females.41) subcomponents. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Both assertiveness (R2 change = .11) than did females (M = 105. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females.13). were important predictors of TLS in females. As a follow-up.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. Specifically. 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.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. They also scored 4. all of which were significant at p < . Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. Further. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.
606 .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.e.097 . R2 (adj) = .12 2.989 34.261 at Step 1.67 –1.263 at Step 4.001 .010 .176 at Step 1.08 .000 .190 .45 .001 .248 at Step 3.269 . R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = . bFor males: R2 (adj) = . Table 16.255 at Step 2.63** . F change R2change .05 . R2 (adj) = .755 .81 1.002 .21 –.19 .41 .011 Note. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).302 .18 .098 12.022 .85 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.000 . **p < .268 7. R2 (adj) = .04 2.02 ..167 1.379 at Step 4.55 –. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .253 at Step 2.088 –.73 .73 1. N = 157.669 3.131 .24 14. R2 (adj) = .378 at Step 3. 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.99** . It was thus decided that using 101 .01. 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.
n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components.the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.e.e. 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.7%. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. To do this. the three highest TLS component scores). Categorical variables. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The highest percentages of males (53. Finally. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).0%.7%. 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. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17.and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. More than one half of males (53.. categorical variables (low. and exactly one half of females (50. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females.. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components.
*n = 95.2 56. The highest percentage of females (59.3 46.5 40.4 50. The highest percentage of males (52.7 53.3 48. N = 157.5 53.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.3 52.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.6%.8%. the highest percentage of females (54.4 54.7%.7 53. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.7 47. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.5 46.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.4 50.8 43.1 45. Comparison of Low.5 59.7 51. **n = 62.3 46.(Behavior). The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . Table 17. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.6 49.1 50.
again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.09 10.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.00 112.24 111.30 10.88 11.12 110.45 112. Secondly.75 9.68 12.14 11.75 10. Table 18. First.00 9. 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. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.64 112.04 16. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.11 11.66 11. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.15 10.85 12. Once this subsample was selected.98 111.76 110.66 114.91).11 113.83 111.29 SD 14.51 111.28 11.50 114.55 114.92 111.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .
Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component 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 104.23 106.84 11.13 107.26 112.55 12.13 111.18 109.39 9.68 10.20 9.53 109.56 SD 10.42 109.Table 18.55 12.28 108.90 103.21 11.86 105.50 11.39 M 110.36 13.12 10.62 107.50 107.17 9.28 107.03 7.15 108.51 7.50 11.22 108.92 105.55 11.41 8.22 13.40 12.28 110.64 9.23 108.51 107.44 9.15 104.71 106.73 9.07 14.38 14.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .25 104.
50 SD 10.14 105.4 102.78 103.43 11.03 102.75 104. (c) Independence.41 10.65 103.67 10.Table 18.06 12.42 9.50 105.63 12. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .06 13.33 M 104.86 12.20 11.12 10.68 106.89 11.79 105. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Social Responsibility Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Social Responsibility Impulse Control Happiness Females’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Self-Regard Happiness Flexibility Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships 102.81 17.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics. (b) Assertiveness.35 103.00 103.96 105.77 101.90 12.73 10.85 14.47 12.82 105. 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.66 10.66 104.09 104.59 14.01 8.57 104.27 14.56 105.26 105.
(d) Empathy. 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. While males scored 5. a difference which was significant at p < . (b) Independence. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. which was also significant as shown in Table 19.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. Females scored a mean of 4. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. Assertiveness. (b) Happiness. (c) Social Responsibility. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. 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. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. Males scored 107 .33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. (b) Social Responsibility. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. In summary. Males scored a mean of 5.05. (d) Problem Solving. Independent subsamples t test.05. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.across the five TLS components. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. however.
94a –2.05. n = 31.43 104. To do this. p = . Categorical variables. a Marginally significant. 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.78 8.. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.96 10. EQi.00 14.16 Females SD 13. Females.e.57 M 107.01* 2.and high-scoring) 108 . Table 19.04* Note. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Males.09 108.05. categorical variables (low. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. Subsample N = 82. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). however.05 10. n = 51.43 t 1.33 111. The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents.80 SD 10.61 106. *p < .
Descriptive data (N and %) for low.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. The highest percentages of males (61.5% (n = 35) of females did so. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. The highest percentage of females (61. n = 32). obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.6%.97). Then. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 109 . The highest percentage of males (50. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. Once the subsample was selected.5%. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Interestingly. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. followed by 59.3%.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. However. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105.0%.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. More than one half of males (53. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.1%. again based on each EQi subcomponent. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen.
8 45.7 44.5 46.8 44.8 49.0 54.8 38.5 46. Comparison of Low.0 47.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.9 44.6 46.3 52.4 45.2 61.8 43.5 45.1 55.2 50.5 56.3 45.9 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 = 95.3 48.6 54.4 53.9 45.8 58.0 45.8 High % 38.7 54.2 61.1 56.1 54.7 51.9 43. **n = 62.5 43.2 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 % 61.2 45.5 53.0 52.5 59.9 43. Female** High Low % 53.2 55.0 48.2 51.7 47.2 41.8 42.2 56.2 57.8 50.0 110 .3 55.Table 20.8 38.8 50.1 56.1 55.5 40.8 54.5 54.2 55.5 53.0 51.2 50.
60 0.37 0.49 3.51 0.57 0.54 0.55 SD 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.5 3.52 0.61 3.48 0. Table 21.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.49 0.52 3.55 3.51 3.55 3.55 3. followed by the lowest mean.52 3.37 3.58 3.43 111 .47 0.47 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.53 0.48 3.54 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 3.49 3.
21 0.46 3.39 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.Table 21.40 0.22 3.42 3.42 3.35 112 .45 0.38 3.37 3.45 0.37 0.43 SD 0.42 0.55 3.34 0.51 3.51 3.37 3.35 3.6 M 3.49 0.39 0.36 3.44 3.41 3.37 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.45 3.44 0.
28 3.57 0.61 0.5 0.57 0.43 0.51 0.2 3.2 3.58 0.45 113 .51 0.1 3.21 3.58 0.15 3.57 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.18 3.52 0.61 0.59 0.19 3.24 SD 0.2 3.22 3.08 3.24 3.53 M 3.6 0.22 3.25 3.53 0.24 3.14 0.Table 21.
Empathy. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.16 3. with the exceptions of Independence.67 0.06 2.11 3.14 3.63 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .11 3.58 0.57 Descriptive statistics. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.6 0.Table 21.05 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. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.55 0.62 0.59 0.02 3.49 0.21 3.13 3.08 SD 0.63 0.95 3. Optimism and Happiness.68 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.
Idealized Influence (Behavior). Females SD 10. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.Motivation. a Marginally significant. p = . Independent subsamples t test. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. 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. Females. 115 .80 Males scored 0. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure.05. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. a difference which was significant at p < .05.43 t 2. In summary. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. n = 33.16 SD 14.05. Males.04* M 111.57 M 106. Table 22. *p < . n = 54.
AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this final chapter. including research methodology. 1988). 1998. 1998). CONCLUSIONS. as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. Goleman. 1990. 1997. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. RESULTS. Goleman. Hater & Bass. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). 2000. 116 . The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed. 1998. Schutte et al. These findings are discussed. and findings of data analysis.. The literature regarding leadership research suggests that the Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles in terms of organizational effectiveness outcomes. as previous research investigating TLS and EI suggests that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Bass. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek.CHAPTER 5.
In 2001.2% last year (Hymowitz. women held 15. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000.S. 2003). research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. However. The secondary purpose of this study was designed to examine whether there are any significant gender-specific differences in the way men and women use their EI competencies that are reflected in their TLS. When asked to provide a ranking of factors.S Department of Labor.S.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. 2003). 2000. Hay/McBer. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe.6% of the 48 million employees in management. down from 16. 1999). In 2007. and related occupations (U. professional. workforce is growing in its diversity. 2008). with women currently representing 50. 2007). Mandell & Pherwani. Over the next decade. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. In fact.Sosik & Megerian.4% in 2005. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. The women 117 . 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. 80% of the U. However. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. 30% of women earned medical degrees. 47% law degrees.
with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. the chance to pursue an opportunity. nearly $2. 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. As a result of this ambiguity. Not surprisingly. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS.S. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. 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.5 million people and generate $1. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term.3 trillion in annual sales.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. In addition. In the overall U. 2007). Identifying how gender differences in EI. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. if they exist.S. 2007). researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9.
Interpersonal. job profiling. Van Rooy et al. with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. EQi component scores also increased. nonexperimental. 62 female). Ball.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. followed by General Mood and. Perry. Correlation and regression analysis were utilized to examine the relationship between components/subcomponents of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) construct as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). 2004. cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male. 2005). Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. to a minimal extent. 2001. As scores on the TLS components increased. All but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores. The relative contributions of each EQi component to TLS were also analyzed. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. In addition to filling this research gap. & Stacey. Taken together. selection. 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.. all correlations were in the positive direction. 2004. 119 . these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. recruitment interviewing. Schaie.
No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Self-Regard. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Additional analysis to further delineate the relationship among gender and its influence on EQi in predicting TLS used a subsample of males and females scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score. Discussion of the Results Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi Components predict significant differences in TLS? Correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components using the SPSS Procedure correlations/bivariate to obtain Pearson’s r.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. and Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. and Social Responsibility. Stress Tolerance. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Assertiveness. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents.
2003.. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . Judge et al.. Thus. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were .23) to moderate (r = . this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.. Further.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.” 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. In addition. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). & Stough. Walls. Hay/McBer. 2004.. Palmer. Mandell & Pherwani. 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 = . 1998.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. Law et al. Mandell & Pherwani. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. Kobe et al. 2004.23 or higher. 2001). 2000. Burgess. 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). 2001.21) to moderate (r 121 . 2002).
Stress Tolerance. 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. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . is also a subcomponent of the 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. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. As well.= . 2002). drive. 2000. 1998. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents.03 to . is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. or temptation to act. For example. Hay/McBer. 2003). it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. However. 122 . Impulse Control. Thus.16. Mandell & Pherwani.” The significance of this research finding is that it further supports empirical studies that demonstrate there is a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs (Goleman.
This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar. 2002). thinking and behavior to new situations.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females.62 (p < .Reality Testing. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 .” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. 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.19 (p < . Males scored a mean of 0. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. BarOn. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. the fact that a large number of significant correlations were identified between subcomponents of the independent variables and the components of the dependent variable suggests a positive relationship between the two constructs. Thus. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. entails adjusting our feelings. Nevertheless. Males scored a mean of 4.
19 (p < . by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner.” was rejected.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. Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. with males scoring a higher mean of 4. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. with males scoring a higher mean of . Striving to actualize potential involves developing enjoyable and meaningful activities that can lead to effort and an enthusiastic commitment to long-term goals (Bar-On. 2002. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. As a result. try new approaches. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. 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. and challenge their own beliefs and values. 1990).05) as well. 2007). as well as those of the leader and the organization.62 (p < . the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . skills and talents. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass.
41). numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. 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. which this current study used.05. all of which were significant at p < . Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. While this current study supports previous research findings.” 125 . with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. Petrides & Furnham. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. 2000). suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.17). 1995. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents.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.18).10. 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.
To do this. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. ¶ 1). Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. n = 31) scored above 126 . President of MHS. and should not come as a great surprise. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. According to Dr. are independent. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. “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. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3.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). “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50.18).0%.7%. Steven Stein. It should be noted that three of the four subcomponents identified with males scoring higher than their female counterparts are three of the five subcomponents that make up the Intrapersonal component. More than one half of males (53. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. are better at handling stress. and men’s and women’s use of EQi.
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. 2007). Thus.64.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.700 administrations of the EQi. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. who analyzed the scores on over 7. self-assuredness. p < .05). p < . Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).05).the mean across all of the TLS components. Stress Tolerance. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. inner strength. the null hypotheses proposed for this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . p < . and Social Responsibility. Assertiveness.33.” was rejected.28. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. In addition. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men.
Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. 128 . stress tolerance is the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. and. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. 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. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. In essence. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. However. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. and Assertiveness. the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. 1993). the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. for the leader. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass.
exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer. particularly three of its major components. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . and nonverbal emotional 129 . 2000. 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. 2004). it is not a sole predictor. The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS.019). coping mechanisms (Purkable.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. Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously. 2003). although EI as measured by the EQi. and. When these three components were combined. this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. In other words.287). However. to a minimal degree. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs. For example. followed by General Mood (R2change = . the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach. 2003). Interpersonal (R2 change = . Mandell & Pherwani. appears to be a strong predictor of TLS. neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS.015).
men scored a mean of 4. unlike findings of previous research. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS.2). 101. in the present research.7) (p.21 vs.8 vs. unlike the present results. 2005). or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 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. as well as higher on all five components than males.. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Van Rooy et al. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. 2005. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. Butler.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 2000). 104. Schutte et al. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. 92). which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity.decoding (Byron. 130 . However.31). 63. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003).. 2005. 98.31) and TLS (65. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.7 vs.58 vs. women scored higher overall. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. 1998.
despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. 1990). For example. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. and does so with consideration for their welfare. Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females.It is important to note. 399). The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. but did not predict TLS for males. Further. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. however. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. in the present study. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131 . Likewise. p. Mandell and Pherwani. Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score. 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. The transformational leader stimulates employee participation in discussions and decisions and encourages them to share his vision of the company’s future. a somewhat different picture emerged. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003.
Assertiveness. 1994. Carless et al. The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. the critical distinction he made was that. beliefs. In a study by Bass et al. 2000. Block. but reported the closest difference was on intellectual stimulation and attributed it to men being better at intervening to correct followers’ mistakes (Bass et al. 1994. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders.. Eagly. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. 1995.). 132 .oriented. 1990). as women tend to be more nurturing. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. management-by-exception (active). caring. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. Rosener. and sensitive. 1998. & Johnson. Heilman. & Martell. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. Karau. which is contingent on a given environmental demand. Miner. Carless. 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. 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.
in 133 . 1998). 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. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 1995. The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. Driskell. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. That is. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. Bass et al. In addition. 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.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. Rudman. 2001). In addition. 1989. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. & Salas. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. 1989). 2001). yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. 2001. Copeland. Nevertheless. 1989. expressing disagreement. Generally.
According to BarOn and Handley (1999). beliefs and thoughts. the fear of failure. 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. Independence—their degree of self-confidence.. 1997). in the worst case. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. and Stress Tolerance— surrendering to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness which often leads to anxiety when this component of emotional-social intelligence is not functioning adequately (BarOn. 2002). significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. inner strength. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. Self-Regard. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. Assertiveness. Having low self-regard as previously discussed. In addition.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. could also attribute to lower scores. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. and Stress Tolerance. and their negative connotations in. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS.
1997). Assertiveness. 135 . there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest “females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. 1994).Psychiatric Association. ¶ 1). while not significant. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. ¶ 1). but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity. as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Furthermore. However. However. Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. Social Responsibility. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On. in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women. but the effects are small for the most part. and Stress Tolerance. females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. who suggested 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. while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity.
the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. are more flexible. no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. (Bar-On. only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study.More specifically. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. and passive/avoidant). and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational. . men appear to have better selfregard. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. demonstrate more empathy. Limitations The current study has several limitations. Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. . the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. 1994). 2007. solve problems better. On the other hand. ¶ 1) “To summarize . and are more optimistic than women. First. 2007. cope better with stress. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. both are equally transformational in leadership style. 2003). Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. are more self-reliant. For purposes of this study. transactional. which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. 1998. implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. when compared with women. Mandell & Pherwani.
research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb. females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. The sample used in this study included a diverse cross section of participants from a wide range of industries and levels of management representing the current work force.scores. To overcome the limitations of self-report. because. 1991). rather than polar constructs. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. That is. as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. 137 . more specifically transactional. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al. attitudes. the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. Further.. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. However. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. 2000). whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. One of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response (SDR) in the case of men and women who may be affected by gender role expectations. 2003).
peers. It is possible that. where superiors. Developing Others. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. Alternatively. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. a measure 138 . females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. and Communication. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money. peers. and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. Conscientiousness. Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. The significant difference between self-ratings and the ratings of others may provide a better indication as to whether or not participants perceptions of their leadership style is accurate. as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. different results would have been obtained. Service Orientation. thereby reducing the potential for bias. and subordinates.
Butcher.S. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. as well as the industries they represent. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Future researchers. as stated previously. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. Graham. Therefore.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. & Kaemmer. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U.S. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. 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. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. Tellegen. Dahlstrom.033. As a result. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. 1989). and 139 . such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. Concerning the narrowing of industries. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. education. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. the U. workforce.
future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. In view of this projection. Conclusions The current study was designed to examine whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership style (TLS).healthcare professions (Herman et al. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. Likewise. and (b) if so. both are equally transformational in leadership style. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. 2003). Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI 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 gender and EI while predicting TLS.. 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. 140 . Gender. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The EQi Intrapersonal. no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. This research also suggests that.
This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. selection. recruitment interviewing. 141 .In conclusion. job profiling. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS.
. N. Toronto.org/ethics/code2002. 79(1). B. M. Bar-On. Atlanta. D. Leadership Quarterly. & Dasborough. MA: Lexington Books. P. G. H... doi: 10. (1994). & Sivasubramaniam.). P. (2004). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. Atkins. 261–295. K. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002.. Barchard. (2004). H. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. (2006). Hunt. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). Douglas. Avolio.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy.. Lexington. Parker (Eds. Journal of Education for Business. GA. R. & Hakstian. (2005. (1988). Ferris. Bar-On & J. Schriesheim (Eds. Retrieved from http://www.). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). A. charisma and beyond. Avolio.. Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. Handbook of emotional intelligence. (2000). 14(3). In R. 355–361.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. P.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. Washington. Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. M. A. Avolio. A. 18– 22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. J. B. DC: Author.). & Bass. R. R. Baliga. doi: 10. Canada: Multi-Health Systems.). Educational and Psychological Measurement. M. A. (2003). 142 . B. In J. Transformational leadership. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.. & Stough. N. J. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2002). Redwood City. (2003). B.apa. J. 64(3). M. B. 437–462. J. Dachler.pdf Antonakis. CA: Mind Garden. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. & Bass. C. J. & C. April). American Psychological Association. (2003). doi: 10. 11(4). 29–50). Ontario.1108/eb028980 Antonakis.
M. B. B. M. (1993). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist.net/tc3/TC019239. 17(3/4). J.. R. 13–25. Bass... Menlo Park. 541–554. B. & Avolio. 375–377. doi: 10.242/demo/intro/tformlead. CA: Mind Garden. (1994).130 Bass. (1999). (1993).Bar-On.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. Redwood City. (1990). (1995).84.org/bar-on-model/essay. doi: 10. 130–139. B. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership.231. Retrieved from ProQuest database. R. doi: 10. B. Bass. B.. New Braunfels. New York: The Free Press. 112–121. B. J. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. (2004). Retrieved from http://redalyc. (2006). Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness.uaemex. 143 .1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. M. Psicothema. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. (1990). Bass. B. & Handley.2. B.php?i=25 Bar-On. Leadership Quarterly. J. (1985). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. & Avolio. Organizational Dynamics. J.). R. R. (2007). Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. 17(1). (1999). 18(3). B.reuvenbaron. 4(3)..1080/01900699408524907 Bass. & Avolio. M. B. Retrieved from http://205. B. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. J. M. 52(2). CA: Mind Garden. & Avolio. & Avolio. 18(Suppl.. & Avolio. M. M. B. Retrieved from http://www.html Bass. International Journal of Public Administration.52. M. J. B. 19–31. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. B. Bass.htm Bass. (1997). B. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI).1037/0003-066X. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. M. TX: Pro-Philes Press. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Bass.pdf Bar-On. Public Administration Quarterly. M. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online).
L. D. & Berson. Burton.edu/login?url=http://search. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development.eiconsortium.com/login. W. D.2.Bass. (1996). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www. 32–44. Psychological Inquiry.35. Avolio.pdf Brody. B. S.41 144 .com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. Lincoln. New York: Harper & Row.. M. 27(5). K.1037/0021-9010. (2004). (1978). doi: 10.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. R.. (2007). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Doctoral dissertation.1. M. Avolio.. doi: 10. R.88. Social Behavior and Personality. Bass. (2003). Retrieved from http://www. Applied Psychology: An International Review.. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. J. 9(4).2007. I. (2003). doi: 10..htm Burns. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. South Carolina State University. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.207 Bennis. Retrieved from http:// www. (2000). E.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. (1990). (2003). E. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. N. J.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. A. 44–46. Doctoral dissertation. & Wheeler. 45(1). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. A. E. J. 15(3).library . 35(1). B. B. & Atwater. Murphy. Hafetz. Journal of Applied Psychology.. (2004).haygroup. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI).htm Bryant. Y. 47–64..capella. & Henninger. M. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. M. 86(1). sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge.. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. Leadership. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://ei..1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. (2007).haygroup. 41–50. J.pdf Boyatzis. B. J. 234–238. E. 207–218. 88(2). Psychological Reports. L.ebscohost.eiconsortium. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. J.2224/ sbp. University of Nebraska. 5–34. Jung.
Journal of Business and Psychology. K. 213–237.htm 145 . Retrieved from http://www.Butcher. (1998). Gender differences in interaction style and influence.6. (1989). 39(11/12).htm Cannella. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. A short measure of transformational leadership. M. (1997). (1998. & Monroe. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. J. 887–902.. 57(4). J. & Goleman.org/-report. (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Doctoral dissertation. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. Retrieved from http://www.. Retrieved August 10. Fort Collins. G. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. and subordinate perspectives. 389–405.eiconsortium . October). Journal of Management.1037/0022-3514. 565–76.. Doctoral dissertation.57 . No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership.. (2002). S. (2008. & Mann. J. A. L.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. May). doi: 10.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. A. S. & Brienza. B. L. Butler. Georgia State University. Journal of Social Issues. L..aspx Cherniss. J.eiconsortium .org/ Center for Creative Leadership. A. A.1111/0022-4537.. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. W. Wearing. doi: 10. C. A. Retrieved from http//www. 56(4). 2008. Retrieved from http://www.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. Gender and social influence. (1989). D. L. (2001). doi: 10. L.eiconsortium.. doi: 10. Tellegen.ccl. 14(3). (2000). N. Sex Roles. Byron. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. C. D. 725– 741.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. K. Colorado State University. R. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).00238 Cavallo. leader. 23(3). Dahlstrom. L. doi: 10. (2005). & Kaemmer. Graham.964 Carli.1177/014920639702300302 Carless..
). S.. (n. (2000). 45(4). (2002). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. 31(4). 146 . Dearborn. A. 2008. T.. (1967). Achieving results through transformational leadership. 523–530. D. Gender and reactions to dominance. Eagly. & Salas.. B.. A..d. Jolson. D. Mayfield. 15(4).. L. E (1999). (1999).1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. & Johnson. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management.. A.. K. F.2. doi: 10. E. (1994). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. & Spangler.233 Eagly. M. Management challenges for the 21st century. & Shamir. J. Retrieved from ProQuest database.com Web site: http://www. C. 341–372. J. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. Dubinsky. J. doi: 10. (1990). (2002). B. Public Personnel Management. Dixon. 233–256.. B. Driskell. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. J.answers. P. CA. & Higgs. Mountain View. Journal of Business Research. 55(6). Leadership Quarterly. New York: Hill. R. Eden. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. 17–21.108. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Drucker. 17–29.. Journal of Nursing Administration. 10(6). Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Retrieved August 31. Yammarino. E. M. F.. doi: 10. & Swerdlik. W.1037/0033-2909. & Johnson.. D.Chief executive officer. J. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. B. H.. 29(12). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Copeland. (1995). B. 5(2). Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. (2002). Miner. J. 467–480. 53–68. V. Psychological Bulletin. (1999). New York: HarperCollins. D. 15(2). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. A. Karau. 108(2). 135–159. A theory of leadership effectiveness. Avolio. Journal of Managerial Psychology. H. (1995). from Answers. M. J. Dulewicz. 735–744.. Academy of Management Journal.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman.apa. (1995). Moving forward with emotional intelligence.4. J.Field.haygroup.capella. & Rawles. New York: Bantam. 222–227. J. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment).ebscohost. C. doi: 10. 25(1). 695–702.library.gov. J. Thousand Oaks. M. 10(6). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed. 237–252.pdf Hay/McBer.. (1983). Retrieved from http://www. Doctoral dissertation. Journal of Applied Psychology. Retrieved from http://www. CA: Sage. (2004). (2008).com/login. Retrieved from http://www.dfee. C. R.edu/login?url http://search.. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence.. ECI fact card. O.htm Hargie. Block. F. New York: Basic Books. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Working with emotional intelligence. O. L. E. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. (2004). Hater. Furnham. Grubb. & Dickson. (2000). Gellis. (2001). A. L.)..eiconsortium. & Bass. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract]. Saunders. London: Routledge. Psychological Inquiry. L.org/?fa=main. (1995). Nice girls don’t get the corner office.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . B. Virginia Commonwealth University. 10(3). (2003).695 Hay Group.73. W. Frankel. doi: 10. D.1037/0021-9010. & Martell. 741–748. Retrieved from http://psycnet. (1988). H.. (1998). 15(3).com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. 73(4). 17–25. A. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. P. (1995)..uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. D. Social skills in interpersonal communication. (2005). C. Gohm. Social Work Research. New York: Warner Business Books. Z. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. R. M.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.
Ivancevich. P. 15– 16. S1–S4.ebscohost.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. R. (2003). 85(5). (2000). Englewood Cliffs.751 148 . Organizational Dynamics. J.. NJ: Prentice Hall. too few people. HR Focus. 751–765.. Winchester. Hitt. H. NJ: Prentice Hall. & Hitt. (1993).. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 74(6). H.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . T. T. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. Wall Street Journal. (2000). H.ebscohost. A. Case Western Reserve University. Impending crisis: Too many jobs. J. M. T.. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland.1037t/00219010.edu/login?url=http://search .aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. (1998).5. C. A. Hersey. & Olivo. Academy of Management Executives. G. (1993).85.capella. (1997). The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. & Matteson. Judge. (1997). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. Retrieved from http://online. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.com/login. & Bono. 28(3). E. J. M.eiconsortium. D.com/ login. 75(9). doi: I0. R.Herman. HR Focus.library.. February 25). M. (1977).edu/login?url=http://search. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. Upper Saddle River.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. Hopkins. Gioia. Doctoral dissertation. 13(1). On diversity. London: McGraw Hill. K. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.wsj.library.).). The impact of gender. R. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed.). Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. M. P. & Blanchard. M.capella. (2005). (1999).htm Hymowitz. doi: 10. K. Retrieved from http://www. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. (2008. 6–18. A. You’ve got to change to retain. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Blanchard. Boston: Irwin. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 43–57. emotional intelligence competencies. VA: Oakhill Press... R. Hersey.
J.1037/0021-9010. P. B. 38(3)... doi: 10. Kirkcaldy. doi: 10. Reiter-Palmon. G. Wong.15304.com/login. & Posner.edu/login?url=http://search. L. (1995). Leadership Quarterly. J. N..89. 20(2). S.3. Kroeck. Journal of Applied Psychology.89. L. R. T.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. (2000. A. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. B. June). & Rickers. C. K. J. Retrieved from http://basepath. P. N.pdf Law. L. 385–425.. 542–552. R..483 Leithwood. doi: 10. Journal of Educational Administration. (2005). 89(5). doi: 10.wiley. D. (2004).542 Judge.com/cda/media/ 0. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. 615–626. S. Colbert. A. K. Journal of Research and Technology Management. 125(4). doi: 10... Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties..Judge. (1996). 755–768. 483–496. 173–180. (2000). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Education. (2007). & Ilies.1037/0021-9010.library.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.capella. (2005). E. & Johnson. 7(3). (2001).1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. R.. 12(3). M. Salovey. 89(3).3.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. Current Psychology.113 Lowe.5. & Piccolo. Côté. & Siefen. & Beers. (2004). Transformational leaders make a difference. Z. R. doi: 10. 154–163. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. M. G.89. J.1037/0021-9010. European Psychologist. Noack.1037/15283542. 89(3). K... 113–118. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. A.. K. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10. M. F. 38(2).. 41–44.ebsco host. Furnham. P. (2004).5. B. doi: 10.1. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. T.755 Kaufhold. A.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . 5(1).. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. 112–129.. & Song. A. Emotion.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.. & Sivasubramaniam. S. & Jantzi.00.. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. D. Journal of Applied Psychology. R..
edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. D. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p. & Salovey.library. Mathews.edu/login?url=http://search.library. J.. 15(2).aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. (2002). H. Sluytrer (Eds.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . P. Retrieved from ProQuest database. D. R.100186. M. D. Emotional intelligence: Theory. J. About the MSCEIT. 32(3).. 387–404. Mayer. J.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. Toronto. K. M. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. 1–29.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer.capella. American Sociological Review. & Chabot. Journal of Research in Personality. D.. (UMI No. 15(3). D.ebscohost.ebscohost.com/login.capella.002201 Malek. D. doi: 10. Annual Review of Anthropology. D. Salovey. 197–215. doi: 10. Mayer. J. (2003). S. P. & Zeidner. The anthropology of emotions. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. & Pherwani.unh.sciencedirect. R. & Caruso.com . J.1146/annurev. F. 71).library. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. 61. P.. (2004a).com/ login. Psychological Inquiry. S. C. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. and implications.. Caruso.Lutz. P. Salovey. (2000). & White. findings.. Roberts.an. 15(3). R.. 179–196.. R. Retrieved from http://www. (1986). J. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. doi: 10. Ontario.edu/login?url=http://search. D. 27(4). (2002). D. (1997).. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. 9970564) Mandell.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. G. 267–298. & Salovey. 253–296.15.). New York: Basic Books. M. Journal of Business and Psychology. J. Dissertation Abstracts International. Carlsmith. Psychological Inquiry. D.capella. 05B. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Salovey & D. G... Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. M. 17(3). B. Retrieved from http://www. (2007). 67(1). What is emotional intelligence? In P.. (2004). & Caruso. (1999). D. (1998). Intelligence.. 405–436.
. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. 24(6). R. Wrightsman (Eds.. R. Retrieved August 31. Burgess. 15(3). P. 22(1). L. & Caruso. M.com/login. Parker. J. 27–34. L. C.com/login .. 2008.. D.ebscohost. (2004). San Diego. D. A. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. doi: 10.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. 15(3). (2003). Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. S.04. & Stacey.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie. (2002). (1991).. 14(1).d. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. Ball.au/iier14/perry. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Psychological Inquiry.edu/login?url=http://search..edu/login? url=http://search. MLQ international norms.capella. Retrieved from http://www. & Stough. Shaver. N.Mayer. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. D. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 381–400.. D. 29–43. M. & Carsky. L. Journal of Individual Differences. M. (2004). Walls. & L.paid. B. 17–59). 216–238.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. Psychological Inquiry.. 249–255. In J. R.html 151 .1016 /j. Issues in Educational Research. E. L. Oatley. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (n. I. Journal of Nursing Administration. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2001). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. & Taylor. doi: 10.pdf Morrison. Retrieved from http://www. Z. Perry. 5–10.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management.).. S.capella. Measurement and control of response bias. J... Jones. N. from Answers. CA: Academic Press.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. 335–344. J. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. K.library. Salovey. M.org. B. 26(2). Building emotional intelligence in negotiations.com Web site: http://www. P. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. The International Journal of Conflict Management. & Fuller.ebscohost. C.022 Paulhus. (2005). Robinson.mind garden. Eastabrook. D.. 27(5).library.2006. 100–106. Saklofske..com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms. doi: 10. J. H. Wood. 13(4). R. R. (1997). (2004b).answers..). Inc.iier. (2004).
W. 363–369.2007. L. (2003b). R. & Furnham. (1992). & Buckley. 449–461.eiconsortium.416 Piedmont. Prati. 121–133. Douglas.htm Rivera Cruz. A. Retrieved from ProQuest database. G.capella. Catholic University of America.edu/login?url=http://search. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. R. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. Prati. T. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. P. Doctoral dissertation. Sex Roles. B. (1991). leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. European Journal of Personality. R. doi: 10. R. 425–448.. leadership effectiveness. M. & Heinitz.. Ways women lead. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. P.. C. B. 18(2).aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold.60. Emotional intelligence. J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. 323–351). (2003). Ferris.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. R. 15(6). L.com/login. 41–62. (2001). Plunkett (Ed.ebsco host. A. L. V.1037/0022-3514. 11(1). P. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Doctoral dissertation. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. (2000). R.leaqua. & Buckley.htm Rosener. In W.01. Supervision (6th ed.. Leadership and management styles. doi: 10. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. (2003a). pp. doi: 10.library.. Ammeter. Douglas...org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t .)..630 Plunkett. G. M.1016/j. T. & Furnham. A. Retrieved from ProQuest database. V. A.. Purkable.1002/per. (1990). Retrieved from http://www.003 152 .. R. & McRae. Ferris. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. (2007)... R. 60(4).. 42(5/6).4. C. Retrieved from http://www. K. Emotional intelligence. Petrides. Costa. Retrieved from ProQuest database. R.eiconsortium. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 744–755. M. J. K. K. 68(6). L. 119–125. Case Western Reserve University. Boston: Allyn Bacon. Leadership Quarterly. Ammeter. 11(4). V. M. Harvard Business Review.Petrides. (2004). and team outcomes.
B. T. (1998).com Web site: http://www. J. Emotional intelligence.). New York: Wiley. S. G.. W.. J. E.1037/1528-3542. P. doi: 10. R. (2001). (2000).capella. (2003).eiconsortium. (1998).library. Retrieved from http://www. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics.d. and Matthews (2001).com/login. Personality and Individual Differences. M. A. Malouff. D.74. (2003). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. E.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management.. & Geroy. Gender & Class.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . 693–703. Emotion. Zeidner. Retrieved from http:// www. N. D. 185–211.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. J. 629–645. Cooper. 167–177.. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. Hunt. Retrieved from ProQuest database. & Bass.library. J. & Osborn. and Personality. Doctoral dissertation.pdf Sanders. J. Organizational behavior (7th ed... Schulte. 21–31.. doi: 10..htm Schutte. D. Race. K. et al.Rudman. doi: 10.capella.. and socialization. E. 16(4). Hall. L. (2002).. (n. J. (2001). 1(3). M. Race. 25(2). Hopkins.. W.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. 74(3).eiconsortium. Retrieved August 31. Journal of Management.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. 243–248. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.unh. J.ebscohost.edu/login?url=http://search .edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. from Answers.1037/0022-3514.3. Imagination. L. 94– 110. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. F.1.org/ Salovey. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. & Mayer.243 Schermerhorn. M.com. emotions. J. Retrieved from http:// www. (1990). 9(3).. Retrieved from http://www. Cognition. (1990).com/topic/senior-management Smith.. J.answers. 9(4). J.). 2008. C. Our Lady of the Lake University. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership.. J.629 Sala. Schaie. Comment on Roberts.sciencedirect. 9(4). Golden. E. Haggerty.3. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management.
Retrieved from ProQuest database. (1999).. S. doi: 10.. S . 37(1). & Megerian..2004.). S. J.%20M.gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance.05.kandidata. 331–338. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. 24(3). Retrieved from http://www.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein.S.. A. Douthitt. 38(3). U. A. Retrieved from http://www.paid..J. L.. & Fidell.. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. Journal of Allied Health. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates.bls. 367–390. Ellis.C.%20K. TX. Alonso.siop. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy.1016/j.S. J. Census Bureau of Labor.cgi Tabachnick.. 37–43.023 154 . Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. L.capella. Journal of Education for Business. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Sosik. M.. 49(1). Z. Retrieved from http://www.library. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. E.bls. L. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. A.pdf U.tx. J. W. J. Personality and Individual Differences. C. S. & D’hoore. D. 689–700. C.Smith. (2001). 75(6).edu/spb/ovidweb. (2000). & Viswesvaran. K.% 20&%20McDaniel. Sojka. M. (2002). M.com. F. B.A. MA: Allyn and Bacon. (2003). S. (1998. Department of Labor. J. Vandenberghe. & Plemons. Retrieved from http://ovidsp. & McDaniel.. C.. Nursing Research. doi: 10. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. Group & Organization Management.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur.se/default. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications.org/Search.. 2002. (2000). Wade. Retrieved from http://www. 18–14.. Tucker. G. (2005). April). (2005). J. R.Needham Heights. Bureau of Labor Statistics. & McCarthy. (2008). Dallas.%20(1998) Snodgrass. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure.aspx?search=Smith.. L.ovid. Barone.
& Jolson. G. (2005).org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. The Leadership Quarterly. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger.eiconsortium.. (2001). 34(10). 251–289. Chew. 15(2).1016/j. E. (2003). Human Relations.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. Wolfe. C. Nursing Management. A. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. H. Journal of Information Systems.library. Zhu. Yukl. doi: 10. H. A. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from ProQuest database. B.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu.edu/ login?url=http://search. (1990). NJ: Prentice Hall.edu/login?url=http://search. (2002). 39–52. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. M. Retrieved from http://www . Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. G. Developing emotional intelligence. F. Emotional intelligence at work..0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.).1177/014920638901500207 Yukl.. Upper Saddle River.Viator. PA: Poised for the Future Company. 28–32.library . An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence.ebscohost. 975–995. I. Yammarino. W.001 155 . Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence.edu/login?url=http://search.. Journal of Management. (2000).2004. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. J. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. 99–125. F.06. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. D.. & Bass. J. The perfect labor storm 2. 16(1).library. S. W. L. 43(10). 15(2). J. Comer. & Spangler.capella. 40(1). M. L.capella. (2003). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. K. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.htm Weisinger. I. J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . 8(2). A. Academy of Management Journal. (2007). 205–222.ebscohost. Dubinsky. (1997). (1998). leaqua. B. Doctoral dissertation. doi: 10.capella. (1989).ebscohost. 89–92. M.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino.. R. doi: 10. Lancaster.com/login.
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 .
000.00 Between $40.000.000.00 158 .000.00 Between $100.000.00 and $150.00 and $100.000.000.000.00 More than $150.00 Between $70.00 and $70.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.