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

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

iii . and to my Grandparents.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. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

vii

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

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

Specifically.033. education. 1995). it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). 1988). 1999). the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. develop. 1997. Department of Labor. 2003. higher group performance levels (Keller. 1998).373 billion (Herman. Ireland & Hitt. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. U. Hitt. 2005). and retain the best talent. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. 1999. The U. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. Drucker. 1 .S. attract.CHAPTER 1. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10.S. 1997. Herman. Gioia. 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. companies must compete to find. & Olivo. Department of Labor. 2000. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 1990).

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

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

2. 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. 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. 4 . 4. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. In addition.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 3. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bass & Avolio. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. along with several books and dissertations. In addition. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 1988). 22 articles were relevant to this study. 1999). 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. 12 . 1985. 2006. higher group performance (Keller. this study’s theoretical orientation hypothesizes a relationship between EI and transformational leadership such that EI is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for transformational leadership. Theoretical Orientation of the Study Researchers investigating the effects of transformational leadership have found that transformational leadership is associated with higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction (Hater & Bass. Goleman. Specifically. 1995. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. 1995). and dissertations.gender. After completing the data analysis used in this study another review of the literature was completed to examine additional research findings that may have been pertinent to this particular study published between 2006 and 2007. In total. books. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or hypothetical leader). 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. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . using a sample of 275 nurses. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. and its effect on job satisfaction. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. Third. organizational perception. Lowe. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. Kroeck. The results of a study by Morrison. Fourth. First. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. 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. and job satisfaction. and Sivasubramaniam (1996) performed a meta-analysis of 33 independent empirical studies of transformational leadership for statistical analyses in order to integrate the different findings and investigate different moderating variables in order to reveal a set of summary findings.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. Fifth. Second. the sample size must have been reported. Jones. leader/unit perception.

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

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

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

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

b. exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . c. b. c. d. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. 2. e. 2004). Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization.94.74 to . 34 . c. 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. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group.b.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopkins (2005) conducted research on the EI competencies and styles underlying successful leadership by examining the competencies and leadership styles of 105 successful women and men leaders in one financial services institution. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates. but not male.avoidance coping. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. managerial and nonmanagerial employees. 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. and success. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. This suggests that executives who are capable of temporarily stepping back from a problem were more able to find creative solutions to the problem. 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. leadership styles. As noted previously. 57 . Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. The study used self and other ratings of EI. Specifically. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 for Windows) for statistical analysis. Test-retest reliability estimates of the EQi after 1 and 4 months. Flexibility. 2002). (c) Adaptability—Reality Testing. to administer and score the online Bar-On EQi assessments used in this research study. respectively. similar to that of IQ scores (Bar-On. Social Responsibility. Researcher contracted with Multi-Health Systems.. Assertiveness. and their associated subcomponents. Items are measured on a 5point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very seldom/not true for me) to 5 (very often/often true of me). with equal representation of males and females (Bar-On. Independence. Bar-On. (d) Stress Management—Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control. were reported as . Emotional Self-Awareness. Version 12. and Interpersonal Relationship.75 (n = 27. The majority of the North American normative sample were White (79%) and under the age of 30 years.85 (n = 44) and . 65 . to obtain a Total EQ. and Self-Actualization. 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. The Bar-On model uses 133 items to produce composite scales reflecting the five major EQ components.States and Canada. (b) Interpersonal—Empathy. The five major EQ components and their associated subcomponents of the Bar-On model are (a) Intrapersonal—Self-Regard. 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. MHS Inc. and Problem Solving. 2002). and (e) General Mood—Optimism and Happiness. 2002). Total raw scores are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.

education level. were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format and downloaded into SPSS for statistical analysis. industry. the risk and benefits of participation. years held in current position. title best describing the respondent’s current position. and providing a hyperlink directing participants to the online survey site. the purpose of research. the expected time of completion. and number of direct reports under supervision. years employed by current organization. 66 . race/ethnicity. the criteria needed to be met for participation. additional contact information for anyone experiencing difficulties accessing the research site or questions concerning research in general. 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. 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.Demographic Questionnaire The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix) collected data on gender. age. 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 MLQ assessment.Consent was implied by participants who after reading the “Waiver of Signed Consent” (a detailed explanation of participants rights as a volunteer participant in research that outlined the safeguards researcher implemented to avoid any issues of potential harm or risk of their confidentiality and privacy). Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. individual data were not made available.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. 2. 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.” 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 . click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so.

H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 68 . HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.3. 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. 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.

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

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

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

if so. the nature and strength of that association. 160). Hierarchical linear regression analyses was then conducted to analyze the relative contributions of each component of the independent variable to the variance explained in the dependent variable. and. 170). as well as to control for the effects of gender. it was hypothesized that gender differences would be identified with respect to the relationship between use of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. 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.were so highly correlated with one another as to result in multicollinearity in the planned linear regression analyses (Field. 72 . age and/or other demographic variables chosen by the researcher (Field. 2005. p. In addition.

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

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

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

9 6.4 24.6 76 .7 5.1 11.2 12.7 20.1 22.9 12.2 55.7 5.5 4.4 3.0 11.8 5.2 5. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.6 16.Table 1.1 39.1 10.5 45.8 3.2 2.9 3.8 2.1 25.7 7.5 5.7 29.7 10.4 19.3 8.8 1.

000 23 14.3 12.0 2.4 8. 77 .20).25 85.9 12.7 2.7 31. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables (continued) __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Level of education High school and technical/trade school AA degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree PhD Number of direct reports 3–6 7–9 10–12 13–15 16+ Race/Ethnicity** African American Asian Caucasian Latino *Age (N = 150) 21–27 28–34 35–42 43–50 51–58 59+ 52 16 51 33 3 103 16 15 3 20 4 4 135 14 3 4 25 52 47 19 32.6 Between $100–150. American Indian. Arabic or other. N = 158.1 9.1 32.5 1. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.7 34.000 44 27.7 Current income Less than $40.9 2. **Includes Pacific Islander.Table 1.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.000 17 10.9 65. East Asian. SD = 8.000 55 34.8 Between $40–70.2 10.3 20.7 16.5 4. Minimum age 24.9 10.70.8 Between $70–100. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.9 1. maximum age 67.000 15 9.8 More than $150.

25. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). n = 78). the participants were typically Caucasian (85%).000 per annum (49. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.15 direct reports. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. n = 135) male (60.1%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. n = 106).32 subordinates. from between 3–6 to more than 16. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.7%. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. Most respondents earned from $40.6%. n = 121) in a private. or mean of 3.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. Notably. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. The sample of the population in this study has an average.2%. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education.000–$100. In terms of supervision responsibilities. n = 72).95 years of college education. n = 103).4%. for-profit organization. However.6%. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85.4%. and a median of 5. Addressing racial diversity. 78 . The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.

103. 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. Interpersonal. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. Summed TLS Score.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed.900 and the median was $54. the mean income was $68. and General Mood Components. 105. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components. 107. For the income this is going to be most apparent.49). Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.85). 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 2.86 (SD = 13.63 (SD = 12. 105.01). 102. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable.02 (SD = 13.97 (SD = 13.41). Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. As far as income. Stress Management. Intrapersonal.65 years. with a nearly identical median of 48.00).02 (SD = 13.77 years. in descending order. Total EQi Score.49 (SD = 14. EQi component scores were. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. 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 3.730. The mean age of the subjects is 48. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Adaptability.05). 79 .

64 107.21 105.85 12. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.73 12.60 14.17 104.54 103.66 101. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.05 14.86 12.49 13.31 103.00 12.19 13.02 105.66 14.61 102.Table 2.46 102.86 106.62 13.04 12.02 102.44 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.97 13.74 13.63 103.45 13.67 13.01 13.41 106. 80 .63 103.41 12.93 13.52 103. N = 157. 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 107.36 Total EQi Score 105.49 103.61 105.28 103.70 13.

09 (SD = 0. 3.63). which are as follows. Inspirational Motivation. 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 3.58). Individualized Consideration.52. 3.95 (SD = 0.09 3. 3.59). 2. in descending order.52).08 (SD = 0.18 (SD = 0. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). 2.04 (SD = 0. 81 .59). Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.35 3.16 (SD = 0. 3.63 0. 3.35 (SD = 0.26 3. N = 157. 2004).57).59).96 (SD = 0.59 Note. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. TLS component scores were. Mind Garden.S. and Intellectual Stimulation.13 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior). Idealized Influence (Behavior).58 0.18 SD 0.53).26 (SD = 0.57 0. 3.57 0. Inspirational Motivation. Idealized Influence (Attributed).59).13 (SD = 0.57). norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.99 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed).Table 3. Intellectual Stimulation. 3.59 0.08 3. 2. Individualized Consideration.

57 0. TLS Component Scores: U. Skew represents the even-ness. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.e. Group Norms vs.35 SD 0.13 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.99 3.96 3. **N = 3. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.09 3.Table 4.59 0. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.59 0.02 2.55 0.08 3.375.95 2.S. Norm group** M 3. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.53 0. or scaled variables. 2001). Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.52 M 3. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.16 SD 0. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157..18 3.59 0.59 0. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. or symmetry.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous. of a distribution (i.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.26 3.58 0. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).63 0.04 2.52 0.

(b) MLQ 23 = –2. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . respectively. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.0.24. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. and (c) 9.85. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . (b) 6.83. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. (b) Interpersonal = .76.83.40. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. 2001). This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. (a) MLQ 5 = 2. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. (d) Adaptability = . with skew > +/–2. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . but normally distributed. 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. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. and not individual MLQ items. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. Inspirational Motivation = –.66. (c) Inspirational Motivation = .16. 83 .63. Intellectual Stimulation = –.80.78.49. and (e) General Mood = .64.67. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. (c) Stress Management = .18. and Individualized Consideration = –1.61.09.70.73.0.06.67.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.

37* IIB . IS = Intellectual Stimulation. *p < .46* IM .01. To address the first research question. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.35* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.44* .41* .48* .33* . Interpersonal 3.30* .23* . 84 . The significance level was set at (α = . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.59* IS .32* IC . N = 158. Table 5.37* .40* .05. Adaptability 5.31* .37* .40* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).44* .25* .36* . Intrapersonal 2.37* . IM = Inspirational Motivation. General Mood IIA .19 a .29* . a p < .43* Note. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. Pearson’s r was obtained.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. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).05). Stress Management 4. and IC = Individualized Consideration.52* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.28* . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.

which was still significant at p < . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. all of the Pearson’s r’s were . p < . Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components.19.20 and . p < . with (α = . p < . Most of the correlations ranged between .45. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. Results are shown in Table 6. (b) Happiness (r = .001) and Inspirational Motivation. which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified. 85 .59. at r = .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .001).50.51. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .16. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Inspirational Motivation (r = . using the same Procedure Correlations.001).05). (c) Self-Actualization (r = . The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? Inferential analyses IIa—correlations between the 15 EQi subcomponents and five TLS components. All correlations were in the positive direction.05.05). p < . The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). With one exception.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component.23 or higher. EQi component scores also increased.

46* .32* . and IC = Individualized Consideration. IM = Inspirational Motivation.28* .48* .33* .25* . Assertiveness 4.30* . Social Responsibility 8.21* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.32* .05).30* .43* .Table 6.16 a . Happiness IIA .43* .32* . Independence 5.38* .37* .51* IS .31* .36* .24* .31* .33* .43* .26* .17 a .12 (ns) .33* .37* .33* .01. Stress Tolerance 10.35* .37* . ap < .44* . Reality Testing 12.38* . Flexibility 13.39* IM .31* IIB . Self-Awareness 3.35* .36* .23* .15 (ns) .19 a .28* .15 (ns) .05 (ns = nonsignificant.37* .40* .40* .45* . *p < .24* .40* .33* .16 (ns) .03 (ns) .25* IC .59* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.37* . Self-Regard 2.39* .26* . Problem Solving 14.11 (ns) .24* . Impulse Control 11.27* .37* . Optimism 15.34* . 86 .50* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).30* .40* .29* . p ≥ . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.45* . Self-Actualization 6. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).24* . Empathy 7.34* .36* Note. N = 157.44* . Interpersonal Relationships 9.36* .33* .38* .23* .13 (ns) .

26. Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis. p < .001). a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. p < . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. p. EQi component scores also increased.90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = . This is a potentially serious issue. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = .While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . which can occur when variables are too highly correlated. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . 2005. All correlations were in the positive direction. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. In summary.001). This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable. Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. Correlations 87 . p < . 170). all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret.30.001). 2001). the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. 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.24. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation.

Therefore. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component.64.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis.01). The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . However. 88 .90.71.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . p < . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. this intercorrelation is to be expected. None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ.01). p < .82.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). based on the . multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue. 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. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = .72. p < .01). p < .

15* .40* .37* .42* .64* . Interpersonal Relationship .42* .51* .61* .36* .00 .58* .00 1. Self Awareness 3.00 .43* .52* .42* .32* .55* .00 1.00 1.53* .55* . Flexibility 11.37* .52* .27* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .39* .25* .49* .65* .32* Subcomponent 1.42* .55* .38* .55* .15* .00 .26* .00 1.60* .60* .45* 1.50* .43* .60* .59* .54* .42* . Independence 5.66* .50* .50* . Empathy 89 7. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.71* .47* .38* .55* .58* .72* . Stress Tolerance 13. Self-Regard 2.82* .00 .00 .66* .41* .41* .51* .60* . Reality Testing 10.50* .56* .39* .30* .47* .59* .51* 1.53* 15 . Problem Solving 12.56* .28* .39* .41* .61* .43* 1.40* .42* . Self-Actualization 6.33* .61* .43* .00 1.50* .00 .60* .61* .43* .25* .74* . Assertiveness 4.32* .00 .36* .33* .23* .50* .62* .20* .32* .47* .24* .47* 1.52* . Impulse Control . Social Responsibility 8.40* .35* .00 1.40* .36* 9.51* .40* .50* 1.37* .53* 1.16* .23* .Table 7.

bns = nonsignificant.01. Happiness Note.64* 1.00 15 . *p < .05. a p < . 90 . Optimism 15.00 Subcomponent 14.Table 7. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. N = 157.

to a minimal extent.Table 8. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.59* .64* 1.00 3 .287).00 2 . Intellectual Stimulation 5. Inspirational Motivation 4. Results are shown in Table 9. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. and. Overall. the Interpersonal component (R2change = .58* 1.00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. Individualized Consideration Note.54* .57* 1.00 5 . 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. Stress Management at Step 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. *p < . 1 1. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.60* . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.01. Results are shown in Table 9. followed by General Mood (R2change = .015). Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Stress Management at Step 3.62* . N = 157.55* .72* 1. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.61* . General Mood and 91 . followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.019).00 4 .

F change R2change . N = 157.287 at Step 1.25 2.162 . R2 = . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).85 . nor Adaptability.05.66** .019 Note.301 at Step 2.015 .000 . In summary. † TLS Summed = D. the EQi Intrapersonal. **p < .287 . entered at Step 3.008 .Interpersonal components. R2 = .04 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. entered at Step 4. Neither Stress Management.033 –.316 –0. *p < . R2 = .V. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.034 4.04* 62.01.073 –.87 .25 .000 .24 .728 –0.66 3.32 .000 .320 at Step 5. Table 9.301 at Steps 3 and 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi Components Predicting TLS Variable† Step 1 Intrapersonal Step 2 Interpersonal Step 3 Stress Management Step 4 Adaptability Step 5 General Mood Beta a ta Fchange Sig. 92 . R2 = . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.07 .069 2.

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

Table 13. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. *p < .05.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.67 2. bn = 62. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.50 2. *p < . Significant findings are shown in Table 13.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.48 104. a difference which was significant at p < . Males scored a mean of 0.05.Table 12. bn = 62.21 14. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. 96 .97 0.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.05.75 12.16 0. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.44 2.

females: M = 106. Descriptive statistics.77. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents.Research Question 4: Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 Subcomponents of the EQi and TLS? A set of analyses was conducted to address if there are significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and TLS? There were four phases to this process: (a) Descriptive statistics were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. respectively. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest). Interestingly. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. These data are presented in Table 14. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS.08. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent. SD = 14.64. 97 . and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109. SD = 14. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents.

78 13.47 104.92 102.24 104.Table 14.84 11.19 12.55 13.97 15.80 102.18 14.26 103. *n = 95.33 105.75 13.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.34 102.37 14.08 11.16 103.63 13.01 103.34 12.21 105.07 14.72 101.62 103.17 103.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.57 13.80 14.77 102. Self-Actualization (9 vs. **n = 62.37 105.06 102. Empathy (4 vs.70 13.53 12.23 13.64 109.50 109. 13).09 109.27 11.74 11.50 12.48 13.74 15.61 104.67 103.68 14.14 15.80 106. As a group.76 106.93 13.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.92 13.99 107.28 (14) 100. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.37 12.41 11.40 14. Social Responsibility 98 .43 11. N = 157.56 102. 11).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.

74 t 2.99 M 99. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. n = 95.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. among others. They also scored higher on the 99 .80 11.36** 1. Independent-samples t test. (2 vs.21 105. As a group. 12). **p < . 10).67 SD 11. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. Self-Regard (8 vs. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3).97 109. p = . a difference which was significant at p < .05. *p < . males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.80 102. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.18 14.91a 2. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. Males scored a mean of 7. Males.07* 3.(5 vs. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. Females.26 Females SD 13. 15). Table 15.05.11 107. 12). Assertiveness. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.01 102.86 11. 13). n = 62.01.07 14.39 109. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.42* Note.74 15.01. and Flexibility (6 vs. 15). 10). a Marginally significant.57 12.

13).Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . They also scored 4. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 .41) subcomponents.08).17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. To summarize.01) although this difference was only marginally significant. all of which were significant at p < . The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. 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. Regression analyses. but did not predict TLS for males. and independence (R2 change =. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. Further.11) than did females (M = 105. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. were important predictors of TLS in females. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females.05. As a follow-up. The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. Specifically. or combination.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles.

24 14.097 .55 –. Table 16.176 at Step 1.000 .669 3.21 –. R2 (adj) = .167 1.088 –.67 –1. F change R2change . **p < .e. R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .19 .02 . bFor males: R2 (adj) = .269 . R2 (adj) = .255 at Step 2.41 .098 12.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i..755 .302 .45 .011 Note.000 .63** .08 .85 .12 2.248 at Step 3.268 7.001 .18 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4. N = 157.99** .001 . 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.190 .989 34.378 at Step 3.002 .81 1.05 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .606 .263 at Step 4.022 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales). R2 (adj) = . R2 (adj) = .73 .73 1.131 .010 . It was thus decided that using 101 .253 at Step 2.04 2.379 at Step 4.261 at Step 1. 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.01.

n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the TLS components.0%. statistical analyses were conducted on this subsample to determine whether scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents differed significantly for males and females... Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.and high-scoring) were created for each component by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. categorical variables (low. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. (b) Idealized Influence 102 .e. n = 51) scored above the mean on the (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed). Finally. Those who scored above the mean on each EQi and TLS measure were chosen. The highest percentages of males (53.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 17.7%.e. The first step was to obtain descriptive statistics on the numbers and percentages of males and females scoring above or at or below the mean on the five TLS components. the three highest TLS component scores). More than one half of males (53. To do this. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i.7%. three highest and lowest EQi scores on the 15 subcomponents) for males and females who scored higher than the mean on the five TLS components.the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. and exactly one half of females (50. Categorical variables.

3 46. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.(Behavior).7 53.8%.4 50.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.5 53.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51. The highest percentage of males (52. *n = 95. the highest percentage of females (54. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .6 49.3 46.7 51.5 59.5 40.5 46. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.4 50. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.4 54. Table 17. **n = 62.1 45.6%. Comparison of Low.1 50. N = 157.7%.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).2 56.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.3 52.7 53.7 47. The highest percentage of females (59.3 48. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.8 43.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.

29 SD 14.92 111.11 113.75 10. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.12 110.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .50 114. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111.11 11.75 9.45 112.68 12. Table 18. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.14 11. First.98 111.00 9. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.09 10. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.00 112. Secondly.15 10.66 11.24 111.85 12.30 10. Once this subsample was selected.83 111.91). followed by the three lowest means for males and females.76 110.04 16.55 114.64 112.66 114.51 111. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.88 11.28 11.

25 104.17 9.28 110.44 9.53 109.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .51 107.42 109.15 108.28 107. 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 104.36 13.68 10.07 14.55 12.64 9.22 13.62 107.20 9.39 M 110.56 SD 10.15 104.23 106.41 8.38 14.50 11.13 111.Table 18.13 107.21 11.50 11.71 106.55 11.84 11.03 7.28 108.22 108.23 108.40 12.92 105.73 9.26 112.39 9.55 12.90 103.86 105.50 107.12 10.51 7.18 109.

and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .50 SD 10.47 12.26 105.77 101.Table 18.12 10.27 14.20 11.82 105.66 10.03 102.67 10.65 103.66 104.63 12.41 10.14 105.06 13.33 M 104.75 104. (c) Independence.79 105. (b) Assertiveness.09 104.78 103.96 105.57 104.81 17.4 102.68 106.90 12.06 12.56 105.01 8.35 103.73 10.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.00 103.59 14.86 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 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 102.50 105.89 11.85 14. 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.43 11.42 9.

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

Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).96 10.43 t 1.04* Note. *p < . n = 31.05.05 10. Categorical variables.00 14. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. n = 51.16 Females SD 13. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1..01* 2. EQi. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness. Females.43 104.e.78 8.61 106. To do this. Table 19. 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. 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. however. Males. categorical variables (low.33 111.94a –2.09 108.and high-scoring) 108 .80 SD 10. p = .57 M 107. Subsample N = 82. a Marginally significant.05.

n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. Once the subsample was selected. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures.5%. More than one half of males (53. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. The highest percentage of females (61. Interestingly. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. 109 .were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20.97). Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. Descriptive data (N and %) for low.1%.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. The highest percentages of males (61. Then. n = 32). means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. again based on each EQi subcomponent. However.3%.6%.5% (n = 35) of females did so. The highest percentage of males (50. followed by 59. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi.0%. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.

6 54.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61. Female** High Low % 53.7 54.3 55.8 43.5 43.0 48.2 50.0 110 .5 46.5 59.8 58.7 51.9 45.8 38.2 51.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.5 53.4 45.8 49.0 47.5 56.8 50.5 46.2 61. Comparison of Low.2 55.2 56.2 55.5 40.8 50.Table 20.3 45.9 43.2 61.3 52.8 45.8 42.9 44.5 53.2 41.7 44.8 High % 38.0 54.5 45.9 44.8 38.5 54.2 50.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 = 95.4 53.1 54.1 56. **n = 62.8 54.0 52.1 55.7 47.1 56.3 48.9 43.8 44.0 45.2 45.2 57.1 55.0 51.6 46.

49 0. followed by the lowest mean.58 3.48 0.51 3.52 0.49 3.37 3.55 SD 0.54 0.47 0.49 3.37 0.47 0.52 3. Table 21.55 3.51 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 3.54 0.53 0.55 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.5 3.43 111 .61 3.57 0.48 3.47 0.49 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.60 0.52 3.47 3.55 3.

37 3.38 3.51 3.40 0.35 112 .44 3.55 3.49 0.39 0.6 M 3.36 3.40 0.34 0.45 0.35 3.51 3.39 0.45 3.43 SD 0.37 0.37 0.42 3.45 0.42 0.46 3.21 0.42 3.30 0.36 0.Table 21. 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 3.44 0.41 3.37 3.22 3.37 0.

22 3.57 0.28 3.1 3.25 3.22 3.2 3.59 0.53 0.61 0.6 0.24 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 3.58 0.57 0.Table 21.15 3.58 0.52 0.51 0.24 3.19 3.21 3.2 3.43 0.57 0.2 3.24 SD 0.14 0.5 0.53 M 3.61 0.51 0.08 3.45 113 .18 3.

59 0.08 SD 0. Optimism and Happiness.14 3.63 0.6 0.63 0.21 3.11 3.11 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.58 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.49 0.05 3.62 0. with the exceptions of Independence. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.06 2.02 3.67 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .16 3.13 3.Table 21. 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 3.57 Descriptive statistics.95 3.68 0. Empathy.55 0.

Males. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22.05. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. 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. a difference which was significant at p < . Idealized Influence (Behavior).80 Males scored 0.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females.05. In summary. n = 54. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. Table 22.16 SD 14. 115 . Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Independent subsamples t test. p = .Motivation.43 t 2. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining TLS components for the subgroup of males and females who scored above the mean on Total EQi. a Marginally significant. n = 33. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. *p < .05. Females.57 M 106.04* M 111. Females SD 10.

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

Over the next decade. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. Hay/McBer.2% last year (Hymowitz. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. women held 15. 2003).S. In fact. 80% of the U. 2003). In 2001. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. 30% of women earned medical degrees.S. with women currently representing 50. and related occupations (U. In 2007. The women 117 . 1999). Mandell & Pherwani. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. 2007). workforce is growing in its diversity. during the last 25 years women’s employment has increased by 30% or more in every age category up to age 55 while men’s employment has declined in every age group over age 25. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000.4% in 2005. 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.S Department of Labor. 2008). the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. However. However. 47% law degrees.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. down from 16.Sosik & Megerian. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. professional.6% of the 48 million employees in management. 2000.

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

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

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

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

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. As well. or temptation to act. For example. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. Thus.03 to .= . Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. Stress Tolerance. the ability to withstand and deal with adverse events and stressful situations without getting overwhelmed by actively and positively coping with stress. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. 2003). 1998. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 122 . drive. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. Mandell & Pherwani.51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing.” 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. Impulse Control. Hay/McBer. However. 2002). Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS. 2000.16. defined as the ability to resist or delay an impulse.

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

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

2000).05.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. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence.41). The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. 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.10.” 125 . The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. Petrides & Furnham. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. 1995. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. which this current study used. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.18). 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.17). all of which were significant at p < . While this current study supports previous research findings.

the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. President of MHS. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3.18). n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. 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. Steven Stein. are better at handling stress. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. and should not come as a great surprise. To do this.0%. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. n = 31) scored above 126 .7%. are independent. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. 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). ¶ 1). More than one half of males (53. “Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS?” The researcher used a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership style in detecting significant gender differences in the relationships among gender. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. and men’s and women’s use of EQi.

inner strength. 2007). Thus.64.33. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. who analyzed the scores on over 7. 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. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).” was rejected. 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. p < .05). whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. p < .700 administrations of the EQi. Assertiveness. In addition.the mean across all of the TLS components. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. p < . self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. self-assuredness. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. Stress Tolerance. and Social Responsibility.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance.05).28.

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

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

21 vs. 104. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough.58 vs.2). 2005).8 vs. women scored higher overall. as well as higher on all five components than males. in the present research. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components.. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003)..decoding (Byron. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. 101. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. 1998. 130 . 2000). Butler. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. The present finding that males scored higher on the Intrapersonal component of the EQi than females is partly consistent with results of Goleman’s (1998) and Bar-On’s (2002) research. which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. men scored a mean of 4. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.7) (p. 2005.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 63. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 98. unlike the present results. However. 2005. Van Rooy et al. unlike findings of previous research.31) and TLS (65. Schutte et al. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. 92).7 vs.31).

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

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

& Salas. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. 2001). 2001). Nevertheless. Generally. That is. In addition. as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. 1989. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. Driskell. 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. Bass et al. expressing disagreement. In this current study self estimates were used in data collection in which Avolio and Bass (2004) suggested a common problem is that supervisors actually say and believe they are giving feedback to direct reports. In addition.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. 1995. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. 1998). 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. in 133 . dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. 2001. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance. 1989. 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. 1989). Rudman. Copeland. whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli.

This can lead to difficulties in saying no to self and others in response to new assignments and tasks. beliefs and thoughts. low self-regard EQ is manifested by self-doubt and the sense of being unable to do it all or. According to BarOn and Handley (1999). 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. inner strength. in the worst case.. Self-Regard. as well as a desire to meet expectations and obligations without becoming a slave to them. Independence—their degree of self-confidence. to defend their rights without being overly controlled or shy. 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.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. Gender differences in the scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi and TLS. 2002). Having low self-regard as previously discussed. the fear of failure. could also attribute to lower scores. and Stress Tolerance. In addition. significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American 134 . Assertiveness. Results of the present research identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. 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. Assertiveness—the ability to express feelings. and their negative connotations in. 1997).

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

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

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

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

Future researchers.S. education. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ. 1989). it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions.033. and 139 . in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. workforce. & Kaemmer. as stated previously.S. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. the U. 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. Concerning the narrowing of industries. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. Butcher. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Therefore.designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. As a result. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. Dahlstrom. Tellegen. Graham. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded.

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

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

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

& Avolio. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. (1993). & Avolio. 143 . Leadership Quarterly. M.52. 112–121. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. (1994). R. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. J.231. 130–139. 17(3/4).Bar-On. & Avolio. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. B.1080/01900699408524907 Bass.. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. Leadership development: Transformational leadership.net/tc3/TC019239. 17(1). (2004). M. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. Menlo Park. Bass.php?i=25 Bar-On. 13–25.. (1993).htm Bass. R.84. Psicothema. Retrieved from http://www. Redwood City. (1997). B.uaemex.html Bass. Retrieved from http://205.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. B. B.. B. R. Bass. 375–377. TX: Pro-Philes Press. Retrieved from ProQuest database.pdf Bar-On. Retrieved from http://redalyc. & Avolio. New York: The Free Press. M.130 Bass. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. (1999).1037/0003-066X. B. M. (1990). J. Bass. Bass. B. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. B. B. M. CA: Mind Garden. (1999). New Braunfels. B. 4(3). (1995). Public Administration Quarterly. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). M. B. 19–31. 18(3). 52(2).2.org/bar-on-model/essay. CA: Mind Garden. M. Bass. Organizational Dynamics. B.). (1990). doi: 10. International Journal of Public Administration.reuvenbaron. M. J. (1985). (2006). (2007). B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. B. J. R. doi: 10. 541–554. & Avolio.242/demo/intro/tformlead. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. J. & Handley.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. J. doi: 10.. M. 18(Suppl. B. B. A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. M.. & Avolio..

& Wheeler. B. Retrieved from http:// www. E. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. (2007). M. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. M. Avolio. 44–46. doi: 10. Jung. Applied Psychology: An International Review. & Atwater. A. (1996). B. E.1. Burton.. E.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. & Henninger. South Carolina State University. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century.pdf Boyatzis. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. & Berson. (1978). J. doi: 10..eiconsortium. Murphy. D. 27(5). Retrieved from http://www.haygroup. doi: 10. Lincoln.Bass. L.ebscohost. Bass. Retrieved from http://ei.1037/0021-9010.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. Avolio. (2003). 9(4).com/login.2.. L. W. 41–50. Journal of Applied Psychology. 35(1). Hafetz. S. (2003). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. K.pdf Brody. Doctoral dissertation. 32–44.35.library . 207–218. Social Behavior and Personality.207 Bennis.. D. B..aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.88. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. R. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. University of Nebraska. Y. 88(2).htm Bryant.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach.htm Burns. M. (2004). 15(3).eiconsortium.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. 5–34. J. R.. 234–238. E.. doi: 10. I.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. J. (2000). J. 86(1). Retrieved from http://www. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract].2007.capella.haygroup. (2007). J.edu/login?url=http://search. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. N.41 144 .. 45(1).. (2004). 47–64. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. J.2224/ sbp. Leadership. M. Psychological Inquiry. A. Doctoral dissertation. B. Psychological Reports. New York: Harper & Row. (1990).

Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top.eiconsortium . Wearing. S. Byron. 57(4). 887–902.6. Retrieved from http//www.eiconsortium .org/ Center for Creative Leadership. Journal of Social Issues. (2002). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. D.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. Retrieved from http://www.. Doctoral dissertation. L. 565–76. Retrieved August 10.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. A. (1998. A. May). Retrieved from http://www.. L. A short measure of transformational leadership. (2000). C.. A. (2005).htm Cannella. Colorado State University. N. (1989). doi: 10.. W. 389–405. J. Graham. doi: 10.htm 145 . L.1111/0022-4537. 213–237. Journal of Business and Psychology. & Monroe. Doctoral dissertation. (2001). 23(3). M. A.ccl.. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). R.org/-report. and subordinate perspectives. & Kaemmer. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. A.1037/0022-3514. Gender differences in interaction style and influence. (1997).aspx Cherniss. Gender and social influence. (2008. L. & Brienza. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. (1989). doi: 10. doi: 10. B. doi: 10.Butcher.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. leader. 56(4). L.57 . & Goleman. C. J. October). Butler. Dahlstrom. 39(11/12).1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. Tellegen. Fort Collins. 2008. L.. Sex Roles. J. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior..964 Carli. (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Georgia State University..eiconsortium. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Journal of Management. K. & Mann. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership. Retrieved from http://www. G. D. 14(3). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. K. S.00238 Cavallo. 725– 741. J. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study.. (1998).

A. B. Academy of Management Journal. Public Personnel Management. & Johnson. 5(2). Retrieved August 31. W. Journal of Managerial Psychology.2. 135–159.answers. & Higgs. L. (1967).. Eden. Avolio. doi: 10. 15(2). doi: 10. 29(12). doi: 10. K. Gender and reactions to dominance. F. 53–68.. J. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.. M. (1999). New York: HarperCollins. E. B.. Karau. New York: Hill. D.Chief executive officer. D. & Swerdlik... J. (2002). (1999). E. Journal of Business Research. Jolson. J.1037/0033-2909. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development... Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 735–744. 233–256.. Dixon. B. Drucker. J. 17–21.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. A. (1995). 55(6). & Spangler. 17–29. 146 . 15(4). 10(6). Mayfield. C. T. 108(2). M. & Shamir.d. (2000). Retrieved from PsycINFO database.1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir.1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. S. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. E (1999). CA. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. (2002). Dubinsky. J. J.108.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen. D. from Answers. A. & Salas. Driskell.com Web site: http://www. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. Mountain View. M. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.233 Eagly.). (n. Dulewicz.. Yammarino.. B. V. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies.. 45(4). R. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. F. A theory of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration. Psychological Bulletin. (1994). A. (1990). Eagly. 2008.. D. 467–480.. & Johnson. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (1995). J. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 523–530. H. 341–372. Achieving results through transformational leadership. H. Management challenges for the 21st century. Dearborn. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. doi: 10. Leadership Quarterly. Miner. Copeland. 31(4). B. P.

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

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

doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.1348/026151000165869 Kobe.. 154–163. & Jantzi.5. (2007). (2001).Judge. (2000. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. June).89.. (1996). Noack.15304.. Journal of Applied Psychology.library.89.1. 20(2). doi: 10.. Transformational leaders make a difference. 38(3).. C. Journal of Research and Technology Management. (1995). & Beers..capella. L.00. K. E. G. doi: 10.5. A. & Siefen. T..ebsco host. 385–425. M.. Kroeck.. N. Wong. & Posner.89. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. J. 755–768. L. 615–626.. S. Côté. 89(3). R. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school..1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 ..3. Kirkcaldy. (2004). P. L. 542–552. 125(4).542 Judge. Retrieved from http://basepath. & Johnson. & Song. (2004). R. (2005).. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. 173–180. doi: 10.755 Kaufhold. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Salovey. doi: 10. P. S. 113–118. K. Reiter-Palmon. 41–44. F. Education. R. (2000). doi: 10.com/login. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. Furnham. A. N.483 Leithwood. & Sivasubramaniam. 483–496. 12(3). B. Current Psychology. A. 89(3). K. G. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. D.com/cda/media/ 0.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller. R.1037/0021-9010. 38(2).wiley.1037/0021-9010. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. Emotion. (2005). K.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. P. Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(1). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. A. doi: 10. 112–129. M. & Piccolo. J.1037/15283542. M. (2004). Colbert. & Rickers. & Ilies.edu/login?url=http://search. J. J. doi: 10. R. B. 89(5). A. Journal of Educational Administration....pdf Law..3. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. S. Z.. Leadership Quarterly.. Journal of Applied Psychology. B. T. 7(3).1037/0021-9010. European Psychologist.113 Lowe. D.

R. S. D.ebscohost. What is emotional intelligence? In P. D. J. New York: Basic Books. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. Journal of Business and Psychology. 61. About the MSCEIT. 387–404.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. (2007). doi: 10.. Salovey. P. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. 179–196. 253–296.. G. D. R. Psychological Inquiry. (2004).002201 Malek. Dissertation Abstracts International.com . 15(3). Retrieved from ProQuest database. P..library. J. 15(2). Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. & Caruso. 05B. 15(3). Intelligence.1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. 67(1). & Salovey.library. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. 71). J. D. J. P. & Zeidner.an. J. (1997).edu/login?url=http://search.capella.. D.edu/login?url=http://search. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. H. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).). (1998). S. D. D. Emotional intelligence: Theory. G. Toronto. K. Sluytrer (Eds. (1999). D. Salovey. 197–215. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. (2000). & Chabot. (2002)...unh. 405–436.100186. & Pherwani. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. findings. doi: 10. & White.com/ login. and implications. Carlsmith. Mayer. Retrieved from http://www. Mayer.15. P. Psychological Inquiry. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p.. B. 27(4).. 32(3). F. Annual Review of Anthropology. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. (1986).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . M.Lutz. 1–29. D.sciencedirect. Journal of Research in Personality.com/login. R. & Salovey. 17(3).aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. & Caruso. R. Roberts. (2003). (2002). Salovey & D. (2004a).edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. American Sociological Review.capella. 267–298.. Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. (UMI No. Retrieved from http://www.. D. Mathews.capella. Ontario. C. M.ebscohost. The anthropology of emotions. M. J.. 9970564) Mandell. Caruso.. J.library. M.1146/annurev. D..

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

Retrieved from ProQuest database. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Harvard Business Review. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]..Petrides. R. doi: 10. 425–448. doi: 10. K. T. 18(2).com/login. (2003b).. Doctoral dissertation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. W.1016/j. 15(6).. Ammeter. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium. Douglas.. T. Retrieved from ProQuest database. P. K. R. C. & Buckley.library. Prati.2007.. Catholic University of America. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. & McRae.. (2001). Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence.edu/login?url=http://search.capella. L. 42(5/6). M. V. Douglas. P. (2003a). Ferris. (2000).. Case Western Reserve University. 41–62. J. Prati. R. Ferris. 60(4).org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.. R. L. Ways women lead. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. R. M.leaqua. leadership effectiveness. R.4. Petrides.01.. 11(4). L. K. R. & Furnham. G. A. J. M. (2004). 323–351). Costa. (2003). Boston: Allyn Bacon. G. (1990).1037/0022-3514. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. Retrieved from http://www. V. doi: 10. A.630 Plunkett. Emotional intelligence. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (1991).org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t .. Emotional intelligence.htm Rosener. M. Leadership Quarterly.60. & Heinitz. 68(6).. C.. Ammeter. Leadership and management styles. A. Purkable. 11(1). (1992). 449–461. Sex Roles. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. R. pp. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Doctoral dissertation. 744–755.1002/per. L.003 152 . A. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.).htm Rivera Cruz. Plunkett (Ed. P. B.. 119–125. 363–369. In W.416 Piedmont. (2007). R. & Furnham. B. 121–133.eiconsortium.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. European Journal of Personality. Supervision (6th ed. V.ebsco host. and team outcomes. & Buckley.

J.sciencedirect. J. (2001). J.d. (1990). Gender & Class.library. Schulte. doi: 10. and socialization. W. R. Personality and Individual Differences. (2003). J.. 629–645.1.. K. 2008.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Cognition. Journal of Management. D. (1998).pdf Sanders.. 693–703.eiconsortium.. P.). & Mayer.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management.. 1(3). 16(4). J. 9(3).eiconsortium.ebscohost. and Personality. E. (1990).capella.unh.library. D. Retrieved from http://www. Malouff. (n. (2000). 21–31. Retrieved from http:// www.. Imagination.answers. D.org/ Salovey. J.. 243–248. E. & Bass. S. 25(2). Race.capella. J. & Geroy. Comment on Roberts. Zeidner. New York: Wiley. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.edu/login?url=http://search . E.. et al. L.74. 74(3). from Answers. M. Cooper. Retrieved from http://www. J. J. G. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. doi: 10. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.3. J.com Web site: http://www. J.. 185–211. Hunt.629 Sala. Emotion. A. T. 167–177. Hall. (2002). doi: 10. M. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Schaie. (1998). N.Rudman.243 Schermerhorn.htm Schutte.com/login... E. Golden.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. 9(4). Haggerty.1037/0022-3514.com/topic/senior-management Smith.. Organizational behavior (7th ed.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. B. Our Lady of the Lake University. F. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.). Hopkins. and Matthews (2001).com..1037/1528-3542. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. Retrieved August 31.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. (2003). emotions. & Osborn. W. L. 9(4). Retrieved from ProQuest database. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 94– 110. Race.. Retrieved from http:// www. C. Doctoral dissertation. (2001). Emotional intelligence. M. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints.3.

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

B.).001 155 .Viator. Doctoral dissertation. leaqua. Journal of Management. doi: 10. Human Relations. (2002). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. R. (2003). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. 99–125. C. (1998). & Spangler. 34(10).. 43(10). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.capella. F.ebscohost. I. L. J. & Jolson. J. I. Zhu. 39–52. Retrieved from http://www . Upper Saddle River. University of Minnesota. (2005)..edu/ login?url=http://search.edu/login?url=http://search. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M. 15(2).1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. Emotional intelligence at work. & Bass.ebscohost. A. Yammarino. J. (1997).com/login. Dubinsky. 40(1). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence. D.eiconsortium.. 8(2).org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library. F.com/login. Leadership in organizations (5th ed.. 251–289. Chew. Retrieved from http://ezproxy .capella.library . Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. 205–222. (2000). Yukl.. S.library. Journal of Information Systems. J. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Comer.2004. (2001). A. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (2003).htm Weisinger. L. G. W. H. 28–32.ebscohost. PA: Poised for the Future Company. G. NJ: Prentice Hall. Academy of Management Journal. B. A. (2007).aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. W. Lancaster. 16(1). International Journal of Selection and Assessment.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger. 89–92.edu/login?url=http://search. K. Developing emotional intelligence. Wolfe.1016/j. doi: 10. M. M.06. The perfect labor storm 2.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. doi: 10. 975–995.capella. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. (1990). 15(2). E..0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. (1989). H. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. The Leadership Quarterly. Nursing Management.com/login.

What level of management do you currently hold in your organization? Mid-level Senior Level Executive Level Founder/Owner Your Industry? How long have you held your current position? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization? Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years Between 4 and 6 years Between 7 and 10 years More than 10 years 156 . 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.APPENDIX.

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

00 Between $100.000.00 Between $40.00 More than $150.00 Between $70.00 and $150.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.00 and $100.000.000.000.000.000.00 158 .00 and $70.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful