THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE by Michael A. Syndell LORI LA CIVITA, Ph.D.

, Faculty Mentor and Chair BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Committee Member JOSEPH DAMIANI, Ph.D., Committee Member Garvey House, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University August 2008

3320725 Copyright 2008 by Syndell, Michael A. All rights reserved

2008

3320725

© Michael A. Syndell, 2008

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

Dedication I would like to dedicate this to my Mother and Father who were unable to be here to share this milestone in my life . . who laid the cornerstone of my being. . and to my Grandparents. iii .

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

Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Rationale Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions and Limitations Nature of the Study Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Theoretical Orientation of the Study History of Leadership: An Overview Origins of Transformational Leadership Current State of Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership Defined Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) v iv viii 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 19 20 22 33

Gender and Leadership Style Emotional Intelligence Defining EI EI Controversies The Development of EI Characteristics of EI Gender and EI Race/Ethnicity and EI Measuring EI EI and Leadership Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection EI, Leadership, and Gender Conclusion CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Research Design Target Population Selection of Participants Variables Measures Procedures Research Questions Research Hypotheses vi

35 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 45 49 51 53 55 58 60 60 60 61 61 63 66 67 68

Data Collection and Storage Data Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses Expected Findings Data Analytic Strategic and Organization of Results CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary of the Study Summary of the Results Discussion of the Results Discussion of the Conclusions Limitations Recommendations for Future Research Conclusions REFERENCES APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

69 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 116 116 116 119 120 129 136 138 140 142 156

vii

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

Comparison of Low. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 20.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Table 22.Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 108 110 111 115 ix .

and retain the best talent. education. The U. 1997. 1 . 2000. Ireland & Hitt. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. develop. 1999. 1995). Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. 1990). Herman. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. Gioia. higher group performance levels (Keller. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing.373 billion (Herman. 1998). it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). 2005). 1997. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. Department of Labor. Drucker. 1988). Hitt.S. Specifically. U. companies must compete to find. Department of Labor.CHAPTER 1.033. 1999).S. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 2003. 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.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. & Olivo. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. attract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. Bennis. addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. using a less drastic example of Bass’s example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and CFO of Enron. 1985. 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. 2000). However. weaknesses. 1990. and generates awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. 22 . focusing on a common purpose. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. Followers accept leadership decisions as the best under the circumstances even if it means some individual members interests may have to be sacrificed to meet common objectives. the organization’s strengths. 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. Leithwood & Jantzi. and comparative advantages.

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

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

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

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

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. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. The results of a study by Morrison. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. the sample size must have been reported. organizational perception. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). First. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Fifth. and its effect on job satisfaction. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. a Pearson correlation coefficient (or some other type of test statistic that could be converted into a correlation) between leadership style and effectiveness must have been reported. Third. Jones. leader/unit perception. Results of this analysis support the positive correlation of transformational leadership with work unit effectiveness as results demonstrated a strong positive correlation between all components of transformational leadership in both objective and subjective measures of performance. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. Kroeck. Second.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. and job satisfaction. using a sample of 275 nurses. Fourth. Lowe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These results suggest that women are no more or less transformational than men. transactional leadership and nonleadership. Transactional leadership has three scales. However. 2000) and the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL. Wearing. & Mann. Bass & Avolio. a finding consistent with those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). Carless. 2000). which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio.The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of transformational leadership. 1995). which could lead to a possible total score of 20. which are added together and combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas. Carless (1998) examined gender differences in transformational leadership in a sample of 345 middle-level managers and 588 subordinates in a large Australian banking organization using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. 1995). it is possible that both of these findings were artifacts of the study design. 1990. with four questions for each scale. where the participant rated his or her perception of their own leadership style. Gender and Leadership Style Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found no statistically significant differences between the leadership scores of men and women managers as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio.) The MLQ has individual subtests. Transformational leadership has five individual scales. (The researcher only used the self-rating form. as will be made more apparent in the ensuing discussion of Carless’s (1998) work. Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men 35 . 2004). Kouzes & Posner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2004) argued. it supports the hypothesized connection between EI and leadership. EI needs to be supported by social intelligence. 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. loyalty. leaders are created by followers. trust. Insofar as the concept of social intelligence explains the core elements of leadership. This is an important distinction. As Law et al. EI is a set of abilities related to a capacity for governing the emotional self. Thus. Judge 51 . social intelligence involves the ability to lead others while establishing oneself as a member of the group. as further contended by Law and colleagues. which imply that followers’ perceptions of a person are essential for that person to become a leader. and add that it is incorrect to assume that EI is the sole prerequisite of leadership. and admiration of followers without insisting on the superior status of the leader (Mandell & Pherwani). (2001) argued that EI is inextricably linked to social intelligence and that the two interact to produce leadership qualities. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) concur. According to Judge et al. (2004). along with the capacity to detect emotions of others and goal-directed manipulation of emotions in oneself and others. Other research has narrowed the theoretical focus from general intelligence to emotional intelligence. they argue. Rather. Kobe et al. stressing that advancement to leadership status requires the possession of emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.to inspire the support. Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills Theory has established a relationship between general intelligence and leadership skills and potential. However.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics.81 to . and display a sense of power and confidence. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors).080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals. mentoring and growth opportunities. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. 2004) and was based on data from 2. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems.85. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . and values. Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own.53 to . Followers identify with and want to emulate them. 2. 2004): 1. 5. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired.96.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. 4. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. principles. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . 3. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. with a strong sense of purpose. respected and trusted.

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

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

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

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

HA3: There will be 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 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. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents 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. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 68 . 4.3.

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

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

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

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

For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. 2. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. while not substantial. 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.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. As previous research. 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. 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. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 .

3. and if so. 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. 74 .H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. the nature and strength of that association. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

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

6 16.8 5.4 24.4 19.5 5.1 39.4 3.5 45.9 6.7 20.9 3.5 4.7 5.6 76 .2 5.1 10.7 10.0 11.1 25.2 2.7 29.2 55.Table 1.2 12.9 12.8 2.8 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.8 3.3 8.7 7.7 5.1 22.1 11.

000 17 10.4 8.9 65.8 Between $40–70.5 1.8 Between $70–100. Minimum age 24.6 Between $100–150. N = 158. **Includes Pacific Islander.7 31.5 4. East Asian.9 1.2 10.1 32.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.3 20.25 85. Arabic or other.7 2. American Indian.9 2.000 23 14. 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).000 55 34. SD = 8.70.1 9.000 15 9. maximum age 67.9 12.7 34.000 44 27. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.7 16.9 10.3 12. 77 .0 2.8 More than $150.Table 1. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.7 Current income Less than $40.

4%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. Notably.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. for-profit organization. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. n = 106). n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%. from between 3–6 to more than 16. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.4%.6%. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). The sample of the population in this study has an average. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. 78 . and a median of 5. 25. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.95 years of college education. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.6%. Addressing racial diversity. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category.2%. n = 121) in a private. However.15 direct reports. n = 103). In terms of supervision responsibilities.7%. Most respondents earned from $40. n = 72).000–$100. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). n = 135) male (60. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. or mean of 3.1%.000 per annum (49.32 subordinates. n = 78).

900 and the median was $54.97 (SD = 13. 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. Intrapersonal.02 (SD = 13.41). Interpersonal.65 years.01).49 (SD = 14. 103. Summed TLS Score.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. 105. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. 102. 79 . because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. The mean age of the subjects is 48.730. Stress Management.63 (SD = 12.49). As far as income.00). Adaptability. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.86 (SD = 13. EQi component scores were.85). This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. in descending order. Descriptive Statistics—The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the components and subcomponents of the EQi are displayed in Table 2.02 (SD = 13. For the income this is going to be most apparent. 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 3.77 years. Total EQi Score.05). with a nearly identical median of 48. 107. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. 105. the mean income was $68. and General Mood Components.

85 12.49 13.52 103.73 12.21 105.00 12. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.54 103.97 13.19 13.17 104. 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 107.64 107. N = 157.66 101.66 14.93 13.41 106.63 103.62 13.36 Total EQi Score 105.28 103. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.44 13.45 13.05 14.86 106.04 12.70 13.86 12.01 13.61 105.Table 2.31 103.02 105.41 12.49 103.60 14.02 102.61 102.74 13.67 13. 80 .46 102.63 103.

Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.57 0. 3.35 (SD = 0. TLS component scores were.99 (SD = 0.04 (SD = 0.58). *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). Mind Garden. in descending order.08 (SD = 0. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.59).09 3.57 0.57).08 3.52). Idealized Influence (Behavior). and Intellectual Stimulation. 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed).26 (SD = 0. 2004). Individualized Consideration.16 (SD = 0.58 0.59).96 (SD = 0.13 3. 3.S.35 3.63 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed). 81 . 3.59).Table 3. 3. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. Intellectual Stimulation. Inspirational Motivation.53). Idealized Influence (Behavior). 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 3.57).18 SD 0.52.59 0. Inspirational Motivation.95 (SD = 0. 2. 2.13 (SD = 0. 3.26 3. Individualized Consideration. which are as follows.63). 2.59).59 Note.09 (SD = 0. N = 157.18 (SD = 0. 3.

35 SD 0.09 3. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.59 0. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.S.57 0. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.55 0.08 3.e.375.95 2.02 2.04 2. **N = 3. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . Group Norms vs.52 M 3.59 0.16 SD 0.53 0.99 3. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. 2001). a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). of a distribution (i.26 3.13 3.59 0.52 0. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.18 3. or symmetry. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. Norm group** M 3.96 3.59 0. or scaled variables.. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created. Skew represents the even-ness.58 0.Table 4. TLS Component Scores: U.63 0.

(b) MLQ 23 = –2.61. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.40. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. and (c) 9.24.09. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .67.76. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = .63.64.83. 83 .80. (b) 6. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.83. Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbach’s alpha (α) was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .16. (b) Interpersonal = . Inspirational Motivation = –. and not individual MLQ items. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.67. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. (c) Stress Management = .73. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.85. respectively.18. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.0.06. but normally distributed. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. 2001). with skew > +/–2.49. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . and (e) Individualized Consideration = .66.0.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.78. and Individualized Consideration = –1. and (e) General Mood = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. Intellectual Stimulation = –. (d) Adaptability = .70.

IS = Intellectual Stimulation.40* .30* . a p < . IM = Inspirational Motivation.41* .35* . To address the first research question.29* .36* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).52* .46* IM . General Mood IIA .43* Note.25* .23* . Stress Management 4.05).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. Intrapersonal 2. Table 5.48* . 84 .05.32* IC . Adaptability 5.37* .33* .44* .44* .37* .40* . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.19 a .01. Pearson’s r was obtained.37* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).28* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.37* IIB . The significance level was set at (α = . *p < . N = 158. This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.59* IS . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. and IC = Individualized Consideration.31* . Interpersonal 3.

Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.45.001).23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . p < .05. which was still significant at p < . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed.05). p < .51. p < . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. EQi component scores also increased.001). Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. 85 .59. (c) Self-Actualization (r = .20 and . All correlations were in the positive direction. With one exception. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). at r = .23 or higher.16. Inspirational Motivation (r = .19. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. using the same Procedure Correlations. with (α = . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . all of the Pearson’s r’s were .05). (b) Happiness (r = .50. 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. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . p < . Results are shown in Table 6. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. Most of the correlations ranged between .001) and Inspirational Motivation.

37* .33* .37* . Problem Solving 14.05).24* . p ≥ . Assertiveness 4.25* .37* . Social Responsibility 8. *p < .35* .36* .05 (ns = nonsignificant.23* .59* .24* .33* .23* .51* IS . ap < .39* .19 a .45* .27* .34* .44* . Optimism 15.25* IC . Independence 5.31* .30* .12 (ns) .21* .33* . N = 157.38* . Self-Awareness 3.33* .43* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.40* .40* .17 a .11 (ns) .01. IS = Intellectual Stimulation.48* .37* .15 (ns) .40* .35* .03 (ns) .26* .39* IM . Self-Actualization 6. Flexibility 13.29* .Table 6.28* .45* .36* .36* Note.31* IIB .30* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.13 (ns) . Empathy 7.37* .15 (ns) .30* .31* . Stress Tolerance 10. Reality Testing 12.38* . Happiness IIA .34* .43* .38* .32* .16 a .32* .50* .16 (ns) .44* . and IC = Individualized Consideration. Self-Regard 2.40* .26* .46* .24* .37* .36* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).33* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.28* .24* .32* .33* . Interpersonal Relationships 9. Impulse Control 11.43* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). 86 .

which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. p < . 170). the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. 2001).90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret.001). This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. EQi component scores also increased. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . p. Correlations 87 .001). p < .26.001).While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = .30. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . All correlations were in the positive direction. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing.24. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis. In summary. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. 2005. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. This is a potentially serious issue. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. 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. p < .

However. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component.71.01). The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . based on the .(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . p < . The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . 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. this intercorrelation is to be expected.01).90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).82. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8.01).90. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. Therefore.72. p < . None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. 88 . p < . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.64.

00 1.60* .36* 9.23* .52* .32* .71* .50* .00 .59* .41* .40* .50* .32* Subcomponent 1.32* . Independence 5.33* .36* .56* .38* .24* . Flexibility 11.41* .15* .51* .39* .35* .50* . Stress Tolerance 13.60* .42* .50* .59* . Social Responsibility 8.50* .56* . Self-Actualization 6.39* .42* .61* .00 .15* .53* 1.51* .00 1.42* .42* .37* .47* .41* .27* .43* .54* . Self-Regard 2.55* .40* .39* .51* 1.00 .60* .55* .30* .37* .43* .32* .61* .00 1.47* .20* .40* .00 .00 1.60* . Reality Testing 10.37* .26* .00 .66* .49* .53* 15 .64* . Assertiveness 4.55* .52* .50* 1.28* . Problem Solving 12. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.55* .43* .47* .61* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .55* .40* .38* .25* . Empathy 89 7.Table 7.00 1. Impulse Control .25* .42* .23* .00 1.62* .00 .40* .00 .42* .51* .66* .43* 1.43* .50* .58* .16* .74* .45* 1.60* .61* .52* .33* .53* . Self Awareness 3.65* .36* .58* .72* . Interpersonal Relationship .82* .47* 1.

a p < .01. Optimism 15.05. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.00 15 .64* 1. *p < . Happiness Note. bns = nonsignificant.Table 7.00 Subcomponent 14. N = 157. 90 .

Individualized Consideration Note. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.60* . Results are shown in Table 9.Table 8. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. *p < .57* 1. followed by General Mood (R2change = .55* . The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. to a minimal extent.58* 1.00 4 . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.015).019).54* . Stress Management at Step 3. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.64* 1.00 2 . Results are shown in Table 9. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. Inspirational Motivation 4.00 3 . and. the Interpersonal component (R2change = .72* 1. General Mood and 91 . N = 157.59* . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Overall. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = .01. Intellectual Stimulation 5.61* . 1 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.62* .00 5 .287). Stress Management at Step 3. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.

287 at Step 1. nor Adaptability. N = 157. 92 .287 . Neither Stress Management. † TLS Summed = D.000 .04* 62.073 –. R2 = .Interpersonal components. **p < . and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).V.301 at Step 2.07 .25 2. the EQi Intrapersonal. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.069 2.301 at Steps 3 and 4.000 .008 .316 –0.04 .019 Note. entered at Step 3. R2 = .25 . *p < . F change R2change . In summary. Table 9. entered at Step 4.034 4.05.01.87 . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.162 .24 .66** . Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Variable† Step 1 Intrapersonal Step 2 Interpersonal Step 3 Stress Management Step 4 Adaptability Step 5 General Mood Beta a ta Fchange Sig. R2 = .015 .000 .85 .320 at Step 5.033 –.66 3.32 .728 –0. R2 = .

Research Question 3: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address whether there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS which consisted of two phases. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components and on the five TLS components. Secondly, independent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components and the five TLS components. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the five EQi components. These were then ranked from highest to lowest means for each gender to identify those EQi components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* EQi component Total EQi Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management Adaptability General Mood
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.

Female** Rank -(1) (4) (2) (2) (3) M 104.45 104.21 104.72 103.00 105.08 101.38 SD 13.63 14.94 13.43 12.37 12.08 12.63 Rank -(3) (2) (4) (1) (5)

M 106.93 108.74 102.71 106.44 106.44 103.25

SD 13.45 12.43 14.53 13.33 13.65 12.94

93

Males in the sample ranked highest on the Intrapersonal EQi component (M = 108.74, SD = 12.47), and they ranked lowest on the Interpersonal component (M = 102.71, SD = 14.53). The second-highest rankings for males were on both Stress Management and Adaptability. Females in the sample ranked highest on the Adaptability component (M = 105.08, SD = 12.08), and they ranked lowest on the General Mood component (M = 101.38, SD = 12.63). The second-highest ranking for females was on the Interpersonal component. As a group, females (2) ranked higher than males (4) on the EQi Interpersonal component. Females (1) also ranked higher than males (2) on the Adaptability component. Males ranked higher than females on the remaining three EQi components, Intrapersonal, Stress Management, and General Mood. Descripitive statistics (Means, SD) were then obtained for males and females on the five TLS components. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify those TLS components on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). These data are shown in Table 11. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the TLS Individualized Consideration component as seen in the rankings in Table 12, achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 3.36, SD = 0.59; females: M = 3.31, SD = 0.53) compared to the remaining four components. Both males and females ranked second on the Inspirational Motivation component. Interestingly, the second-lowest ranking for males and the lowest-ranking for females was on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Males ranked lowest on the Idealized Influence (Attributed) component, while females, as previously noted, ranked lowest on Intellectual Stimulation. 94

Table 11. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender
Male* TLS component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration
Note. N = 157. *n = 95. **n = 62.

Female** Rank -(5) (3) (2) (4) (1) M 3.10 3.04 3.03 3.19 2.97 3.31 SD 0.60 0.64 0.59 0.58 0.67 0.53 Rank -(3) (4) (2) (5) (1)

M 3.22 3.11 3.18 3.30 3.15 3.36

SD 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.51 0.59

As a group, females (3) ranked higher than males (5) on only one TLS component, Idealized Influence (Attributed). As a group, males ranked higher (3) than females (4) on Idealized Influence (Behavior) and on Intellectual Stimulation (4 vs. 5). Independent samples t tests. First, an independent-samples t test was conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the five EQi components. This is the appropriate statistical test to use when comparing two independent (i.e., unrelated) groups such as male and female on one or more continuous (scaled) variables, such as the five EQi components. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 12. Males scored a mean of 4.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females, a difference which was significant at p < .05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 95

48 104.05.05.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95. bn = 62.97 0. bn = 62. *p < . No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.44 2. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108.05. *p < .14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.50 2.Table 12. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.16 0.21 14. a difference which was significant at p < . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.67 2. Males scored a mean of 0. 96 .75 12. Table 13.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.

(c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. SD = 14.08. females: M = 106. Interestingly.77. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. 97 . the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents.64. Descriptive statistics.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. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. respectively. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). SD = 14. These data are presented in Table 14.

63 13.23 13.28 (14) 100.93 13.50 12.64 109.53 12.99 107.50 109.27 11.80 102. Self-Actualization (9 vs.37 12. Empathy (4 vs.70 13.14 15.80 106.40 14.19 12.47 104. 11).01 103. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.Table 14.09 109.21 105.48 13.06 102. As a group.18 14.56 102. Social Responsibility 98 .74 11.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.37 105.80 14.67 103.77 102.16 103.33 105.34 12. N = 157.08 11.17 103.07 14.89 103. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender _________________________________________________________________________ Male Female EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104.92 102. *n = 95.55 13.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.41 11.84 11.76 106.37 14.43 11.75 13.24 104.26 103. **n = 62.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.97 15.72 101. 13).34 102.68 14.57 13.92 13.62 103.74 15.78 13.61 104.

12). An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. a difference which was significant at p < .05.91a 2. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.42* Note. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. (2 vs. a Marginally significant. Males. among others.01 102. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.57 12.80 11.11 107.74 t 2.01. *p < . 12).80 102.(5 vs. **p < . Females. They also scored higher on the 99 .18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. As a group.99 M 99.21 105. n = 62.18 14.07* 3.67 SD 11. 10). Stress Tolerance (4 vs. Males scored a mean of 7. n = 95.36** 1.07 14.74 15.97 109.26 Females SD 13. 15). and Flexibility (6 vs. p = . 10). Self-Regard (8 vs. 13). Assertiveness. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).39 109. Independent-samples t test. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.01. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.05.86 11. 15). Table 15.

As a follow-up.08). stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. all of which were significant at p < . Specifically. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. Further. To summarize. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. or combination.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. Regression analyses. They also scored 4. but did not predict TLS for males. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.13). of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . were important predictors of TLS in females.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.11) than did females (M = 105.05. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . 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. and independence (R2 change =. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents.41) subcomponents.

269 .011 Note. R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .263 at Step 4. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales). bFor males: R2 (adj) = .02 .000 . **p < .248 at Step 3. R2 (adj) = .45 .261 at Step 1.18 .002 .378 at Step 3.010 .302 .989 34. 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.000 .99** . 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.001 . R2 (adj) = .24 14.63** .05 .04 2.669 3.73 1.08 .088 –.176 at Step 1.190 .67 –1.255 at Step 2.379 at Step 4.167 1.097 .098 12.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4. F change R2change .253 at Step 2.755 . N = 157.022 .268 7.73 .85 .606 .21 –.001 .131 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .. Table 16. It was thus decided that using 101 . R2 (adj) = .55 –.12 2. R2 (adj) = .41 .e.81 1.01.19 .

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

n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.4 50. the highest percentage of females (54.6%.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.1 45.4 54.2 56.7%.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).3 46. Comparison of Low. **n = 62. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation 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. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.5 53.4 50.5 46. N = 157. The highest percentage of males (52.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53. *n = 95. The highest percentage of females (59.7 53. Table 17.5 59.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.7 53.1 50. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.(Behavior).3 48.6 49.7 51.7 47.5 40.8 43. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.3 46.8%.3 52. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.

91). The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.09 10.28 11.45 112.66 11.76 110.29 SD 14.64 112. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.50 114. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. Secondly.04 16. Table 18.14 11.30 10.98 111.00 112.11 11.51 111.85 12. Once this subsample was selected.68 12. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.66 114.75 9.92 111.12 110.00 9.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .55 114. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111. First.11 113.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.75 10.24 111.15 10. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.83 111. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.88 11.

50 11.28 107.39 M 110.50 11.17 9.55 11.40 12.39 9.55 12.15 104.53 109.03 7.22 13.21 11.90 103.86 105.44 9.Table 18.55 12. 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 104.13 111.26 112.73 9.68 10.38 14.25 104.28 108.28 110.12 10.51 107.23 106.18 109.71 106.22 108.51 7.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .13 107.92 105.23 108.20 9.42 109.56 SD 10.50 107.62 107.15 108.36 13.41 8.07 14.64 9.84 11.

12 10.50 SD 10.67 10.42 9.66 104.82 105.90 12. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .56 105.20 11.47 12.27 14.14 105.86 12.33 M 104. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Social Responsibility Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Social Responsibility Impulse Control Happiness Females’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Self-Regard Happiness Flexibility Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships 102. (b) Assertiveness.75 104.79 105.78 103.89 11.81 17. (c) Independence.65 103.96 105.00 103.43 11.Table 18.59 14.73 10.35 103.06 13.26 105.68 106.57 104.41 10.01 8.63 12.4 102.06 12.85 14.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.77 101. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.66 10.03 102.09 104.50 105.

Males scored 107 . this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. (b) Independence. however. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. a difference which was significant at p < .05. In summary. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. (d) Empathy. (c) Social Responsibility. Females scored a mean of 4. (d) Problem Solving.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components.05. 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. Males scored a mean of 5.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. (b) Social Responsibility. Assertiveness. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard.across the five TLS components. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. While males scored 5. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. (b) Happiness. Independent subsamples t test. 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. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components.

.57 M 107. a Marginally significant.04* Note.80 SD 10. 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. Subsample N = 82. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. To do this. EQi. p = . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.05. *p < . who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). 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.94a –2. Categorical variables. Females.16 Females SD 13.00 14. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. categorical variables (low. Males.01* 2.61 106.and high-scoring) 108 .96 10. n = 31.43 t 1. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. Table 19. however.43 104.09 108.e.05 10.33 111.05.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. n = 51.78 8.

The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean.5% (n = 35) of females did so.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.3%. However.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. The highest percentages of males (61.0%.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. again based on each EQi subcomponent. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51.1%. More than one half of males (53. Once the subsample was selected.6%. The highest percentage of females (61. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.5%. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.97). Descriptive data (N and %) for low. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. followed by 59. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. Interestingly. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. Then. The highest percentage of males (50. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. 109 . n = 32).

5 46.5 40.2 51.2 50.5 53.2 57.0 47.0 110 .7 54.3 48.8 43.1 55.2 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 % 61.9 44.7 47.9 43.2 55.1 56.5 56. Comparison of Low.8 50.0 54.3 52.0 51.0 45.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.2 55.3 55.5 46.2 45.7 44.5 43.1 55.8 42. Female** High Low % 53.0 52.3 45.2 61. **n = 62.1 56.5 45.7 51.8 44.0 48.2 61.5 53.6 54.8 38.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 = 95.9 44.4 45.2 41.8 50.4 53.8 38.5 59.9 43.8 49.8 54.2 56.6 46.8 45.8 High % 38.8 58.2 50.9 45.5 54.Table 20.1 54.

61 3.58 3.49 0.49 0.54 0.55 3.37 3. Table 21.52 0.47 0.47 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.48 3.43 111 .49 3.51 3.53 0.48 0.5 3.47 3.37 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.55 3. followed by the lowest mean.47 0.49 3.52 3.57 0.51 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.60 0.55 3.55 SD 0.54 0.52 3.

45 0.51 3.51 3.37 3.37 0.44 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 3.36 0.37 3.42 3.38 3.41 3.37 0.35 3.55 3.Table 21.36 3.35 112 .42 0.39 0.34 0.6 M 3.46 3.43 SD 0.37 0.42 3.22 3.39 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.44 3.30 0.45 0.21 0.45 3.

43 0.45 113 .52 0.Table 21.53 0.2 3.14 0.61 0.57 0.22 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.6 0.2 3.53 M 3.58 0.51 0.22 3.25 3.58 0.21 3.61 0.59 0.2 3.28 3.19 3.51 0.08 3.57 0.24 SD 0.24 3.57 0.18 3.5 0.15 3.24 3.1 3.

Table 21. with the exceptions of Independence.57 Descriptive statistics.06 2.13 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.62 0.16 3.67 0.55 0.95 3.49 0.68 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. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .6 0. Optimism and Happiness.63 0.21 3. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.11 3.08 SD 0.05 3. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.63 0.58 0.14 3.02 3. Empathy.11 3.59 0.

n = 33.43 t 2. In summary. 115 . Idealized Influence (Behavior). Females. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.05. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.04* M 111. Table 22. n = 54. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. 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.16 SD 14.57 M 106. Independent subsamples t test. a difference which was significant at p < .22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females.Motivation. p = . Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.05. a Marginally significant. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. *p < .80 Males scored 0. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Females SD 10.05. Males.

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

In fact. 2003). the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. 1999). The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. 2007). In 2001. and related occupations (U. 2000.S. However. professional. 2008). In 2007. 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. However. 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.S Department of Labor.S. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. 47% law degrees.Sosik & Megerian.4% in 2005. 80% of the U. women held 15. 30% of women earned medical degrees. workforce is growing in its diversity. Over the next decade.2% last year (Hymowitz. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. Hay/McBer. The women 117 . Mandell & Pherwani. down from 16. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. 2003). in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. with women currently representing 50. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman.6% of the 48 million employees in management.

In the overall U.3 trillion in annual sales. 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. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 . The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. if they exist. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe.S. Identifying how gender differences in EI. Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9.5 million people and generate $1. Not surprisingly. 2007). As a result of this ambiguity. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. In addition.S.3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. the chance to pursue an opportunity. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. businesses owned by women. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous. nearly $2. 2007). influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS.

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

No significant interaction between gender and EQi while predicting transformational leadership style was found. When examining for gender differences the EQi subcomponents. Additional analysis to further delineate the relationship among gender and its influence on EQi in predicting TLS used a subsample of males and females scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score. a significant gender difference was identified in the EQi Intrapersonal and TLS Intellectual Stimulation components with males scoring higher. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Self-Regard.When examining for gender differences between EQi and TLS components. representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the 120 . No other significant gender differences in the two tests components were found. Stress Tolerance. Three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents were identified. and Social Responsibility. and Stress Tolerance. and only marginally significant on Independence subcomponent. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Assertiveness. Assertiveness. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. 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.

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

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

defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar.” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. entails adjusting our feelings. BarOn.Reality Testing. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . Nevertheless. Males scored a mean of 4.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. 2002). 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.19 (p < . Thus. Males scored a mean of 0. 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.62 (p < . thinking and behavior to new situations. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings.

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. the previous description of these two constructs suggest similar interrelated themes that would support the correlation and lend further credence to Bar124 . skills and talents.” was rejected. try new approaches.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. as well as those of the leader and the organization. strive toward maximizing development of our competencies. and challenge their own beliefs and values. 1990). which facilitates followers to engage in creative problem solving in finding solutions based on shared beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass. Gender differences in the Intrapersonal EQi component were identified as significant.05) as well. with males scoring a higher mean of . with males scoring a higher mean of 4. Intrapersonal relates to ones ability to realize our potential capacities by understanding our strengths and weaknesses. As a result.19 (p < . Striving to actualize potential involves developing enjoyable and meaningful activities that can lead to effort and an enthusiastic commitment to long-term goals (Bar-On. Gender differences in the TLS Intellectual Stimulation component were also identified as significant.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. 2002.62 (p < . 2007).

Petrides & Furnham. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.10. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents.On and Handley (1999) and Goleman (1998) suggesting their research has consistently found male leaders to have significantly higher intrapersonal capacity than do their female counterparts. 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.05. which this current study used. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. 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.18).17). 1995. While this current study supports previous research findings. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. 2000). The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.” 125 . all of which were significant at p < . suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.41).

n = 31) scored above 126 . More than one half of males (53. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. are better at handling stress.7%. ¶ 1). 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. “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. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. Steven Stein.18). According to Dr.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. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. President of MHS.0%. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. To do this. are independent. and men’s and women’s use of EQi.

05).700 administrations of the EQi. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Assertiveness. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. Thus. inner strength. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4.33. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question.64. and Social Responsibility.05). p < . who analyzed the scores on over 7. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. p < .28. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. The results using the subsample of high scorers in TLS paint a somewhat different gender profile from the overall sample in that this group of females have a stronger sense of Self-Regard—the conceptual component of emotional-social intelligence associated with general feelings of security. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. In addition. p < .” was rejected.the mean across all of the TLS components. Stress Tolerance. self-assuredness. 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. 2007).

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

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

98. unlike findings of previous research. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). in the present research. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107.8 vs. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. The present finding that males scored higher on the Intrapersonal component of the EQi than females is partly consistent with results of Goleman’s (1998) and Bar-On’s (2002) research.2).62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 101. Van Rooy et al.decoding (Byron.31). 2005). men scored a mean of 4. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. as well as higher on all five components than males.. 130 .7 vs.. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. Butler. 92). However. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough.58 vs.7) (p. 1998. 104. Schutte et al.21 vs. 2000). who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. unlike the present results. 2003) may be related to leadership ability.31) and TLS (65. 2005. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. women scored higher overall. 63. 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52(2). (2004). (1985). Leadership Quarterly. B.242/demo/intro/tformlead. 541–554. B. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. (1995).1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. Retrieved from http://www. & Avolio. B. B. R. R.2. B. Retrieved from http://205. R. International Journal of Public Administration.. B. (1999). 19–31. Bass. B.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. & Avolio. doi: 10.. Public Administration Quarterly. (1999). 4(3). (1997). TX: Pro-Philes Press. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.uaemex. doi: 10. Bass. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Psicothema. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. 375–377.1080/01900699408524907 Bass. M. & Handley. 112–121.org/bar-on-model/essay. (2006). & Avolio.net/tc3/TC019239. 18(3). B. J. 18(Suppl.. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. & Avolio. M. (1993).). Menlo Park. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores... J. (2007).52. M.html Bass. 17(3/4). Retrieved from http://redalyc. Organizational Dynamics. J. CA: Mind Garden. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. 13–25. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. Bass. & Avolio. B. 17(1). CA: Mind Garden. (1993).Bar-On. Bass. J. New York: The Free Press. 143 . R. J.htm Bass. (1994). M. M. Redwood City. B. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. (1990). B. B. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. M. J.reuvenbaron.1037/0003-066X. B. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). M. M.231. & Avolio.130 Bass. B. B. B. New Braunfels. (1990). doi: 10. M.php?i=25 Bar-On.pdf Bar-On. 130–139. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership.84.. Bass. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). M.

Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. doi: 10. Bass.. 44–46.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. B. 5–34. Doctoral dissertation. R. M.. M. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. & Henninger. B. South Carolina State University.pdf Boyatzis. L.2224/ sbp. Psychological Inquiry.88.haygroup.pdf Brody. 47–64. A. J. Burton. Retrieved from http://ei.. Retrieved from http://www.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. (2007).org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. (2003). R. Doctoral dissertation.1.2.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. (2000). 35(1). Avolio. M. Murphy. 15(3). University of Nebraska. Psychological Reports. Retrieved from http://www.41 144 . L. Applied Psychology: An International Review.library .htm Bryant. M. A.ebscohost. (1996). B.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. 234–238.eiconsortium.35. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract].com/login. & Wheeler. (2003). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. & Berson. (2004).aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. N.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. Y. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Retrieved from http:// www. Leadership. 9(4). (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge.. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. (1978). (2007). Jung. J. Avolio. J. E. E..Bass.edu/login?url=http://search. I. K. & Atwater. 32–44. Lincoln. S. doi: 10. (2004). J.htm Burns. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). B. 45(1). 207–218. 27(5)... E. W. 86(1).. J. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. D. D. doi: 10.. 41–50. Social Behavior and Personality. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Journal of Applied Psychology.eiconsortium. Hafetz. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. 88(2).2007. doi: 10.haygroup. E.1037/0021-9010.capella.207 Bennis. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. (1990). New York: Harper & Row.

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

Chief executive officer. (1990). B. Retrieved August 31. T. H. 29(12). 45(4). 15(4). A.. Mayfield. doi: 10. Gender and reactions to dominance. & Salas. 146 . Journal of Nursing Administration. Dubinsky.d. Dixon.. D.1037/0033-2909. 735–744.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. 523–530. M. CA. 17–29.. & Spangler. Leadership Quarterly. J. Management challenges for the 21st century. & Swerdlik. 15(2). 17–21.. A. R. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. D. Miner. Academy of Management Journal. & Johnson.. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development.2. 341–372. (1995). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. B. (1967).com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. W. (1994).). D.. (1999). J. E. doi: 10. M. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (n. B. Yammarino. from Answers... Public Personnel Management. Jolson.. Dearborn. H. & Johnson. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: HarperCollins. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Journal of Business Research. (1995). (1999). J. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. 31(4). doi: 10. 233–256.233 Eagly. F.com Web site: http://www. doi: 10. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. B. (2000).answers. Mountain View. & Shamir. Karau. C. (2002). J. (2002).. Dulewicz.108. Copeland. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. D. M. J. 135–159. & Higgs. P. Psychological Bulletin. 5(2). B. 53–68. S. Driskell... L. F. Journal of Managerial Psychology. K. Eden. Drucker. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. 55(6). A. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. E. A.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. 467–480. Achieving results through transformational leadership. 2008. J. Eagly... 108(2). 10(6). Avolio.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. J. V. E (1999). New York: Hill.

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

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

41–44. R..pdf Law. 113–118.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes..15304. R. Reiter-Palmon. L. doi: 10.5. June). Leadership Quarterly. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. doi: 10. 38(3). 615–626. doi: 10.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. (2000). Z.. S. & Song.542 Judge. A. Emotion. Salovey.3. doi: 10. R. P. T. A. Journal of Applied Psychology.1037/0021-9010..89. & Johnson.. 5(1). 173–180.5. doi: 10.89. doi: 10. & Siefen. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. K. J. E. & Jantzi. M. J. Journal of Research and Technology Management. S. J. Journal of Applied Psychology. Côté. 154–163. Education.wiley. M.. 89(3). B. T. (1995). J. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. D.. G. 89(3).00. R. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. & Sivasubramaniam.. (2001). European Psychologist. Kirkcaldy..com/cda/media/ 0. S.. doi: 10. (2000. 542–552. A.edu/login?url=http://search. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Current Psychology.1. (2005). N.483 Leithwood. & Beers. 755–768.. & Rickers.. doi: 10. P.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. 12(3). Journal of Educational Administration.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Noack. 125(4). Kroeck.1037/15283542.Judge. B. M. (1996). L.. L.. 89(5). K. & Ilies. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. (2007). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . 7(3). 112–129. C..1037/0021-9010.755 Kaufhold. Furnham. G.. F. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.ebsco host.89.1037/0021-9010. P. N. K. A.library. (2004). Wong..3. 38(2). 483–496. B. (2004). A. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. R. D. Colbert. (2005). K.113 Lowe. & Piccolo. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. (2004). Retrieved from http://basepath. Transformational leaders make a difference.. & Posner. 385–425. 20(2). Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.capella.1348/026151000165869 Kobe.com/login.

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

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

. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. P. 60(4). V. K. Plunkett (Ed.ebsco host. & Furnham. R. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. & Buckley.1002/per. Costa. L... C. Emotional intelligence. Supervision (6th ed. Sex Roles.library. 425–448. V. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2007).com/login. C.4.01. In W. A. Ammeter. A. B. doi: 10. Catholic University of America. 18(2).1037/0022-3514. and team outcomes. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. A. 11(4). M. (2003a). (2003). divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. R.. K. (1990). (1992). Leadership and management styles. Doctoral dissertation.. R. G. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. Douglas. 41–62.. 744–755..eiconsortium. (2000). leadership effectiveness. T..org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . Petrides.edu/login?url=http://search. Case Western Reserve University. (1991). L. Ammeter. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. 68(6). T... Prati.eiconsortium.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. R. G. M. 119–125.Petrides. R. 11(1).. Doctoral dissertation. L.2007. B. pp. Ways women lead. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M. P. (2001). 121–133.003 152 . P. R. Prati. Ferris.leaqua. & Buckley. 449–461. R. M. K.630 Plunkett. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent.capella.. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. (2004). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Ferris.htm Rivera Cruz. 363–369.416 Piedmont.).org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. & McRae. Retrieved from http://www. 323–351). (2003b).htm Rosener. Emotional intelligence. doi: 10.1016/j. L. R. A. Boston: Allyn Bacon. W. doi: 10. Douglas. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. & Heinitz. Purkable. 15(6). & Furnham. R. J. Leadership Quarterly.. V. 42(5/6). Harvard Business Review. European Journal of Personality. J. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model..60. Retrieved from http://www.

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

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

aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. F.ebscohost.com/login. Journal of Information Systems.htm Weisinger.06.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. Wolfe. 34(10).com/login.capella.edu/ login?url=http://search. D. B.). (1990). International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Yammarino. doi: 10. Nursing Management.capella.1016/j. The perfect labor storm 2. Doctoral dissertation.ebscohost. leaqua. I. (2005). Leadership in organizations (5th ed. The Leadership Quarterly. S. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis.library . Comer. G.eiconsortium. (2000).ebscohost. A.com/login. H...library. Human Relations. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. (2003). 205–222. 251–289.2004.Viator.. Journal of Management. Chew.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. G. 15(2). 975–995.capella.edu/login?url=http://search. (1998). A. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Emotional intelligence at work. doi: 10. B.. University of Minnesota. & Spangler. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. Dubinsky. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. E. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 39–52. J. Upper Saddle River.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. 15(2). J.. Developing emotional intelligence..library. (2003).001 155 . Zhu.edu/login?url=http://search. 16(1). 8(2). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. doi: 10. 28–32. (2001). Academy of Management Journal. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. R. (2007). L. PA: Poised for the Future Company. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . (2002). (1989). W. A. J. M. I. M. 99–125. W. (1997). Lancaster. & Bass. F. Retrieved from http://www . 40(1). J. 43(10). C. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. NJ: Prentice Hall. L. 89–92. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Yukl. & Jolson. H. M. K.

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

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

00 158 .000.00 and $70.00 and $100.000.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 and $150.00 More than $150.000.000.00 Between $70.00 Between $100.000.000.00 Between $40.000.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful