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
033. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. The purpose of this cross-sectional. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions.S.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. predicts that by 2010. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections. education. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. and healthcare professions.000 billion annually. Department of Labor. Leadership research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century challenges. quantitative survey is to examine the relationship between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style that may lend itself to the development of more effective leadership training and development programs to meet the upcoming challenges.Abstract The U. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. there will be approximately 10. In addition. . this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style.
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 laid the cornerstone of my being. . . iii .
. 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 . . for the most part (smile!) . . . . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . 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 . thank you sincerely. to Dr. . and your respected members who participated. understood and supported my absence throughout this process . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. who helped me start this journey. . . I love you all! iv . . Dr. . Joseph Damiani. . . . for making this research possible. Bruce Gillies. 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 . Lori La Civita. the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . To my original mentor. . . . you my friend have been a gift from God. and to Dr. And to my family and friends who have .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too .
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
Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi Table 3.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Table 18. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender Table 15. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables Table 2. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 12. Group Norms vs.S. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 9. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 7. Group Sample Table 5. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender Table 11. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components Table 6. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Table 16. TLS Component Scores: U. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ Table 14. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components viii 76 80 81 82 84 86 88 91 92 93 95 96 96 98 99 101 103 104 . Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components Table 4. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components Table 13. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents Predicting TLS in Males and Females Table 17.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. Comparison of Low.
Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20.Table 19.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Comparison of Low.
U. Ireland & Hitt.S. 1997. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. education. attract. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). 1990).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. Specifically. Drucker. and retain the best talent. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. 2005).CHAPTER 1. Department of Labor. 2000. & Olivo. develop. 1995).373 billion (Herman. 1997. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing. 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. 1 . 1999. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. 1998). Gioia. 1988). 2003. 1999).033. The U. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. higher group performance levels (Keller. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. Hitt. Department of Labor. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. Herman. companies must compete to find.
2003). and the need to effectively identify. Mandell & Pherwani. This study intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general. Goleman. conflict resolution styles (Malek. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass. & Salovey. Mayer. Therefore. research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss & Goleman. Furthermore. Ogilvie & Carsky. 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. 1998). 2 .S. more investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken. Sala. 1998. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003. 1999). Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian. Goleman. 2001). 2000. Background of the Study A review of the literature suggests that leadership has been one of the domains to which Emotional Intelligence has been applied most frequently. 1999. 2000. 1997.. Hay/McBer. and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al. 2000). and to identify gender differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS.Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional intelligence. 1998). given the well-documented personnel shortage in the U. Caruso. 2002. select and retain such personnel.
2000. and the extent to which. between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. Appropriate assessments of individuals to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary component of achieving this goal. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship. The results of this research may shed new light on understanding and assessing people’s attitudes. job profiling. if any. selection and management development. In addition. organize and utilize their employees’ capabilities. 1998. Rationale Existing research on whether. interpersonal skills and potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such leadership may be assessed.Statement of the Problem To remain competitive in their operating environments. 2003). The identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research may facilitate the development of human resource planning. while profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized. Mandell & Pherwani. recruitment interviewing. this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style. Hay/McBer. organizations need to focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop. 3 . EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman.
if a relationship is found to exist. 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. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 4. 2. 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. 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. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. In addition.
self-regard. Intrapersonal subscale includes emotional self-awareness. including the ability to be aware of. Emotional Intelligence (EI). Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). Adaptability. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility. and relate to others. A diagnostic questionnaire that measures Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. understand. 2002). Stress Management and Mood. 1998). understand. 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). In 5 . social responsibility and interpersonal relations.Definition of Terms Emotional Competence (EC). The five composite scales are Intrapersonal. and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On. making major corporate decisions. the ability to be aware of. and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a social or personal nature (Bar-On. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highestranking executive in a company or organization. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress tolerance. whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies. managing the overall operations and resources of a company. the ability to deal with strong emotions. independence and assertiveness. and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. self-actualization. Executive Management. reality testing and problem solving. A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman. Interpersonal. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy. It is composed of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. and express oneself.
d. mission. 2002). each of which has specific functional responsibilities. which are generally shortterm ones. Chief Operating Officer. and strategies (Schermerhorn. The sum total of knowledge. 6 . whose contributions advance the organization’s purpose.). typically a CEO has a core group of subordinate executives. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done. Chief Information Officer. 2002). Midlevel managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. how it can be done effectively. & Osborn. Intellectual Capital (IC). and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl. Hunt. n. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence over the followers (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. which may enhance organizational outputs. and the Director of Human Resources. Middle Management.). n.carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. Chief Marketing Officer.d. Leadership. 2000). and energy available within organizations members. expertise. This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer. Leadership Style. and generate the required reports for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management.
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. musical. A diagnostic questionnaire that assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass & Avolio. (b) Management-by-Exception (Active). and (e) Individualized Consideration. 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 . 2000). Senior management positions require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. including verbal. three constructs of transactional leadership. intentions. have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. The three components of transactional leadership are (a) Contingent Reward. (b) Idealized Influence (Attributed). 2004). intrapersonal (the examination and knowledge of one’s own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to read the moods.. The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire. Group. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas. spatial. movement oriented. (c) Inspirational Motivation. one nontransactional leadership construct. and (c) Management-by-Exception (Passive). and Organizational Effectiveness. Senior Management. and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader. environmental.Multiple Intelligences. (b) Individual. The five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior). and three outcome constructs. and desires of others) spheres (Goleman. (d) Intellectual Stimulation. Retention. 1998). mathematical.
(b) a sufficient number of employees will agree to participate. n. There are four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence.operations that are generally of a long-term nature. listen openly and send convincing messages (communicate). The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective diplomacy to persuade (influence). (d) participants 8 .). EQi. and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass. and oversee that the day-to-day activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management. and the Demographic Questionnaire. Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). which involves motivating individual/organizational change. and to be led. and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. 1998).d. (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved in the completion of the MLQ. Social Skills. inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership). (c) Intellectual Stimulation. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner (Goleman. The ability to get people to want to change. and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals (Goleman. 1998). nurture instrumental relationships (building bonds). (b) Inspirational Motivation. cooperation). 1997). to improve. Assumptions and Limitations The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the organizational level targeted for this study. work with others toward a shared goal (collaboration. Social Intelligence.
such as linear regression will 9 . The generalizability of this study’s findings may be affected by the following factors. nonexperimental research design based on data obtained from self-report questionnaires will be used to investigate the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. while other potential participants may not have the time or inclination to do so. health or their emotional state when they completed the instruments. 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. Univariate statistical techniques. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions. results may be influenced by participant variables such as business travel. That is. The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results. Nature of the Study A cross-sectional. such as correlational analyses. First. a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation process. and multivariate procedures. thus skewing the pattern of responses. participants may still respond in a socially desirable manner. Finally. Secondly. interest or motivation to respond. since sample participants were drawn primarily from one geographic area. 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.will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability. this study relies on participants’ self-report data. Since data will be collected at one time point.
be used. and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research. The dependent. 10 . selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the components of Transformational Leadership Style. statistical analysis. Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results. will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by the EQi. Transformational Leadership. including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. 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. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between these two constructs. variable. or outcome.
The first section in the review is the theoretical orientation for the study. PsycARTICLES. (c) Transformational Leadership Style. The two main areas the review focused on were psychology and leadership. Emotional Intelligence.CHAPTER 2. PsycINFO. The literature review was conducted using Capella University’s library of electronic databases. 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). transformational leadership style (TLS). using numerous multiple key word searches. as well as evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. including (a) leadership and Emotional Intelligence. Academic Search Premier. their relationship. EI. followed by a review and critique of research literature specific to leadership. EQi. Dissertations and Theses: Full Text. and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS. and (e) gender and EQI. This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI. A summary concludes the chapter. Business Source Premier. and gender. and Transformational Leadership Style and 11 . (b) leadership. and psychology journals. 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 a synthesis of research findings. (d) gender attributes and leadership style. and gender. (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two constructs. ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global.
In total. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 12 . books. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. along with several books and dissertations. 1995. 22 articles were relevant to this study. and dissertations. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. Goleman. 1985. higher group performance (Keller. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 2006. 1999). In addition.gender. 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. Specifically. Bass & Avolio. 1995). Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. 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. 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. 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. 1988).
assertive.History of Leadership: An Overview Multiple leadership theories are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory that seeks to explain leadership in terms of leader and follower traits and behavior theories found to manifest from situational/contingent leadership studies. tactful. Social characteristics include being charismatic. Personality traits include being self-confident. These early leadership theories were content theories. and handsome. values. of leaders such as personality. focusing on “what” an effective leader is. The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical. or traits. and emotionally stable. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged. social. 1990). The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership. not on “how” to effectively lead. popular. tall. charming. and skills (Yukl. 2002). motives. and diplomatic. However. these studies failed to create a list of traits that would guarantee leadership success as different studies found different traits associated with leaders that became too long to be of practical significance (Yukl). and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s) Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass. Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes. energetic. cooperative. adaptable. Task-related 13 .
self-confidence. 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leader’s authority and discretion. the characteristics of the followers. Yukl (1989. Situational Theory Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the “situation” as the determinant of leadership abilities. traits were deemphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective). accepting of responsibility. Furthermore. leading to the concept of situational leadership. integrity. and being results-oriented. the nature of the work performed by the leader’s unit. 14 . Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive. 2002). Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. 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 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. the type of organization. intelligence. no leader possesses all of the traits.characteristics include being driven to excel. or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl. and cultures. levels of management. Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. and the nature of the external environment. Thus. having initiative. desire to lead.
The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. 2002). The premise of this research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). administering it to samples of individuals in the military. The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles. the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation. mental. Two factors. termed consideration and initiating structure. considerate and initiating structure. manufacturing companies. and student leaders. Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s) During the late 1940s and the 1950s. Two of the most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. or emotional traits. consistently appeared. 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 conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. Initiating structure. sometimes called task-oriented behavior. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. college administrators. The University of Michigan study classified leaders’ behaviors as being production or employee-centered (Yukl. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. 15 . As a result.
The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations. Unfortunately. recognizing subordinates accomplishments. Two of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey 16 . The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. an employee orientation and a production orientation. leadership theory in the 1960s began to focus on leadership contingencies. 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. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s.involves planning. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. 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. and providing for subordinates welfare. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. being supportive. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. organizing. As a result. and coordinating the work of subordinates.
Leader-member relations consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. and those that are motivated by relationship. 1967). those that are motivated by task. 2002). 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. Together. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the situations in which they lead. contingency theory emphasizes that a leader’s style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler. whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors. and position power.and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Yukl. these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various situations. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal. Fiedler offers two leadership styles. loyalty and attraction followers feel for their leader. 17 . It is called “contingency” because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. Contingency Theory Introduced in 1967. leader-member relations. task structure. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers.
defined tasks. and strong leader position power. empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. Employees low in competence and high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support (S1). and S4) correlate with four levels of development for followers (D1. leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard. 1993). unstructured tasks. Situational Theory The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. An effective leader adapts his style to the demands of different situations. while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or unfavorable). and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. However. D2. Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support 18 . The least favorable situations have poor leader-follower relations. Fiedler concludes that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are stable. the theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting a leader’s choice of leadership style is the taskrelated maturity of the subordinates. Four leadership styles (S1. Furthermore. D3. and D4). The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl. S2. and weak leader position power. 2002). Fiedler’s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and commitment followers have. Moderately favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. S3. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior.
Finally. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with one’s position within the organization. behavior. Origins of Transformational Leadership Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership. such as trait. Burns (1978) was one of the first to define transformational leadership. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration the follower as a whole by showing concern. employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of support and directivity (S4. being supportive. influence processes. Hersey & Blanchard. either transactional or transformational.and directivity (S2). However. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks. Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task completion and employee compliance. recognizing followers accomplishments. and situational variables (Yukl. and these leaders rely quite heavily on 19 . and providing for their welfare. Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about their commitment (D3) require a high support. The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present) Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable. Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. 1993). 2002). He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways. low-directive style (S3). Specifically. it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style. work standards. and outcomes.
or disciplinary actions. Or they are corrected by negative feedback. In contingent rewarding behavior. In contrast. When leaders engage in active management-by-exception. and individualized consideration (Bass. Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups or teams. inspirational motivation. 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. who built on Burns’s (1978) original concept of transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass. they monitor follower performance and correct followers’ mistakes. reproof. charisma or idealized influence (attributed or behavioral). 1990). Transformational leadership contains four components. Followers are motivated by the leader’s promises. Transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations. they wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands. threats. 20 .organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have transacted to do. intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership involves contingent reinforcement. Bass & Avolio. praise. and their leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing motivation. and reward. 1997. 1985. 1990. 2004). When leaders engage in passive management-byexception. Current State of Transformational Leadership Bernard Bass (1985.
Sanders. behavioral. while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum. as these multiple leadership theories 21 . maintained that the two can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to different degrees.1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e. and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them” (1990. the Initiating Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). 52). Judge & Piccolo. 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. behavior.g. the transformational leadership style is likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryant. Bass argued that transformational and transactional leadership. Hopkins & Geroy. 2004. However. 2003. 1989).. unlike Burns. thus bringing into his theoretical framework. Yukl. 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. Furthermore. endowing the subordinate’s sovereignty in problem solving. The transformational leader on the other hand may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem. The transactional leader may clarify the task structure with the “right” way to do things in a way that maintains dependence on the leader for preferred problem solutions. and situational/contingency variables. in Bass’s view. 2003. the integrative theory of leadership research. p. In addition. 76). “cognitive.
1990.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. 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. 1985. focusing on a common purpose. Followers accept leadership decisions as the best under the circumstances even if it means some individual members interests may have to be sacrificed to meet common objectives. 22 . Bennis. Leithwood & Jantzi. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. 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. the organization’s strengths. and comparative advantages. 2000). This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. weaknesses. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. However. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization.
and emphasize the importance of purpose. transformational leaders inspire the confidence. present their most important values. cooperation. 1992). transactional. in which people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass & Avolio. while at the same time winning their respect. It has also been defined as the ability to influence employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson. The transformational leadership style is characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon. & D’hoore. and willing cooperation (Plunkett.Leadership Styles Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through others. consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership. and loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur. Leaders with Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) display conviction. and individualized consideration. As well as accomplishing tasks through others. 1993). idealized influence (attributed). respect. transformational. confidence. idealized influence (behavior). take stands on difficult issues. emphasize trust. The transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors. intellectual stimulation. loyalty. Vandenberghe. commitment. and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson). and the ethical consequences of decisions. Idealized Influence (attributed) occurs when followers identify with and emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. 1993). 2000). Idealized influence (behavior) refers to leader behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them 23 . 1999). inspirational motivation. Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow. Over time. Transformational leadership.
abilities and aspirations. will-do attitude. The authors suggested that the MLQ could help to reduce the cost of manager selection and increase the chances of selecting appropriate top managers able to make followers aware of the importance and value of desired organizational outcomes because it focuses on the perception of subordinates. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as individuals. and creativity (Dixon). meticulousness. challenge followers with high standards. Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). the leader attempts to establish and agree on common ground with the staff. and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. expert resources. followed by action planning. listen attentively. and advise and coach. stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things. Leaders with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions. It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon. and beliefs. Dixon’s case study showed how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging work environment. Cannella and Monroe 24 . The first strategy described is the leader’s ability to learn the organization and build relationships with staff. traditions. and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. 1999).(Bass & Avolio. further their development. talk optimistically and with enthusiasm. awareness of internal and external customer needs. Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing vision of the future. 2004). Dixon reported five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision. Further. consider their individual needs. Second.
and management-by-exception (passive). and resist expressing views on important issues (Bass & Avolio. Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as opposed to team members. negotiate for resources. laissez-faire leaders maintain communication through a strong open door policy. clarify expectations. contingent reward. arrange mutually satisfactory agreements. Management-by-Exception (passive) leaders are leaders who fail to intervene until problems become serious and wait to take action until mistakes are brought to their attention. Laissez-faire leadership. are absent when needed. management-by-exception (active). Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions as they accomplish goals with and through others. The transactional leadership domain is comprised of three factors. Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. 1995). exchange assistance for effort. and 25 . Although they may not be close by. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor. exchange promises and resources. and enforce rules to avoid mistakes.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). fail to follow up requests for assistance. reports. and provide commendations for successful follower performance. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who monitor followers’ performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards occur. conferences. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility. Transactional leadership. laissez-faire.
it does have its place under the right circumstances. & Plemons.e. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for leaving subordinates too much to themselves.. Bass. 2008). A total of 174 usable matched reports (i. & Berson. educational. Bryant. and managers reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. & Sivasubramaniam.productivity records. proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett. health care. 2003. and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis. Bass & Avolio. Douthitt. subordinates reported about their managers. using the MLQ-360 assessment. Ellis. 2004. and commercial organizations. Jung. Yammarino. management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor subordinate performance. A research study by Dubinsky. Snodgrass. Avolio. 1992). Wade. and Spangler (1995) profiled the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey. The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. 2003. 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. Gellis. Avolio. Jolson. 2001. In addition. 2003. The 26 .
organizational perception. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. and its effect on job satisfaction. a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. demonstrated high statistical correlations that were significant in supporting the theory that transformational leadership does have positive effects on the financial bottom-line and that leadership can be measured with statistical accuracy when being able to establish appropriate benchmarks. Second. leader/unit perception. Results of this analysis support the positive correlation of transformational leadership with work unit effectiveness as results demonstrated a strong positive correlation between all components of transformational leadership in both objective and subjective measures of performance. using a sample of 275 nurses. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader).MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Third. First. The results of a study by Morrison. Fifth. the sample size must have been reported. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. Fourth. Lowe. and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings. Jones. and job satisfaction. Kroeck.
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
A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. Carless. transactional. charismatic leadership. dissertations. the more effective the team will be. Yammarino. 1996. Avolio. 1998. Comer. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . and laissez-faire leadership. and vision. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. and 1 unpublished data set).subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. communication and team performance. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. 1994. Similarly. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. 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. book chapters. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. and unpublished reports published from 1887 to 2003) the criteria used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis referenced transformational leadership as well as related terms such as charisma. 18 dissertations. & Jolson. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness. Bass. & Atwater. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. Several studies (Bass & Avolio. In total. Dubinsky.
computer services. divergent. Chew.effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is applicable across cultures. A survey study by Zhu. home appliances. absenteeism. financial services. electrical equipment. automotive parts. administered a total of 1. A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational. and criterion validity of two instruments. and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170 firms in Singapore. and electronics industries).050 questionnaires to senior HR executives and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational leadership (TL). was explored. and organizational outcomes. These 32 . and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. pulp and paper. human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM). A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies. Results found that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes. food. The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information services. the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS). transactional. textile and clothing. including subjective assessment of organizational performance. chemical. and charismatic leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in Germany. The results demonstrated that transformational leadership directly and positively predicted organizational performance of Russian companies over and beyond the impact of transactional leadership. pharmaceutical. the convergent. More specifically.
With regard to criterion validity.e.g. At least 2 employees reported to their respective leader.employees (N = 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i. transactional leadership and nonleadership.. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. satisfaction) as well as objective (e..g. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect. has been used in more than 200 research programs. supervisor) who led one of the company’s 45 branches. doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the last 10 years. trust. Leadership types. as measured on the MLQ. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several languages for use in various research projects. subjective (e. are defined as follows: 1. It represents an effort to capture the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective leaders. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The MLQ (Bass & Avolio. over and above transactional leadership. The latest version of the MLQ. Moreover. and faith 33 . Form 5X.. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviors associated with five transformational leadership measured styles as follows: a. these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational leadership. 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.
All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. c. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. c. b.94. 34 . Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .b. 2004). c. b. exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. 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. e. 2. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. d.74 to .
which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio. 2004). which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. & Mann. Transactional leadership has three scales. Transformational leadership has five individual scales. Wearing. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. transactional leadership and nonleadership. as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work. Carless. 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. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. 1995). which could lead to a possible total score of 20. Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 . Kouzes & Posner.) The MLQ has individual subtests. Carless (1998) examined gender differences in transformational leadership in a sample of 345 middle-level managers and 588 subordinates in a large Australian banking organization using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X. with four questions for each scale. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. 2000). 1995).The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. Bass & Avolio. However. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. 1990.
such as participatory decision making. as women managers higher self-assessed interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male managers. However. On the other hand. The gender differences in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors. superiors and the managers themselves rated women managers as more transformational than men managers. who have the same organizational tasks and hold similar positions in the organizational hierarchy. praising individual and team contributions. Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men leaders’ use of transformational leadership. which is what 36 . Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences were equivocal.. This hypothesis was also supported by the results of manager selfassessment in that there were no differences between men and women managers regarding the more masculine or task-oriented leadership behaviors such as innovative thinking and visionary leadership.g. it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men. do not differ in their leadership style as perceived by subordinates. and attention to individual needs. involvement of staff in decision making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender rolecongruent behaviors. results also support the hypothesis that there are gender differences in leadership style. 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.
numerous definitions. some of which are contradictory. Carless reasoned. Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer. male superiors may have had lower expectations of women managers and therefore were being more lenient in their ratings of women managers than they were in rating male managers. results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater. 2003). and to read and direct them in other people. However. & Caruso. Salovey. It is also the ability to understand and govern one’s emotions. exist. 37 . this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI. Emotional Intelligence Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990 (Vitello-Cicciu.accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated industry (Carless). Indeed. On the other hand. and some theorists argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist (Mayer. since most of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women. 2004a). EI refers to an ability to understand the meaning of emotions and their relationships and to think and engage in problem solving on the basis of emotions. it is possible that if male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates.
but interrelated. which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey. 2. Barone. 38 . Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of three distinct. From these characteristics. 1997. 3. mental processes: 1. and (d) managing emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs. argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor the emotions of oneself and others.. 2000. to distinguish among them. like that of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000). Sojka. Vitello-Cicciu. 2000). and to use emotional information as a guide for thought and actions. 2000.Defining EI Mayer and Salovey’s discussion (as cited in Tucker. (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by.. Mayer et al. 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. (c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions. Tucker et al. Weisinger’s (1998) definition of EI. & McCarthy. the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a) emotional awareness. or repressed within others. sees EI as the intelligent use of feelings. 2004a. view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes. or making one’s emotions work to the individual’s advantage by using them to help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. Mayer & Salovey. 2003). These two definitions.
(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. conceptually coherent. they hold that EI escapes definition. they claimed. Gohm. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody.. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. 2004. These issues are explored next. Mayer et al. Thus. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. is problematic. EI Controversies Mathews. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. culminating in the formation. cohesive.Although this is a clear definition. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. For this reason. and empirically valid definitions. 2004a. and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. 2004b). 39 . which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. and psychologically based definitions of EI. Mathews et al. not of empirically validated. but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. Roberts. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions. Mathews et al. and the multiple social science fields on the other. In particular. 2004. emotional intelligence.
2002). emotion is a scientifically valid. is merely the denial of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing. However.Reflecting on Mathews et al. and human beings developed a complex social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly subtle emotional responses. in these writers view. in Gohm’s view. the evolution of increasingly complex social and 40 . the size of social groups has increased steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group. and measurable construct. The denial of emotions. 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. 2004. In this view.’s (2004) argument. concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable. others (Gohm. Oatley. arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition. and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also impossible to define. physiologically evidenced. Mayer et al. 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. 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. immaterial. During the 6 million years of human evolution. based on Mandler’s argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the psychology of emotions. Massey argued.. Rather.
In this view. 2000). 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.economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the human capacity for emotional intelligence. Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. Academic and experiential learning may hone existing cognitive abilities. interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers. Massey. 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. 1986. Indeed. Massey). the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that. 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. While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White. In contrast. noted. (2004a. For example. 1986. Mayer et al. 2004b) reported. Characteristics of EI As Mayer et al. there is some consensus that general intelligence is an inherent capacity. They advocate an approach to stress reduction and avoidance of psychological burnout that includes learning to read EI levels in others and developing their own EI capacities so 41 . though an inherent capacity. its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. it a learnable skill. 2002). but they do not expand or increase them.
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
In a study by J. with African Americans scoring one third of a standard deviation above Caucasians. Van Rooy. In contrast. 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). Race/Ethnicity and EI Although the relationship between EI and gender has been investigated.(2000) theory of human values. Results of these studies. These are the test of EI 45 . and Viswesvaran (2005) found that Hispanic and African American respondents scored higher in EI than Caucasians. imply there may be differences in EI among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds due to their socialization. warned that only three EI measures may be viewed as valid. Smith (2002). intrapersonal. Rivera Cruz argued that self-confidence is the crux of the difference in women’s behavior across contexts. but almost one fifth lower than Hispanics. Alonso. Measuring EI Schutte et al. many of which have been developed by the popular press and EI hobbyists. Ethnicity has a profound effect on the life of an individual and plays a significant role in shaping a person’s sense of identity. and total EQi than Caucasian participants. (1998) noted that there were more than 60 emotional intelligence tests. E. although inconsistent. few empirical studies have compared EI scores among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. African American participants scored lower on interpersonal. possibly in regard to emotion and its regulation (J. Schutte et al. Smith). E.
2008). the ability to rationally process emotions and integrate them into the cognitive process. Mayer. which focuses on noncognitive skills (Schutte et al. 1998) which focuses on ability. the most important are the second and third competencies. as defined by Goleman (1998) is designed to measure EI skills through the analysis of feedback on individuals. the ability to 46 . For these reasons. These are the ability to perceive and identify emotions in ones self and in others. according to the publisher. 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). known as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI. Salovey. and peers. the ECI is designed as a multirater instrument and is available only to accredited users. currently in its second revised version. self-awareness. this researcher chose not to use it for this current study. According to Goleman. Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) The ECI. Bar-On. collected from superiors. & Beers. In addition.competencies. self-management. 2005). 2002) test. & Chabot. Predominantly conceived as a leadership development tool. 2007). colleagues. and social skills. measures the four primary emotional intelligence elements (Lopes. Carlsmith.). social awareness. Boyatzis. the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS. it is costly to become accredited (Hay Group. the capacity to read emotions in others and harness and manage those emotions. Côté. However. and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient (EQI. The ECI examines four areas of competency considered by Goleman to be essential to leadership capability. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The MSCEIT.
and eight Task scores as well as three Supplemental scores (Mayer et al. which this researcher was not certain he would be able to obtain. Consequently. 2002) is the preferred emotional intelligence measurement among scholars and researchers (Parker. Saklofske.91 (Mayer. based on five composite scales and 15 subscales. Bar-On. As noted by Parker et al. and the subscales have good to excellent reliability. The test has excellent reliability (r = . Petrides & Furnham. 2001). and convergent validity as well. with r’s ranging from .. Wood. It yields 15 main scores.. 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. it also produces many variables and consequently demands the use of very large sample sizes.79–.93). 2002). other measurement instruments. and most particularly the ever-evolving and constantly improving MSCEIT. The Bar-On EQi is distinguished by its use of a more rigorous definition of EI than other instruments. Bar-On EQi The Bar-On EQi (Emotional Quotient Inventory. Because the MSCEIT has so many scales. this measure was not chosen for use in the present study. & Taylor. Mayer et al. The Bar-On EQi consists of 133 self-report items and yields an overall emotional intelligence score. discriminant. provide a valid assessment of emotional intelligence skills and competencies. four Branch scores. two Area scores. however.). Eastabrook. Total EI score..understand the meaning of different types of emotions. and the ability to manage emotions and modulate them both in oneself and in others (Lopes et al. MSCEIT consists of 141 self-report items and takes 30–45 minutes to complete. 2005). (2004a) have argued that the MSCEIT has good content. The five composite 47 . 2007).
] Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations [c. and Watkin (2000). 21) The advantage that this particular measure holds over others is not simply that it is scientifically rigorous but that it is explicitly detailed. Specifically. others and life in general.] Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel [b. these are [1. As may be inferred from Petrides and Furnham (2001).] Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature [5.] Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life [b.] Intrapersonal (emotional awareness of self) [a.] Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others [3.] Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others [e. (Bar-On.] Happiness: To feel content with oneself.] Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself [d.] Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship) [a.scales examine interpersonal and intrapersonal.] Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions [b.] Stress Management (emotional management and regulation) [a. (2005). and general mood capabilities (Petrides & Furnham.] Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential [2. Bar-On EQi allows researchers to identify the weight of each variable in the EI construct and to measure the 48 . Parker et al. p. 2006. 2001).] Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions [c.] General Mood (self-motivation) [a.] Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality [b. adaptability.] Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control motions [4.] Self-Regard: To accurately perceive. stress management.] Adaptability (change management) [a. understand and accept oneself [b.] Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others [c.
Colbert. Wong & Song. This enables researchers to attain greater insight into. 2004. general mental ability was found to be the most consistent factor that significantly influenced an individual’s ability to fake the noncognitive measures. the nature of EI and its development over time. the value of EI lies in the hypothesized relationship between it and leadership skills and potential. Mandell & Pherwani. and understanding of. The study used a sample of 235 undergraduates from a southeastern university who completed a battery of selection and assessment measures in two conditions. honest and faking good.” EI has been identified as an important 49 . or reply in a socially acceptable manner (Grubb. Grubb’s research examined the fakability of two self-report measures. Kobe. Judge. Moreover. Reiter-Palmon & Rickers. & Ilies. Law. research has also indicated that. An important component in the fakability of a measure was the cognitive difficulty of the items. with more transparent and simple items being more fakable. Smith and McDaniel’s (1998) Work Problems Survey.” and by contemporary ones as “emotional intelligence. Bar-On’s (2002) EQi:S and K. Results showed that the noncognitive tests were most easily faked. 2004. like many self-report inventories. Referred to by earlier scholars as “social intelligence. 2001. the EQi may not be reliable if respondents seek to fake good.import of each set and subset in it. a situational judgment test. and researchers have theorized a positive correlation between an emotional or social intelligence and leadership skills and potentialities (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. 2003. However. and that the EQi:S was the most fakable. C. 2003). EI and Leadership Within the field of leadership and management studies. 2003).
The idea of social intelligence denotes a well-defined set of abilities and competencies. Law et al. 2003).. boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike. 2001. 2004. 2003). There is considerable scholarly consensus that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.. 2003. Mandell & Pherwani.. Social intelligence was identified in the 1920s as “the ability to understand and manage men and women. From the sociological perspective. as cited in Kobe et al.).. leadership is seen by management and psychology scholars as being based on social intelligence (Kobe et al. or to motivate others to adopt one’s path and policies as their own (Mandell & Pherwani. and mutual benefits. While some scholars have regarded the two constructs as interchangeable. According to Mandell and Pherwani. 2003). including the ability to indirectly impose one’s will on others. 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. 155). 2001. Judge et al.. Kobe et al. In addition. others have maintained there is a distinction between them (Kobe et al. 2004. p. relationships. the leadership construct is composed of a leader or leaders and followers who are interlinked through a network of social exchanges.ingredient of leadership.). It is included as a component of the leadership construct because leadership is a particular form of social relationship. Mandell & Pherwani. This suggests that the core components or characteristics of the leadership construct are emotional and social intelligence (Judge et al. As a social phenomenon. social intelligence further embraces the ability 50 .
EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. However. social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. Rather. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership.to inspire the support. they argue. Kobe et al. According to Judge et al. As Law et al. (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. This is an important distinction. along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. (2004) argued. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. EI taken by itself cannot function as the sole basis of leadership since the latter is fundamentally social rather than exclusively emotional in character. 2003. trust. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. leaders are created by followers. Judge 51 . (2004). stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. loyalty. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. as further contended by Law and colleagues. Thus. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani).
and can communicate his or her feelings to others and incite parallel emotions (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). Dearborn. arouse similar feelings in team members. such as anger and pessimism.. they have emotional intelligence). On the other hand. The theory of the EI–Leadership connection comes from the hypothesized relationship between superior performance and the management of emotions. 2002). 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. Kobe et al. They adduce evidence from organizational and management studies which concluded that leaders who display positive emotions to subordinates. the leader’s expressed emotions are reflected in subordinates. The reason for this is that the emotionally intelligent individual is able to put himself or herself in the emotional place of others. cohesive organization or work team (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. In other words. 52 .. 2001. enthusiasm. can relate the emotions he or she experiences to the emotions that others experience. leaders who display negative emotions. 2004. such as support. In short.et al. Mandell & Pherwani. so that the effective leader manages his or her own emotions for the purpose of managing the emotions of subordinates. thereby are reducing their ability to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively (Ashkanasy & Dasborough). prompt feelings of anxiety in team members and subordinates. and optimism. 2003). Such individuals are capable of running an effective and efficient.. 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. Law et al.
However. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. However. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. 2002) was used to measure EI. & McRae. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. Costa.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness. leadership style.. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. 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. Ferris. the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence. 2003a. 2003b). According to Antonakis (2003). Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI.. For example. Bass & Avolio. Douglas. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. 2002) argued. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. Ammeter. Prati.g. & Buckley. and others (Dearborn. as Prati et al.
EI and all full-range leadership styles from leaders’ perceptions were found to have a significant predictive relationship. whereas external self-concept was associated with 54 . external self-concept on the relationship between EI and full-range leadership style using a sample of 146 self-identified leaders and 649 raters. Another criticism of the EI–leadership connection is that what evidence that does exist is based on self-report. as Prati et al. internal self-concept was associated with transformational leadership over and above EI. the extraverted and intuitive cognitive style was associated with transformational leadership over and above emotional intelligence. 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. Specifically. 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. transformational leadership. Mandell & Pherwani. Law et al. and outcomes of leadership from leaders’ perceptions. That is. However.. with cognitive style adding significantly to the variance in the relationship between EI. this does not mean that the relationship is not a real one... Judge et al. (2003a) point out. These findings contradict the theory that EI predicts leadership. Indeed. 2004. 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. 2003. 2001. 2003). 2004.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.
leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. Specifically. 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. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. Regarding raters perceptions. and management tenure 55 . Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. 2005). 2003). and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. subordinate and supervisor ratings of job performance (Byron. Using performance ratings and demographic data. 2003). These are reviewed as follows. coping (Purkable. contingent reward leadership. Leadership. gender.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. 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. 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. and manager success (Hopkins. title. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. with mixed results. EI. with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. 2003). Position. contingent reward leadership. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks.
and SelfConfidence.were not significantly related to the EI of the sample. In addition to the MSCEIT. leadership practices. leadership practices. Results showed that total MSCEIT scores were associated with two leadership practice subscales. and coping mechanisms. as well as with the coping mechanisms problem analysis and problem solving. had a positive association with the leadership practices leading the way for others and encouraging others. total MSCEIT score was positively associated with leading the way for others and negatively associated with emotional discharge. Inspirational Leadership. the less probable it is that they will engage in dramatic emotional displays as a way of coping. There were also significant relationships among the MSCEIT subscores. MSCEIT subscore 4. This suggests that the greater an executive’s ability to use emotions to support thought and understands emotions. Specifically. regulation of emotion in self and others for emotional and intellectual growth. MSCEIT subscore 2 (emotional facilitation of thinking) and 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a negative association with the coping mechanism emotional discharge. and whether men and women executives differed in EI. measures included the Leadership Practices Inventory and the Coping Response Index. 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. and coping mechanisms. Subscore 3 (understanding and analyzing emotions) had a positive association with cognitive 56 . EI ratings by total others were greater than selfreported EI. In each of these areas. Emotional Self-Control. Comparisons of the self—versus total others ratings—showed that managers tended to underestimate their abilities in four ECI dimensions. Influence.
Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. Results 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. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. leadership styles. but not male. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. Specifically. 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. 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. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. and success. 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 . The study used self and other ratings of EI. 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. As noted previously.
1988). results are equivocal regarding whether women or men are more transformational (Eagly & Johnson.. Hater & Bass. pacesetting and coaching leadership styles)..g. 2004. as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Kobe et al. 2003. Schutte et al. Law et al. 1998). 1998. individual achievement-oriented behaviors. demonstrating gender role-congruent competencies related to developing others has a negative effect upon women’s success. showing a combination of gender role-congruent and incongruent behaviors (e. 2001. to be successful. 2003.g. 2004. with men who exercise gender role-incongruent leadership styles (e. Women leaders. must behave more androgynously. there is evidence that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass. Judge et al. 1990. but are rewarded when they exhibit gender role-congruent. Mandell & Pherwani) or if observed gender differences in the expression of this leadership style vary with context or rater perception (Carless. The leadership styles of successful men and women are also different. successful male leaders also showed a wide range of EI competencies. an affiliative or a democratic leadership style) being unsuccessful. 1998). Goleman. 58 . In addition.Although the concept of a successful woman leader includes a wide range of EI competencies.. 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. On the other hand.. on the other hand. Mandell & Pherwani. 1997. However...
. The latter findings are supported by J. there is evidence to suggest that social context (i. 59 . 1999. Petrides & Furnham. 2007). 2000. Thus. Mandell & Pherwani. Moreover. 1998) or score higher on some subscales of EI measures than others (Burton et al. as with transformational leadership style.e. Does EI predict transformational leadership style.. Smith’s (2002) and Van Rooy et al.. E. Schutte et al. there is scope for a study that looks in detail at the possible linkages among the various subcomponents of EI and transformational leadership. 2003). and (a) if so. 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. Mandell & Pherwani. the overall research question of this study can be expressed as follows.’s (2005) studies. 2000. findings which suggest that culture may play a role in the expression of EI. 2004). research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman.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. However. and (b) are these relationships stable across the genders? The next chapter of the study describes the research methods used to answer this question. Hay/McBer. To summarize. Further. which showed different patterns of EQi scores for different ethnic groups.. research evidence is mixed regarding whether women or men are more generally emotionally intelligent (Mayer et al. are there strong predictive relationships between EI subcomponents and transformational leadership subcomponents. 1998.
sample selection. between components of the Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and facets of Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). if any. and concludes with the findings hypothesized in the research questions. 1999).CHAPTER 3. nonexperimental research design with this method being characterized by the use of a sample of convenience without a comparison or control group. This research also investigated gender differences in the relationship between EI and TLS. recruiters. Cross-sectional statistical procedures such as correlation. the online services such as Jigsaw Data Corp. METHODOLOGY Research Design This exploratory study was implemented using a quantitative. Target Population After researcher identified potential organizational participants through the use of public records provided by the Small Business Administration. The aim of quantitative research is to determine how one variable affects another in a given sample (Cohen & Swerdlik. an online business contact marketplace where marketers. Initial contact was made by the researcher to present a 60 . The remainder of this chapter describes the target population.. using e-mail communications. data collection instruments and study variables. and regression analysis were utilized to examine the predictive relationship. and any public contact information retrieved from Internet search engines such as Google. and sales professionals may purchase business contact information. data analysis. procedures used in addressing the research questions.
and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. food and beverage. ranging in size from small to large. 2004). Senior. and a host of other business and service providers. legal services. market. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. and the use of U. e-mail. Selection of Participants Selection of potential participants were personnel in leadership management positions within their respected professions identified by their organizational gatekeepers assigned to researcher according to professional titles to include Founder/Owner. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop.S. advertising and marketing. nonprofit.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. For the purpose of this research 61 . Executives. phone. The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. financial services. Variables Dependent Variable Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) served as the dependent or criterion variable in this study and was measured using the MLQ 5x assessment (MLQ). and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. three constructs of transactional leadership. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. health care.
the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). The Bar-On model of EI is comprised of five components: (a) Intrapersonal. 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). (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). Demographic Variables In order to control for the mediating effects of gender and/or age. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). (d) Stress Management. 2002). (c) Adaptability.study. and (e) General Mood (Bar-On. Obtaining this type of data facilitated the examination of whether the relationship between the use of EI and TLS differs for males and females. 62 . (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). as well as their ethnicity and income level. (b) Interpersonal. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. In brief.
81 to . 2. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. 2004): 1. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. mentoring and growth opportunities. principles. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. and display a sense of power and confidence. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. 4.53 to . Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). 3.85. with a strong sense of purpose. The testretest reliabilities ranged from .96. 5. 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. 2004) and was based on data from 2. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. respected and trusted. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. and values.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio.
coefficients for each leadership factor. and dividing them by the number of subcomponents (5) in order to obtain the summed TLS mean score. The MLQ is scored by adding all factors to get a transformational. therefore. once in a while = 1. For example. Mean TLS scores are then obtained by totaling the five TLS subcomponent scores. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) is a self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence normed on approximately 4. or frequently. if not always = 4. if not always). to understand and relate well with others. fairly often = 3. Being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses an array of emotional and social abilities. The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) The Bar-On model of Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the potential for performance and success. rather than performance or success itself. sometimes = 2. consisting of four items each. for the purpose of this study only TLS scores were used. all of the data reflect scales/items representing the TLS construct described earlier. 2002). including the ability to effectively understand and express ourselves. 2004). transactional and laissez-faire score for each participant (Bass & Avolio. and to successfully cope with daily demands.” The possible responses to these items are not at all = 0.000 respondents from the United 64 . However.73 to . and is considered process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented (Bar-On.94 (Bass & Avolio). 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. challenges and pressures. All of the MLQ responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently. The coefficients ranged from .
Independence.75 (n = 27. 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).. and Problem Solving. 2002). MHS Inc. Flexibility. Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. and their associated subcomponents. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. Emotional Self-Awareness. 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. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components. 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 Interpersonal Relationship. (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. Bar-On.85 (n = 44) and . respectively. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. Social Responsibility. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. 65 .States and Canada.0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. Version 12. and Self-Actualization. 2002). were reported as . Assertiveness. to obtain a Total EQ. and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness.
education level. 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 held in current position. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. the criteria needed to be met for participation. the expected time of completion. age. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. title best describing the respondent’s current position. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. Intial contact was made by researcher using an e-mail “Invitation to Participate in Leadership Research” that introduced researcher. race/ethnicity.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. and number of direct reports under supervision. researcher then approached the respected organizational gatekeepers to help identify personnel appropriate for research and the required data needed to solicit potential participants via e-mail. the risk and benefits of participation. industry. years employed by current organization. using the services provided by WebSurveyor Corpration researcher contracted with to develop researchers personal online research site. the purpose of research. In this current study all online survey responses. 66 .
Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent.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). and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. 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. 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 . click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. 2. the MLQ assessment. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. individual data were not made available.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent.
HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H04: There will be no 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. 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.3. 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. 68 .
a Demographic Questionnaire [Appendix]. were collected using the secure online services of WebSurveyor Corporation. 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. e-mail comunications providing these data were deleted.e. leaving researcher with the Excel 2 Header Row file. which was password protected and under the lock and key of researchers private office 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. Once these data were collected by e-mail or pen/paper for data input into researchers private computer as an Excel file. which researcher contracted with and had specifically designed for researcher having sole access. This was the only data collected that could link participants identity/confidentiality which was at the very core of ethical conduct for the researcher/practioner.. the MLQ. 69 . Data Collection and Storage The following survey data required for statistical analysis to achieve intended research objectives (i. and pen/paper copies were shredded. Once Capella’s Institutional Review Board granted approval for researcher to proceed with data collection. and the Bar-On EQi). 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.
This was done to help maintain anonymity and confidentiality of participants according to American Psychological Association (APA. and only captured these data after clicking on “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. after submitting consent. In addition. All data collected were pooled for analysis. Completed surveys responses were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site until retrieved by researcher for analysis.” which was automatically generated to appear after completing the MLQ assessment prior to. which was password protected with researcher having sole access as well. 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. and required.This file was then exported and downloaded to researchers WebSurveyor site. Potential participants who opted to “Decline” participation. 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). before starting the last portion assessing EQi which participants were asked to use in place of names for purposes of participants confidentiality. 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. naked to the participants eye. with no specific individual’s scores being identified or revealed in any way. participants were presented with the option to receive a summary copy of the overall research findings. 70 . 2006) ethical standards.
g. 72). These included statistical tests of mean group differences such as. gender) on the components of the dependent variable was performed. p. Analyses examining group differences (e.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. p. correlational analyses was performed to examine the inter-relationships among all the components of the dependent variables to determine whether any of these 71 . as appropriate.. p. 65). p. Means and standard deviations were generated for each of the continuous or scaled variables. 2005. along with the same type of analyses examining the relationship between selected key demographic variables (gender and age) and the independent variables (Field. Finally. outliers. Reliability coefficients were produced for the sample using Cronbach’s alpha (Field. t tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. When necessary. 94). missing and out-of. 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. log or other transformations of the variable in question were performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field.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. examining the zero-order correlations between the components of the dependent variable and the independent variable. 2005. Errors in scoring/data entry. This was followed by univariate analyses. 2005. 667). 571). and frequencies and percentages obtained for the categorical demographic variables. p.
as well as to control for the effects of gender. the nature and strength of that association. In addition. 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.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. p. 72 . 170). 2005. age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. 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. p. 160). it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. and. if so.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. As previous research. while not substantial. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1.CHAPTER 4. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . 2. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.
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. 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. and if so. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. 74 . 4. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 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. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. the nature and strength of that association. 3.
log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field. 2005. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. 75 . p. or scaled variables. outliers. 65). p. If necessary.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. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. as appropriate. 2005.g. (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. 72). p. 94). using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. missing and out-of.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. Exploratory data analysis was performed first to determine the normality of the distributions of the variables and to detect the presence of skew in any of them (Field.. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. Errors in scoring/data entry. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS.
2 5.2 2. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.9 6.1 25.7 20.5 4.9 12.7 10.7 5.4 3.8 5.8 1.0 11.8 2.9 3.3 8.5 5.8 3.2 12.1 11.1 10.6 76 .1 22.Table 1.7 7.4 19.1 39.2 55.7 5.7 29.5 45.4 24.6 16.
000 15 9.3 20.7 16. maximum age 67. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately. SD = 8. Minimum age 24.6 Between $100–150.000 55 34.8 More than $150. East Asian.000 23 14.9 1. American Indian. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.8 Between $70–100.7 34.1 32.000 17 10.000 44 27.0 2. N = 158. 77 .5 1.2 10.9 65.Table 1.5 __________________________________________________________ Note. **Includes Pacific Islander.7 Current income Less than $40.5 4.9 2.4 8.25 85. Arabic or other.9 10.1 9.9 12.70.7 2.3 12.7 31. 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 32.20).8 Between $40–70.
this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education.4%. from between 3–6 to more than 16. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). 78 . Most respondents earned from $40. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. n = 121) in a private. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.95 years of college education. 25.2%. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree.6%.1%. The sample of the population in this study has an average. or mean of 3. In terms of supervision responsibilities. for-profit organization.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry.000–$100. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.4%. and a median of 5. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.6%. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. n = 135) male (60. However.000 per annum (49. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. n = 103). Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). Notably. Addressing racial diversity. n = 72).7%.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.32 subordinates. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. n = 106). the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.15 direct reports. n = 78).
This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. The mean age of the subjects is 48.63 (SD = 12. Interpersonal.49 (SD = 14.49).41). 79 .The age demographic was a little more normally distributed.05). Intrapersonal. Adaptability. 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. EQi component scores were.86 (SD = 13. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.77 years. Total EQi Score. 107. As far as income.730. 102. Stress Management. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates.85). 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. 105.900 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. Summed TLS Score. in descending order. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105.01).97 (SD = 13.65 years. 105. and General Mood Components. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.00). For the income this is going to be most apparent. the mean income was $68.02 (SD = 13. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. with a nearly identical median of 48. 103. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58.02 (SD = 13.
04 12. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.54 103.41 12.19 13. 80 .02 105.61 102.21 105.63 103.46 102.49 13.85 12.41 106.86 106. N = 157.44 13.97 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.67 13.62 13.Table 2.60 14.36 Total EQi Score 105.05 14.31 103.02 102.45 13.70 13.61 105.52 103.66 101.01 13.66 14.86 12.00 12.17 104. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.28 103.49 103.74 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 107.63 103.73 12.64 107.93 13.
59 0. Intellectual Stimulation.08 (SD = 0. 2004). Inspirational Motivation.S.53).09 3. 3. 3.Table 3.16 (SD = 0. 2.52). 3.99 (SD = 0. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.63 0.59).26 3. 3.18 (SD = 0.59).58 0.08 3.35 3.13 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Individualized Consideration.35 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Mind Garden.59).63).57).52.59 Note.09 (SD = 0.57). Inspirational Motivation. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).95 (SD = 0.57 0.58). N = 157. and Intellectual Stimulation. which are as follows.96 (SD = 0. TLS component scores were. 3. Individualized Consideration. 3. 2.13 3.57 0. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. 81 . 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. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.59).18 SD 0.04 (SD = 0. 2. Idealized Influence (Behavior). in descending order.26 (SD = 0.
96 3. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.35 SD 0. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. Norm group** M 3.S. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .59 0.e.02 2. or scaled variables.52 0.59 0. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.99 3.95 2. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. 2001).59 0. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.59 0. TLS Component Scores: U. of a distribution (i.57 0.16 SD 0.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.26 3.52 M 3. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives. **N = 3. or symmetry.09 3.Table 4.04 2.55 0.08 3.375.18 3. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.63 0.58 0. Group Norms vs. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.13 3.53 0. Skew represents the even-ness.. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).
06.83.67. Intellectual Stimulation = –. (b) Interpersonal = . (a) MLQ 5 = 2.83. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. (c) Stress Management = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . with skew > +/–2. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. 83 . (b) MLQ 23 = –2.64. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary.63. and (e) General Mood = .24.70. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .78. but normally distributed.66.85.67. (d) Adaptability = .40.61.76. and not individual MLQ items.80.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. and (c) 9.09.73. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . 2001). and Individualized Consideration = –1. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2.16.0. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. Inspirational Motivation = –. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . (b) 6.18. Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbach’s alpha (α) was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . the decision was made to keep them in their original form. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . respectively.49.0. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.
52* .44* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.05.23* .46* IM . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.37* .30* . General Mood IIA . 84 . N = 158.37* . Intrapersonal 2. a p < .05). IS = Intellectual Stimulation. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. IM = Inspirational Motivation. To address the first research question. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). Pearson’s r was obtained.41* .31* . Adaptability 5.01.37* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.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. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.19 a .28* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.32* IC . Stress Management 4.40* .44* .33* .29* .37* IIB . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).36* . Table 5.35* .59* IS . Interpersonal 3.40* .48* .25* . *p < . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. The significance level was set at (α = .43* Note.
05. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . Results are shown in Table 6. All correlations were in the positive direction. p < . The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIa—correlations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components.59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). 85 .05).Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. Inspirational Motivation (r = . (c) Self-Actualization (r = . Most of the correlations ranged between .16. which was still significant at p < . at r = .50. using the same Procedure Correlations. (b) Happiness (r = .51. EQi component scores also increased. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed.20 and . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.001). With one exception.23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .05).23 or higher. p < .19. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. with (α = . p < . which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. p < .001) and Inspirational Motivation. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.59.001).45.
31* .30* .01. and IC = Individualized Consideration.43* .35* .33* .33* .24* .36* .33* .25* IC . Interpersonal Relationships 9.32* .31* IIB .27* .28* .31* .28* .16 a .11 (ns) .15 (ns) . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1. Self-Awareness 3.32* . Optimism 15.30* . Problem Solving 14.26* .15 (ns) . Reality Testing 12. All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.24* . Independence 5.50* . p ≥ .34* . Flexibility 13. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). Social Responsibility 8.23* .46* .43* .17 a . N = 157.51* IS .40* .43* .32* .37* . Impulse Control 11.24* .19 a . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.Table 6.39* IM .24* .44* .36* .38* .30* .03 (ns) .38* .37* . Empathy 7.33* .40* .39* . ap < .37* . Stress Tolerance 10.35* .26* . 86 . Self-Regard 2.13 (ns) .44* .34* .36* .36* Note.37* . Happiness IIA .33* .25* .38* . Self-Actualization 6.37* .48* .40* .40* .23* .16 (ns) .45* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).33* .12 (ns) .45* .37* .21* .59* . *p < .29* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.05 (ns = nonsignificant.05). Assertiveness 4.
Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell.001). All correlations were in the positive direction. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . 2001). 2005. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis.While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . p < . This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable.001). 170). p. In summary. EQi component scores also increased. which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. 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. This is a potentially serious issue.24. Correlations 87 .30. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. p < . and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . p < . A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than .001). since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents.26.
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. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.72. Therefore.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.01).90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).01). p < .64.90. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ.01). Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. 88 . multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component.82. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. However. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .71. p < . p < . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. based on the . this intercorrelation is to be expected.
41* .74* .60* .43* .00 1.66* .00 .39* .00 . Interpersonal Relationship .56* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . Social Responsibility 8.42* .43* .51* .47* .58* .61* .00 1.71* .40* .26* .32* .32* .50* .52* .25* .35* .41* . Assertiveness 4.59* .39* .36* 9.33* .47* .47* . Empathy 89 7.30* .58* .43* .42* .49* .36* .47* 1.00 .24* .00 .Table 7.50* .00 .53* .00 1.82* .55* .38* .43* .50* .51* .42* .64* .62* .60* . Self-Actualization 6.55* .51* 1. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1. Problem Solving 12.61* .00 .55* .55* .43* 1.20* .53* 15 .53* 1.37* .50* .28* .45* 1.00 1.50* 1.40* . Flexibility 11.25* .54* .50* .60* .52* .55* . Independence 5.23* .41* .36* .61* .23* .37* .37* .15* .42* .51* .61* .42* .50* .60* .40* .16* . Impulse Control .72* .32* .65* .33* .40* .40* .27* .59* .38* .00 . Self-Regard 2. Stress Tolerance 13.15* .39* .00 1.32* Subcomponent 1.66* . Self Awareness 3.56* .52* . Reality Testing 10.60* .00 1.42* .
bns = nonsignificant. N = 157.Table 7. Happiness Note.64* 1.00 Subcomponent 14.00 15 .01. 90 . Optimism 15. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. a p < . *p < .05.
00 5 . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.01.015). Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.00 3 . to a minimal extent. N = 157.00 2 . The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Intellectual Stimulation 5. and. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. followed by General Mood (R2change = .72* 1. Results are shown in Table 9. *p < .57* 1. Stress Management at Step 3. General Mood and 91 . Stress Management at Step 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. Results are shown in Table 9.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Inspirational Motivation 4. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. 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.60* . 1 1. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.59* . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.62* .287).64* 1.55* .00 4 .Table 8.019). the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Individualized Consideration Note.54* . Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. Overall.61* .58* 1. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .
320 at Step 5.25 2.66 3. nor Adaptability.008 . In summary. N = 157.034 4. R2 = .66** . R2 = . **p < .04 . Table 9.24 .162 .01.015 .Interpersonal components. Neither Stress Management. F change R2change .301 at Step 2.V.07 . R2 = .000 . entered at Step 3.069 2. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).32 .87 .000 . *p < .000 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.033 –. † TLS Summed = D.301 at Steps 3 and 4. 92 .287 .85 .04* 62.073 –. R2 = . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.316 –0.019 Note. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. entered at Step 4. the EQi Intrapersonal.25 .728 –0. 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.287 at Step 1.05.
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
An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.48 104.16 0. 96 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.50 2. *p < .05.75 12.21 14. bn = 62. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.44 2. *p < . Males scored a mean of 0.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. bn = 62.Table 12.97 0.05. a difference which was significant at p < .05. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. Table 13.67 2. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.
64. SD = 14. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. females: M = 106. Descriptive statistics. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest).77. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents.08. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. respectively. SD = 14. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. Interestingly.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. These data are presented in Table 14. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. 97 .
97 15.14 15.74 15.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.34 12. N = 157. 13).74 11.08 11.09 109.68 14.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102. As a group.23 13.75 13. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.37 12.84 11.33 105. Empathy (4 vs.47 104.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.40 14.63 13.34 102.57 13.50 109.28 (14) 100.77 102. *n = 95.43 11. Self-Actualization (9 vs.53 12. 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. 11).50 12.55 13.18 14.92 102.61 104.27 11.80 106.89 103.72 101.64 109.78 13.76 106.37 105.07 14.93 13.37 14.41 11.80 14.26 103.21 105.99 107. **n = 62.92 13.19 12.48 13.01 103.70 13.56 102.16 103.Table 14.06 102. Social Responsibility 98 .80 102.17 103.24 104.62 103.67 103.
a difference which was significant at p < . Self-Regard (8 vs.97 109. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.99 M 99. *p < .91a 2. (2 vs.18 14. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. 12). and Flexibility (6 vs. 13).11 107. As a group.(5 vs.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs.42* Note. n = 62. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).01.07 14. p = .26 Females SD 13. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. 12).74 15.36** 1.86 11. n = 95.07* 3. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. 10).67 SD 11.80 11.01. They also scored higher on the 99 .39 109.74 t 2.21 105.01 102. among others.05. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. Table 15. 15). Assertiveness. 15).80 102. Independent-samples t test.05.57 12. Females. Males scored a mean of 7. 10). Males. a Marginally significant. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. **p < .
of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. 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. As a follow-up. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. and independence (R2 change =.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. but did not predict TLS for males. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender.41) subcomponents. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.11) than did females (M = 105. and the only one that predicted TLS in males.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 .08). Specifically. all of which were significant at p < . or combination. They also scored 4.13). were important predictors of TLS in females. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. Further. Regression analyses. To summarize.05.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.
**p < .55 –. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.81 1.010 .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.011 Note.190 .022 .19 .99** .669 3.000 .261 at Step 1. R2 (adj) = .001 .097 .606 .269 .01.378 at Step 3.04 2..73 .088 –.85 .e.263 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .255 at Step 2.098 12.000 .73 1.24 14. 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. Table 16.67 –1.08 .253 at Step 2.755 . R2 (adj) = .268 7.379 at Step 4.302 .18 .001 . R2 (adj) = .248 at Step 3. N = 157.12 2.002 .131 .176 at Step 1. F change R2change .989 34. 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.21 –.45 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .02 . bFor males: R2 (adj) = . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales). R2 (adj) = .05 .167 1. R2 (adj) = . It was thus decided that using 101 .41 .63** .
the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen.e. 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. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components. categorical variables (low.0%. The highest percentages of males (53..and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. 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. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed).7%. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i. To do this. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.e. Categorical variables. and exactly one half of females (50. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.7%.. Finally. More than one half of males (53. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. the three highest TLS component scores).
4 50.4 50. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.3 46. *n = 95. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.6 49. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.5 40. Comparison of Low.2 56. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .4 54.5 59.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51. **n = 62. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.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.7 53.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.7 51.6%.1 45.7 53.5 53. The highest percentage of females (59.1 50.7 47.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53. The highest percentage of males (52.3 52. N = 157. the highest percentage of females (54.3 48. Table 17.8%.5 46.(Behavior).3 46.8 43. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).7%.
93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .12 110.68 12.15 10. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.88 11.66 114.28 11.51 111.29 SD 14.30 10.66 11. Once this subsample was selected. Table 18. Secondly.00 9.98 111.64 112. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.09 10.14 11.91). The three highest means for males and females are displayed first. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.85 12.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.76 110. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.45 112.11 11. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.55 114. First.04 16.11 113.50 114.83 111.75 9.24 111.92 111.00 112.75 10. 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.
15 108.25 104.39 9.44 9.28 107.03 7.84 11.64 9.Table 18.55 12.23 106.90 103.55 12.62 107.12 10.51 7.42 109.53 109.38 14.40 12.39 M 110.73 9.92 105.41 8.50 11.28 110.26 112.50 11.07 14.13 107.51 107.22 108.56 SD 10.50 107.13 111.86 105. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Independence Social Responsibility Empathy Females’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Behavior) Independence Self-Actualization Social Responsibility Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Problem Solving Independence Problem Solving Reality Testing Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Social Responsibility Impulse Control Problem Solving Impulse Control Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Impulse Control Social Responsibility Problem Solving 104.71 106.23 108.21 11.68 10.17 9.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .15 104.55 11.36 13.18 109.22 13.20 9.28 108.
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.73 10.79 105.33 M 104.06 12.4 102.09 104.42 9.57 104.82 105.96 105.77 101.75 104.14 105.26 105.41 10.06 13. (b) Assertiveness.20 11.59 14.03 102.50 105.Table 18.78 103. (c) Independence.66 10.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.47 12.85 14.89 11.56 105.43 11.90 12.12 10.50 SD 10.68 106.81 17.27 14.67 10.35 103.63 12.86 12.01 8. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .65 103.00 103. 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 102.66 104.
and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components.across the five TLS components. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. In summary. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. Independent subsamples t test. Assertiveness. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. 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. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Impulse Control.05.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents.05. Males scored 107 . Males scored a mean of 5. (c) Social Responsibility. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . (b) Independence. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. (b) Happiness. Females scored a mean of 4. (d) Empathy. a difference which was significant at p < . (d) Problem Solving. however. (b) Social Responsibility. While males scored 5.
however. n = 51. Table 19.09 108.43 104. categorical variables (low. 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.57 M 107. Subsample N = 82.05.e.and high-scoring) 108 . who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).05. Males. Categorical variables. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1.43 t 1.16 Females SD 13.00 14.. 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. n = 31.61 106. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. Females.78 8. To do this. a Marginally significant. *p < . p = .04* Note. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.80 SD 10.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.33 111.01* 2. EQi.05 10.96 10.94a –2.
5% (n = 35) of females did so.1%.3%. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. The highest percentages of males (61. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. n = 32). More than one half of males (53.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. However.0%. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. Interestingly. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. Once the subsample was selected. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. Then. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. again based on each EQi subcomponent. The highest percentage of females (61. followed by 59. The highest percentage of males (50.97). the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. 109 .7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control.6%. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures.5%.
5 54.7 51.8 50.1 55.8 High % 38.2 41. **n = 62.0 45.1 54.7 54.5 45.5 43.9 43.5 46.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total *n = 95.0 54.9 44.9 43.8 45.4 45.2 50.5 59.5 56.7 44.8 44.2 45.1 56.5 40.3 45.0 52.5 53.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.2 50. Comparison of Low.2 56.8 42.7 47.9 44.5 46.8 50.9 45.1 55.4 53.8 54.5 53.Table 20.8 38.1 56.2 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 % 61.8 43.6 54.2 57.0 47.8 49. Female** High Low % 53.2 55.3 55.8 58.3 52.6 46.3 48.2 61.0 110 .2 51.8 38.2 55.2 61.0 51.0 48.
5 3.48 0.54 0.47 3.52 3.49 3.55 SD 0.58 3.47 0.37 0.49 0.57 0.60 0.51 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.61 3.51 3. 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 3.53 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.49 0.37 3.47 0.55 3.52 0.47 0.43 111 .55 3.54 0.49 3. Table 21.52 3. followed by the lowest mean.48 3.55 3.
30 0.38 3.40 0.51 3.39 0.55 3.6 M 3.42 3.39 0.45 0.37 3.22 3.34 0.Table 21.45 3.35 3.49 0.37 0.41 3.36 3.21 0.45 0.51 3.44 3.35 112 .37 3.42 0.46 3.37 0.36 0.44 0.40 0.43 SD 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 3.42 3.37 0.
08 3.24 3.14 0.59 0.61 0.18 3.6 0.19 3.25 3.58 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 3.2 3.51 0.51 0.57 0.43 0.22 3.45 113 .15 3.57 0.53 M 3.21 3.57 0.28 3.61 0.2 3.22 3.5 0.58 0.Table 21.24 SD 0.24 3.53 0.1 3.52 0.2 3.
06 2.95 3.11 3. Empathy.02 3.11 3.63 0.21 3.59 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 . with the exceptions of Independence.6 0.62 0.58 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed M 3.05 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.16 3.68 0.63 0.57 Descriptive statistics.08 SD 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.55 0.49 0.14 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. Optimism and Happiness.13 3.Table 21. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.67 0.
Table 22. The final step in the analysis was to perform an independent-samples t test on the subsample of high-scoring (EQi) males and females (N = 87) to determine whether their scores on the five TLS components differed significantly.57 M 106. Females.05.04* M 111.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. Idealized Influence (Behavior). Males. Independent subsamples t test. a Marginally significant.05. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. 115 .80 Males scored 0.43 t 2. p = .05.Motivation. n = 33. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. n = 54. a difference which was significant at p < . 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. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.16 SD 14. Females SD 10. *p < . Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. In summary.
as these factors are considered critical in inspiring employees and building strong relationships required for organizational retention (Malek. 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. Schutte et al. 2000.CHAPTER 5. Goleman. The research also suggests that effective transformational leaders must possess multiple social and emotional intelligences (Bass & Avolio. Hater & Bass. The primary purpose was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). 1998. 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. 1998). Limitations and recommendations for further study are also discussed. 1990.. 116 . CONCLUSIONS. followed by the researcher’s concluding thoughts. including research methodology. 1997. pertinent background information from previous chapters of this study are brought forth and briefly summarized. These findings are discussed. RESULTS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this final chapter. as is the contribution of this study to the field of leadership assessment in I/O Psychology. 1988). 1998. Goleman. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold.
In fact. 80% of the U. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. 1999).S Department of Labor. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. 2007). 30% of women earned medical degrees. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. professional. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. Over the next decade. workforce is growing in its diversity. with women currently representing 50. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. Hay/McBer.S. 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 25.2% last year (Hymowitz. down from 16. Mandell & Pherwani.6% of the 48 million employees in management. The secondary purpose of this study was designed to examine whether there are any significant gender-specific differences in the way men and women use their EI competencies that are reflected in their TLS. and related occupations (U. 2008). 47% law degrees. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. The women 117 . 2003). 2000.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. In 2001.Sosik & Megerian. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. However.4% in 2005.S. 2003). However. women held 15. In 2007.
In the overall U. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development.3 trillion in annual sales. if they exist. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. As a result of this ambiguity.5 million people and generate $1. Not surprisingly. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. women are a crucial part of the talent equation.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. the chance to pursue an opportunity. In addition. The Center for Creative Leadership’s (2008) Sara King suggested that engaging and retaining senior women executives is not only critical to the competitiveness of individual organizations but also for entire industries.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. nearly $2. 2007).S. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 .S. Identifying how gender differences in EI. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. businesses owned by women. 2007).
2004. 62 female). these three components accounted for about 32% of the variance in TLS. Van Rooy et al. Taken together. In addition to filling this research gap. Perry. This demonstrates that the EQi components/subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. with the exception of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Ball. to a minimal extent. A significant relationship between EI and TLS was identified. all correlations were in the positive direction. 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. 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). cross-sectional research design using a convenience sample of 157 managers (95 male. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the most important predictor of TLS. job profiling. As scores on the TLS components increased.between gender and EI (Barchard & Hakstian. Interpersonal. EQi component scores also increased. & Stacey. Schaie.. selection. recruitment interviewing. and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership. 119 . 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. 2001. 2005). Summary of the Results This exploratory study used a quantitative. 2004. followed by General Mood and. nonexperimental.
Assertiveness. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. 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. 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. and Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. Self-Regard. No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. Discussion of the Results Research Question 1: Do scores on the five EQi Components predict significant differences in TLS? Correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components using the SPSS Procedure correlations/bivariate to obtain Pearson’s r. Stress Tolerance. No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. and Social Responsibility.
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. Burgess.. Hay/McBer.21) to moderate (r 121 . the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003).” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Thus. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. 2003). Mandell & Pherwani.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. & Stough..23 or higher. Mandell & Pherwani. 2002). 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. Law et al. Judge et al. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.. 1998. Palmer. 2000. 2004. 2001.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . 2004. 2003. Further. 2001). In addition. 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 = . Walls. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . Kobe et al.23) to moderate (r = ..
16. demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS.” 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. Based on Bar-On’s description of his EQ model of emotionalsocial intelligence as a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies (Bar-On. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. Impulse Control. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. Thus. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. 2000. Mandell & Pherwani. Hay/McBer. or temptation to act.03 to . Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. drive.= . 122 . 2003). 2002). a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. 1998.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. For example. However. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. As well. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Stress Tolerance.
05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. 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. Nevertheless. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions.62 (p < . thinking and behavior to new situations. 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. 2002). Thus. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. Males scored a mean of 0. Males scored a mean of 4.19 (p < . Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings. BarOn. entails adjusting our feelings.Reality Testing.
Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant. 2007). skills and talents. with males scoring a higher mean of 4.19 (p < .62 (p < .” was rejected. 1990). Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant. try new approaches.05) and is consistent with BarOn and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) who found through their research that successful senior leaders have a significantly higher intrapersonal capacity and this attribute is generally found in male leaders. and challenge their own beliefs and values. As a result.relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. by setting personal goals where we are able to convey our opinions and beliefs in a strong and confident proactive manner. Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she orients followers to an awareness of problems and support followers to be creative and innovative. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. with males scoring a higher mean of .05) as well. as well as those of the leader and the organization. 2002. 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. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 .
Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. 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. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4.10.18).17). and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. 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.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. While this current study supports previous research findings. 1995. all of which were significant at p < .05.41). with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? An independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males (n = 95) and females (n = 62) differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.” 125 . Petrides & Furnham.
and men’s and women’s use of EQi. Steven Stein.7%. To do this. More than one half of males (53. ¶ 1). n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. n = 31) scored above 126 . are independent. President of MHS. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. are better at handling stress.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). and should not come as a great surprise. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. According to Dr. It should be noted that three of the four subcomponents identified with males scoring higher than their female counterparts are three of the five subcomponents that make up the Intrapersonal component.0%. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3.18). “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. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4.
Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). p < .33. Thus.64. who analyzed the scores on over 7. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. self-assuredness. inner strength.05). p < . p < . The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . and Social Responsibility.” was rejected. 2007).the mean across all of the TLS components.700 administrations of the EQi. the null hypotheses proposed for this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.28. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. In addition. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.05). Stress Tolerance. Assertiveness. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted.
EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. and Assertiveness. and. 128 . the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. 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.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. 1993). the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used. However. for the leader. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. In essence. as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. 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.
although EI as measured by the EQi. 2003). and nonverbal emotional 129 . Mandell & Pherwani. followed by General Mood (R2change = .019). 2003). it is not a sole predictor. 2000. For example. particularly three of its major components. neither Stress Management nor Adaptability accounted for any significant increase in variance in TLS. this leaves approximately two thirds of the variance in TLS unexplained. 2004). The presence of a large proportion of unexplained variance suggests that there are other unidentified or unmeasured variables that account for variations in TLS. they accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in TLS.015). appears to be a strong predictor of TLS. and. coping mechanisms (Purkable. to a minimal degree. Previous research investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs. However. Interpersonal (R2 change = .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. In other words. 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. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . the research literature indicates that factors such as internal direction of self-concept (Burbach. When these three components were combined. exhibit superior performance in organizational outputs (Hay/McBer.287). Predictive Relationship of the 15 EQi Subcomponents and TLS As noted previously.
unlike findings of previous research.2). 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. women scored higher overall.58 vs. 1998. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. in the present research. 2005. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. Schutte et al. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 63.21 vs. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). 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. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.8 vs. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.7) (p.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. Butler. 92). 2003) may be related to leadership ability..decoding (Byron. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 130 . as well as higher on all five components than males. 104.31). 2005.7 vs. 2005). men scored a mean of 4. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 101. However. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. unlike the present results.31) and TLS (65. 98. 2000). Van Rooy et al..
however. but did not predict TLS for males.It is important to note. Mandell and Pherwani. there was “no difference in the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers” (2003. whose leadership style is perceived as dominating and task 131 . 1990). Both Assertiveness and Independence were important predictors of TLS in females. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in males. found that when using the interaction of gender and EQ to predict a TLS score. and does so with consideration for their welfare. despite finding differences in men’s and women’s scores in both EQ and TLS. Stress Tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. The present findings of this study also demonstrated that the males scored higher on the TLS Intellectual Stimulation subcomponent as well. initiates the structure for interaction among their followers to meet organizational objectives common to all. Further. For example. Likewise. both individually and collectively (Bass. a somewhat different picture emerged. p. in the present study. that when these gender differences were examined using hierarchical regression. 399). The transformational leader stimulates employee participation in discussions and decisions and encourages them to share his vision of the company’s future. In this current study males were found to score significantly higher on the Intellectual Stimulation than did females. Self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. Adaptability and Stress Management accounted for the smallest share of the variance in TLS when controlling for gender. Most gender studies on transformational leadership style consistently suggests women are found to demonstrate these leadership attributes more frequently than their male counterparts.
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. This leadership behavior would be indicative of Bass’s subcomponent of the transactional component. Heilman. & Johnson. and values in a nonthreatening manner which challenges the status quo that is motivating and demonstrates consideration. 1998.. 1994. In this particular study males were found to score significantly higher in EQ Intrapersonal subcomponent. Eagly. Karau. as women tend to be more nurturing. Carless. caring. 1994. to be a successful transformational leader required being able to utilize attributes of transactional as well. and sensitive. Rosener. (1996) of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders. women measured higher on all of the transformational leadership components. The negative side of this leadership behavior would reflect an individual who may be overbearing in maintaining strict supervision of bureaucratic regimen with rewards and punishments. 132 . the critical distinction he made was that. Miner. management-by-exception (active).). The key point here is that when Bass advanced Burns’s model of transformational and transactional leadership. beliefs. In a study by Bass et al. which is contingent on a given environmental demand. Assertiveness. Providing intellectual stimulation requires a leader to assert ones feelings. & Martell. 1990). These characteristics are more aligned with transformational leadership and attribute this to the socialization process by which individuals learn to conform to cultural expectations in accordance with societal expectations about their gender role (Bass & Avolio. 1995. in which leaders delegate as much responsibility and actively to meet personal/organizational objectives that promotes as much autonomy in goal attainment as possible. Block.oriented. Carless et al. 2000.
1989). 1998). Nevertheless. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 2001). 2001). one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. 1995. Copeland. Driskell. in 133 . the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. Bass et al. 1989. Rudman. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. In addition. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. That is. 2001. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. 1989. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. Generally. 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. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. & Salas. expressing disagreement. The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. In addition. 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. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead.
the fear of failure. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. 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. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . 2002). Having low self-regard as previously discussed. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Independence. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. and Stress Tolerance. when they are already experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed with job assignments and family duties. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. could also attribute to lower scores. and their negative connotations in. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. According to BarOn and Handley (1999).. This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. Self-Regard. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. In addition. 1997). in the worst case. inner strength. 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. Assertiveness.studies that report significant differences between females and males the effect sizes are very small and it is therefore argued that there is no practical differences between female and male leaders (Yammarino et al. beliefs and thoughts.
in several of the interpersonal and social competencies measured. while not significant. ¶ 1). and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. but the latter have a higher intrapersonal capacity” (Bar-On. but the effects are small for the most part. 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. ¶ 1). are better at managing emotions and are more adaptable than the former. However. Men scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance. 135 . Bar-On noted that Statistically significant gender differences do exist for a few of the factors measured by the EQi. and Stress Tolerance. Furthermore. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Subgroup examining gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. Assertiveness. Women scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Bar-On (2007) noted that existing studies of gender effects in total EQi have revealed no differences between men and women. Based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On. However. this is conjecture on the researcher’s part as it is beyond the scope of this study to address causation. Social Responsibility. This finding is consistent with the current study showing higher scores for females. females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. there is evidence to support prior research studies that suggest “females appear to have stronger interpersonal skills than males. The current findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Bar-On. 1997).Psychiatric Association. 1994). as using total EQi when examining for gender effects have revealed no significant differences between men’s and women’s overall EQ ability. but the effects are small for the most part” (2007. while the men scored higher in the intrapersonal capacity.
Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills. and are more optimistic than women. the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions. (Bar-On. could explain why Psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. demonstrate more empathy.More specifically. both are equally transformational in leadership style. the Bar-On model reveals that females are more aware of emotions than males. implying that even though there were some significant differences in gender use of EI competencies. men appear to have better selfregard. and an edge in which they differ (Goleman. while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former” (Bar-On. when compared with women. Mandell & Pherwani. 2007. . relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association. 2003). 1998. . only transformational scores were used to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. 2007. It is possible that had this study used the other MLQ construct 136 . cope better with stress. which Goleman attributes to the bell curves of the two groups differing immensely from the overlap in similarities. transactional. are more self-reliant. no significance gender differences in their overall construct scores were identified. ¶ 1) “To summarize . For purposes of this study. and passive/avoidant). Research also suggested that despite finding some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in EQi. solve problems better. the MLQ measure provides three leadership styles (transformational. ¶ 1) which would appear that the research findings of the Bar-On can be further generalized with the findings of this current study. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQi. are more flexible. 1994). On the other hand. First. Limitations The current study has several limitations.
Future research into the relationship between EI and leadership style could involve looking at possible differences across industries and levels of management. because. 137 . Further.scores. Bass (1985) viewed the transformational/transactional leadership paradigm as complementary. Another issue relates to possible gender differences in the way men and women respond to self-report measures. as an individual’s selfreport of his/her own traits. To overcome the limitations of self-report. more specifically transactional. further examination of transactional leadership could have provided further insight. 1991). 2003). 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. females may tend toward self-derogation on self-report measures. attitudes. and behaviors may involve systematic biases that obscure accurate measurement of content variables (Paulhus. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest. Even though transactional leaders are more likely to be found at lower levels of management (Stordeur et al. Petrides and Furnham (2000) suggested males in their sample scored higher on self-estimates of emotional intelligence than females. the accuracy of individuals’ self-estimates are themselves subject to skepticism. 2000). as both traits are displayed by effective leaders. 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. That is. researchers have employed manager ratings by supervisors. research has shown that highly face-valid measures such as the EQi-S are easily faked in a socially desirable direction (Grubb.. rather than polar constructs. However.
and providing a more complete profile where generalizations may be more appropriately made. and subordinates. 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. where superiors. Conscientiousness. and no differences were found between men and women by direct reports. and/or subordinates rate participants on the relevant characteristics. and Communication. a measure 138 . Using the Emotional Competencies Inventory. future research might consider employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 360 assessment. had subordinates perceptions been included as variables. different results would have been obtained. Females were rated higher than males only on Adaptability and Service Orientation by supervisors. Alternatively. as is suggested by the findings of Cavallo and Brienza. Cavallo and Brienza (2002) conducted a study with 358 managers across the Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group and found some gender differences. It is possible that. as well as the Bar-On EQi 360 assessment. peers. Developing Others. Service Orientation. Recommendations for Future Research In the current study. Given the problems inherent in selfreport measures. females were rated higher than males by peers on Emotional Self-Awareness. For reasons of practicality and access to participants. this researcher decided to use the EQi-S rather than attempt to obtain subordinates assessments of participants emotional intelligence and leadership style. thereby reducing the potential for bias. self-report measures were used to measure both TLS and EQi as a concession to limitations of time and money.peers.
and 139 . as stated previously. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. Because of this potential weakness in the research design it was decided to use a subsample (participants scoring above the TLS group mean) to increase the validity of findings. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns.S. Dahlstrom. Future researchers.033. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. education. Butcher. & Kaemmer. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. as well as the industries they represent. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. the U. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. 1989). The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded.S. As a result. workforce. Therefore. Graham. Tellegen. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Concerning the narrowing of industries.
both are equally transformational in leadership style. and gender and EI while predicting TLS. Gender did not have a significant interaction with emotional intelligence in predicting TLS. This research also suggests that. gender did not demonstrate a significant association with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. future research should focus on these industries as they are likely to have the greatest need. Conclusions The current study was designed to examine whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership style (TLS). In view of this projection. Based on the results of this study. despite some significant differences between men’s and women’s component/subcomponent scores in both EQ and TLS. if any significant gender differences existed in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS. This would imply that even though there were some significant differences in the way men and women make use of EI competencies. no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. there appears to be a significant association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. 140 .. and (b) if so.healthcare professions (Herman et al. Likewise. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of difference in overall TLS. implying again that both men and women are equally transformational in leadership style. 2003). and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components/subcomponents appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. The EQi Intrapersonal. Gender.
This finding could support the use of EQ assessments within an overall assessment battery process used in human resource planning. job profiling. selection. recruitment interviewing.In conclusion. this study has empirically contributed to the body of research that supports the role of EI in predicting TLS. 141 . and management development as it relates to assessing the potential for such leadership.
Toronto. B. Barchard. (2000). & Dasborough. doi: 10. 261–295.pdf Antonakis. Ammeter and Buckley (2003). R. Journal of Education for Business. Atlanta. (2006). B. 18– 22. 64(3). Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati. (1994). 14(3). (2003). Ontario. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. doi: 10. B. J. Avolio. 79(1). Retrieved from http://www. Atkins. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ Form 5X. A. Dachler. M. & C. K. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Does emotional intelligence change with age? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Adult Development annual conference. & Sivasubramaniam. Bar-On & J. In J. M. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed. P. Lexington. B. & Bass.apa. M. (2003). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. N.). (2004). P. (2005. J. Bar-On. Douglas. J. 11(4). Canada: Multi-Health Systems. April). N. H. P. DC: Author. & Bass.). J. G. B. American Psychological Association. Handbook of emotional intelligence. doi: 10.. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2002. A. (2003). (2004). International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 437–462.. Leadership Quarterly. GA.REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association.. In R.). H.1177/0013164403261762 Bar-On. Transformational leadership. R. 29–50).. Washington. Parker (Eds. MA: Lexington Books. charisma and beyond. Hunt. 355–361. (1988). Baliga. & Stough. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi): Technical manual. Educational and Psychological Measurement. & Hakstian. Ferris. R. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2002).1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4 Ashkanasy. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. C.1108/eb028980 Antonakis. Avolio. A. M.. Avolio. Redwood City. Schriesheim (Eds. CA: Mind Garden. A.org/ethics/code2002. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 142 .)... D. J.
Redwood City. Retrieved from ProQuest database. M.reuvenbaron. J. M. R. B. J. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. B.pdf Bar-On. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. (1994). (1997). B. M.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. B. & Avolio. R. Retrieved from http://205. J.231. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. CA: Mind Garden. Bass. Public Administration Quarterly.php?i=25 Bar-On. R. B. (2007).1037/0003-066X.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. New Braunfels. Bass. & Avolio. (1990). 52(2). Bass. 13–25.242/demo/intro/tformlead. 112–121.net/tc3/TC019239. & Avolio..2. B. (2004). R. M. M. 375–377. B. (1990). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. Bass. doi: 10. 130–139. (1993).84. 18(3).. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. B.html Bass.. New York: The Free Press. (1999). (1995). B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. J. doi: 10.. Organizational Dynamics. Psicothema. (1999). Menlo Park.52. M. B.uaemex. M. B. J. & Avolio. B. 143 . 19–31.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. Bass. 18(Suppl. (1985). Retrieved from http://redalyc. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. TX: Pro-Philes Press. J. 4(3). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. M. CA: Mind Garden. Retrieved from http://www. doi: 10.. B. Leadership Quarterly. M. & Handley.130 Bass. & Avolio. B. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). M. 17(3/4). B. 17(1). (1993).htm Bass. 541–554. B. International Journal of Public Administration.org/bar-on-model/essay. (2006).Bar-On. & Avolio..).
M.ebscohost. K. Murphy.41 144 . 234–238. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women.eiconsortium.pdf Boyatzis. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. J.htm Burns.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. Retrieved from http:// www. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. J.1037/0021-9010. B.haygroup. Jung.library .2. 5–34.htm Bryant. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. R. (1978). E. J. 47–64.capella. doi: 10. M. Retrieved from http://ei. 35(1). Bass.. (1990). L. I. J. D. Lincoln. Applied Psychology: An International Review. University of Nebraska. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. 41–50. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Doctoral dissertation.haygroup.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. D.. Psychological Inquiry. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. 45(1). Y. E. South Carolina State University.. (2007). B..eiconsortium. Burton. (2007). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. 15(3).org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. B. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior.edu/login?url=http://search.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. & Wheeler. Retrieved from http://www. (2004). 9(4). J. A..com/login. 44–46. 27(5).pdf Brody.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article.207 Bennis. doi: 10. Avolio. Doctoral dissertation. Journal of Applied Psychology. Hafetz. Retrieved from http://www. M.1.. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Leadership.. L. W. M. 32–44.88. 88(2).Bass. 86(1). (2000). S. & Atwater. B. doi: 10. 207–218. E.2224/ sbp. New York: Harper & Row.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. N. (2003). (1996).. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. R. (2004). J. (2003).2007.. (2003). Avolio. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI).1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. & Henninger. E. Psychological Reports. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract].35. & Berson. Social Behavior and Personality. A. doi: 10.
Gender differences in interaction style and influence.. J. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. Doctoral dissertation.1111/0022-4537. L. N. 887–902. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium .1037/0022-3514. S. & Monroe. 14(3).. doi: 10. A. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (1998. 565–76. doi: 10. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Byron. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. (1989).org/-report. (2001). (1998). leader.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. doi: 10. (1997).1177/014920639702300302 Carless. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. R. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring.. Fort Collins. Retrieved from http://www. (2003).57 . L. Journal of Management.6. W. Georgia State University. A short measure of transformational leadership.. A. Sex Roles. (2002).eiconsortium . Tellegen. doi: 10.htm Cannella. 389–405. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. A. (2005).. Butler. & Kaemmer. 57(4).org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. & Goleman.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. Wearing.htm 145 .964 Carli. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top.. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). Gender and social influence. J. M. D. 213–237. D.aspx Cherniss.org/ Center for Creative Leadership.ccl. G. Graham.Butcher. K. (2000). 39(11/12). 725– 741.. J. doi: 10. L..00238 Cavallo. Retrieved from http://www. (1989). & Brienza. Dahlstrom. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Doctoral dissertation. C. A. S. K. L. J. and subordinate perspectives. Journal of Social Issues. A. L. (2008. 56(4). L. 23(3).1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. October). Retrieved from http//www. Retrieved August 10. Colorado State University. & Mann. C. Journal of Business and Psychology. May). B.. 2008.eiconsortium. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study.
S.. 29(12). J. & Spangler. Public Personnel Management. CA. A. A theory of leadership effectiveness. (1990). T. (2002). Journal of Managerial Psychology.. Mayfield. (1967). (n. Miner. 341–372. J.com Web site: http://www. 523–530. Copeland. New York: Hill. M. (2000).. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. J. F. Karau. 17–21. E. (1995). E.. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. Driskell. W..d. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Drucker. Eden. (1994). D. from Answers. J. Dulewicz. New York: HarperCollins. C. 233–256. 5(2). & Johnson. Retrieved from ProQuest database. J.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. F. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. 108(2). A. H. 55(6). D. H. D. P. (1999). 735–744. M. & Johnson. & Higgs. Journal of Business Research. Management challenges for the 21st century. 146 . 53–68. R. Academy of Management Journal.. D. Jolson. 2008.. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. M. Eagly. (1999). B. L. Retrieved August 31. K. A.. 10(6).233 Eagly.. (1995).1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. A.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. (2002). B. B. J. Mountain View.1037/0033-2909.108. 17–29. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Achieving results through transformational leadership. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. B.. Dearborn. Psychological Bulletin. 31(4).Chief executive officer. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. doi: 10. doi: 10. Dubinsky. Leadership Quarterly.. 135–159. (2002). E (1999). & Salas. Yammarino. & Shamir. 15(2).). J. Avolio. 467–480. Journal of Nursing Administration. Dixon. B.2. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. doi: 10. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.. 15(4).answers. V. Gender and reactions to dominance.. 45(4). doi: 10.. & Swerdlik.
doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . L. Hater. (1995). D. (2001). L. Thousand Oaks.eiconsortium. 10(3). Moving forward with emotional intelligence. L.htm Hargie. Social skills in interpersonal communication. 25(1). Gohm. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. 741–748. R.dfee. Grubb. (2000). 237–252. New York: Warner Business Books. E.. Retrieved from http://www. (2005).pdf Hay/McBer.73. (1988). Doctoral dissertation. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.695 Hay Group. New York: Basic Books. Block. Saunders.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. (2008). 15(3).uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman. A.4.capella. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gov. C. 10(6). & Bass. O. (2003). (2004). Nice girls don’t get the corner office. 73(4). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. R. C. London: Routledge. Furnham. F. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. & Rawles. New York: Bantam.com/login..com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. (1998). Virginia Commonwealth University. (1995). doi: 10. & Dickson.. O. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (1995). & Martell. Retrieved from http://www. J. Working with emotional intelligence. J. doi: 10...ebscohost. Journal of Applied Psychology. A. Retrieved from http://www. ECI fact card. D.org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. Social Work Research. Psychological Inquiry. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract].haygroup.edu/login?url http://search. H.). P. Z. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.1037/0021-9010. Gellis. B. (2004). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa. C..org/?fa=main. CA: Sage. W. J.Field.1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. 17–25. 695–702.library. M. Frankel. (1983). M. 222–227.
Herman. M. G. 43–57. Retrieved from http://www. (1997). (1977). D. 74(6). & Matteson. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. HR Focus.htm Hymowitz. A. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. (1999). (1997).library.ebscohost. T. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. 751–765. 13(1). J.). Doctoral dissertation.751 148 .. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed.. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.. Wall Street Journal.. Organizational Dynamics. (2008. K. J. 85(5). C. NJ: Prentice Hall..com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . Upper Saddle River. & Hitt. doi: 10. Boston: Irwin. (2003). T.library. A. Hopkins. & Blanchard. R. & Olivo. S1–S4.capella. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. (1993). Englewood Cliffs. London: McGraw Hill. The impact of gender.1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede.ebscohost. H. R. R. too few people. (2000). Hersey. M.com/login.edu/login?url=http://search . H.).1037t/00219010. Retrieved from http://online. 75(9). J. T. emotional intelligence competencies.). 6–18. Judge. K. M. (1998).wsj. NJ: Prentice Hall. Hitt. Impending crisis: Too many jobs. 28(3).aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. Ivancevich. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland. R.eiconsortium.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. P. P. (2005). A.. On diversity. Gioia. February 25). The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. VA: Oakhill Press. H. Winchester. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership.com/ login. (2000).5.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. & Blanchard. Academy of Management Executives. doi: I0. E. Case Western Reserve University.edu/login?url=http://search.85. & Bono. M. 15– 16.capella. You’ve got to change to retain. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. M. HR Focus. Hersey. Journal of Applied Psychology.
doi: 10.. doi: 10. S. Transformational leaders make a difference. (2000). A. Wong. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. Furnham. Kirkcaldy. J... June).. 89(3). K. Emotion. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators.. (2004). Z. (2004).. Journal of Applied Psychology.755 Kaufhold. Leadership Quarterly. A. Journal of Applied Psychology. European Psychologist. 125(4).. Reiter-Palmon. 112–129. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010. Education. S. P.. (1996).00. J. & Ilies. C. A. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies.1348/026151000165869 Kobe.. doi: 10. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Kroeck.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. 113–118. doi: 10. N. L. B. (2005). B.1037/0021-9010. Salovey.. (2001). Côté. 89(5).89. 755–768. Journal of Research and Technology Management. R. doi: 10. & Song.3..1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . Journal of Applied Psychology.ebsco host.Judge. L. L. T. P. A. D. 5(1). Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. 38(2).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. G. P.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. N. 154–163.. & Beers. Colbert.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. M.wiley.113 Lowe. Retrieved from http://basepath. (2005). 173–180.15304. J. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school.. K. Noack. R. Current Psychology. R.89. 7(3). 20(2). R. & Rickers.edu/login?url=http://search. & Sivasubramaniam. & Johnson. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence.5.5. K..1037/15283542. 89(3).pdf Law. 615–626. S. K. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. M. B.483 Leithwood. T. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. & Jantzi.com/login. R. M. 385–425. D. Journal of Educational Administration. E. F..library.. (2004).3. 542–552. (2007). & Siefen.542 Judge. & Piccolo. & Posner. G.capella. 41–44. A. doi: 10. 483–496.1037/0021-9010. 38(3). (1995). 12(3).com/cda/media/ 0.89.. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. (2000..1. doi: 10.
. 15(2). Retrieved from http://ez proxy. New York: Basic Books. 1–29. P. M.com/login. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Carlsmith. (UMI No. D.capella. J. G. 179–196. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Salovey & D.. D.library. Emotional intelligence: Theory. R.. 387–404.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. C.. 15(3). (2003). J. findings.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. & Salovey. (1999). Intelligence. R. K. M. Caruso.capella.. Psychological Inquiry.15.sciencedirect. & Chabot. J.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. Mathews. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p.unh. D. D. J. doi: 10..an. 32(3)..). 15(3). The anthropology of emotions. D. 27(4). (1986)..Lutz.. Roberts. 61.ebscohost. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from http://www. Ontario. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. M. (2004a). P.002201 Malek. (1998).edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost. J. Journal of Research in Personality. (2002).100186. 17(3). (2004). and implications. Sluytrer (Eds. R. D. (2007).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . Mayer. 405–436. & Salovey. P. D. Salovey. D. J. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. H. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. Salovey. F.com/ login. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). D. doi: 10. M. What is emotional intelligence? In P. 05B.com . Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. Journal of Business and Psychology. (2002). & Caruso.capella..edu/login?url=http://search. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. D.library. American Sociological Review..1146/annurev. J. Dissertation Abstracts International. 67(1). S. 253–296. & White. Psychological Inquiry.. 71). 267–298.library. 197–215. doi: 10. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. 9970564) Mandell. D. (2000). (1997). R.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. S. Toronto. Mayer. G. B. & Caruso. P. & Zeidner. Annual Review of Anthropology. & Pherwani. About the MSCEIT..
29–43. R. (2002). (2004). Retrieved from http://www.org...com/login . 27–34. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure.edu/login? url=http://search.. L. doi: 10. & Taylor. Jones. J. doi: 10.). Wrightsman (Eds. D. M. Oatley. (2003). 381–400. B. S. 14(1). (2004b). R.. Walls. D. 13(4). N. M. C.answers. E.com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli.iier. R. J. M.. (2001). 2008. Retrieved from ProQuest database.04.paid. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. 335–344. (2005).2006. N.library. S. & Fuller.. A. Journal of Individual Differences. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. L.. Perry.d.. Eastabrook. Retrieved from http://www. In J. 27(5). (1991). Inc.).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. Burgess. D.mind garden. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. 5–10. MLQ international norms.au/iier14/perry.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost. P. Issues in Educational Research. Measurement and control of response bias. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions.. Saklofske.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. R. 249–255..library. D. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. Leadership and Organization Development Journal..Mayer. D. L.pdf Morrison. H. Wood. R. Psychological Inquiry. J. CA: Academic Press. (n. & Stacey. I. 100–106. L. The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. P. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. & Stough. Salovey. 24(6). Shaver.022 Paulhus. B. Journal of Nursing Administration. 216–238.com Web site: http://www.capella. Retrieved August 31. (2004). 15(3).. J. & Caruso. & Carsky. 22(1). The International Journal of Conflict Management.. C. (1997).com/login. & L.1016 /j. (2004). 26(2). San Diego. from Answers.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595134 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Ogilvie.html 151 . 15(3). K. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations.ebscohost. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. Robinson.capella. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. M. Parker. Z. 17–59). Psychological Inquiry. Ball.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. doi: 10. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
. Plunkett (Ed. Emotional intelligence. K.1037/0022-3514. Emotional intelligence.htm Rosener. R. Ways women lead. (2007).. Costa. 323–351).. doi: 10.htm Rivera Cruz. (1991). Retrieved from http://www. leadership effectiveness. M. Douglas. (1992). (1990).. & Furnham.library. A. European Journal of Personality. B.. Sex Roles.003 152 . Retrieved from ProQuest database. V. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. 42(5/6).com/login. & Buckley. 425–448. (2000). Retrieved from ProQuest database.. M. & Buckley. A. Prati. Supervision (6th ed. R.. Case Western Reserve University.630 Plunkett. Catholic University of America. B. R.1002/per. L. Retrieved from http://www. K. Prati. J. Leadership Quarterly..ebsco host. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. doi: 10. R. T. G.. (2003). In W. pp.01.416 Piedmont. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. Ammeter. & Heinitz. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . Boston: Allyn Bacon. 41–62. V. (2001). R.leaqua. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. L. 744–755.. G. 121–133. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. C.capella.1016/j.. 11(4). L. 60(4).4. Ferris.Petrides. (2003a). doi: 10. P. (2003b). R. M. Harvard Business Review. R. T. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. 18(2). International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Ammeter.. Doctoral dissertation. Petrides.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. A. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. Ferris. V. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. R.). P. Leadership and management styles. K. M. 449–461. R. & McRae. 11(1).edu/login?url=http://search. W. & Furnham... Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. and team outcomes. 68(6). Purkable. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence.eiconsortium. 15(6).org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b.2007. L. Douglas. A. C. J. 363–369. P.60. (2004). Doctoral dissertation.eiconsortium. 119–125.
doi: 10. Schaie. and socialization. J. Retrieved from http:// www.com/topic/senior-management Smith.74. E.. J. and Personality. Retrieved from http://www. B. Zeidner. Organizational behavior (7th ed. G. Imagination. W.answers. and Matthews (2001). P. K. J. & Bass. Retrieved August 31. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.d. Emotion. J.. 2008.edu/login?url=http://search .1. Cognition. (2000).. M. Retrieved from http://www. Emotional intelligence. 9(4).capella. M. J.. Personality and Individual Differences. E. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract].. T. Doctoral dissertation. Golden. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. D. L. & Geroy.. Our Lady of the Lake University. J. E. Comment on Roberts.eiconsortium. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.sciencedirect. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics.. Haggerty. (2001). Cooper. Race.629 Sala.. emotions. 9(3). J. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence..htm Schutte.com.Rudman.com Web site: http://www.1037/0022-3514.pdf Sanders. Hunt.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. doi: 10.com/login. (2001). J. 9(4). 74(3)..edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. & Mayer.3.library. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. (2002). 185–211.243 Schermerhorn. 25(2). R. (2003). A. C. (1998). doi: 10.library. J. 693–703. 16(4). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. 21–31. N.capella. Journal of Management. Race. Malouff.3. J. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from http:// www. Hall. 243–248. D.. (n. J.ebscohost. D. W. (1990).. (1990). New York: Wiley. 1(3). from Answers.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. 629–645. E. (1998).eiconsortium.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. L. 94– 110. & Osborn.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. et al.1037/1528-3542. 167–177. Gender & Class.). S.).unh. M. F. Hopkins.. (2003).org/ Salovey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Schulte.
S.. J. (2005).1016/j..se/default. G. 37(1). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Department of Labor.1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.S. Retrieved from http://ovidsp. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. L. J. B. 18–14.%20M.paid. J. Personality and Individual Differences. Vandenberghe.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy. & Plemons. L. A.library. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership.. Nursing Research. J.. & Fidell. E. & Megerian. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. (2003)..023 154 .gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. C.edu/spb/ovidweb. R. April).tx. S. (2001).). Sosik. Retrieved from http://www. J. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. 49(1). S.C. doi: 10.. 37–43.05. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Ellis. Wade.. Barone. Dallas. Retrieved from http://www. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. M. TX. Group & Organization Management.. F.% 20&%20McDaniel. Retrieved from http://www. 331–338. (1999).aspx?search=Smith.%20K. 367–390. Z.. D.A. & D’hoore. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. C.Smith. Bureau of Labor Statistics.bls. L. M. K. & McCarthy. 2002.cgi Tabachnick. W..2004.capella. Journal of Education for Business. & Viswesvaran. Alonso.org/Search. A. (2000). A. C. Douthitt... Geographic profile of employment and unemployment. (2000).siop. L. MA: Allyn and Bacon. Census Bureau of Labor.ovid.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur.%20(1998) Snodgrass. & McDaniel.. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure. Sojka. 689–700.com. (1998.J. S . Bureau of Labor Statistics.bls. S. J.kandidata. Journal of Allied Health. (2005). Retrieved from http://www..pdf U. (2002). 38(3). doi: 10. (2008). 24(3).Needham Heights. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance.S. M. 75(6). Tucker. U.
A. Journal of Information Systems. Doctoral dissertation. 8(2). 16(1). doi: 10. Chew. A. Yukl. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l.library . I.com/login. Dubinsky. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. S. & Bass.capella. 99–125. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting.. F. leaqua.Viator.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. Journal of Management.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. Yammarino. Comer. Retrieved from ProQuest database. M. Retrieved from http://www . B.edu/login?url=http://search. University of Minnesota.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. & Spangler. (2007). 34(10). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.ebscohost.. M. F. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. H. Nursing Management.. L. 15(2). Upper Saddle River. 28–32. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract].aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger.1016/j. H. G.edu/ login?url=http://search. 40(1). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. (1990).2004. (1997). PA: Poised for the Future Company. 205–222. (2003).capella.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. NJ: Prentice Hall. 251–289. 975–995. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. R. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. The perfect labor storm 2. J. C. K. 39–52.capella.com/login. (2001).htm Weisinger.library. Lancaster.. Wolfe. Emotional intelligence at work. The Leadership Quarterly.eiconsortium.06. I. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . (2000).edu/login?url=http://search. G. B. Leadership in organizations (5th ed. 43(10).. W.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. W. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis.library. E. (2002). D. J. (2005). (2003). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. A. doi: 10. 89–92. J. J. Zhu.ebscohost. Human Relations. M.).ebscohost. (1989). 15(2).. & Jolson. L.001 155 . Developing emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Journal. (1998).com/login.
What level of management do you currently hold in your organization? Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner Your Industry? How long have you held your current position? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years 156 .APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards.
Level of Education? High School High School and Technical/Trade School AA Degree Bachelors Degree Master’s Degree PhD Number of direct reports under your supervision? 3 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 or More Gender? Male Female Race / Ethnicity (optional) Caucasian American Indian Eastern India Afro-American Asian Arabic Latino Pacific Islander 157 .
000.000.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.00 Between $40.00 158 .00 and $70.00 More than $150.000.000.00 and $100.00 and $150.00 Between $70.00 Between $100.000.000.
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.