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

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

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. iii . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

vii

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

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 . Comparison of Low.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.

Hitt. 2005). INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem In today’s global economy where outsourcing.S. higher group performance levels (Keller. 1997. the enhancement of subordinates’ satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee turnover rates (Herman. Department of Labor. U. Specifically. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporation’s bottom line. 1997. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for 2002–2012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10. and healthcare professions that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12. 1998). 1999). & Olivo.S. 1988). education. attract.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. and retain the best talent. Department of Labor. companies must compete to find.033. and greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. 2000. Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass. Ireland & Hitt. it has now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Drucker. Herman. 1 . 2003.373 billion (Herman. 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. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences. 1990). develop.CHAPTER 1. 1999. downsizing and acquisitions are commonplace. Gioia. 1995). The U.

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

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

Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. if a relationship is found to exist. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Significance of the Study Identifying emotional competencies (EC) associated with or used in a transformational leadership style may be useful in creating leadership training and development programs. 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. 3. In addition. These programs are necessary for organizational retention and the cultivation of intellectual capital in order for corporations to maintain and expand their market share in industries in which they compete. 2. The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And. 4. 4 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass.gender. Specifically. books. 2006. 1995). In addition. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. 1988). 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. 1985. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. 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 . 1995. along with several books and dissertations. In total. 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. 22 articles were relevant to this study. and dissertations. Bass & Avolio. Goleman. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. higher group performance (Keller. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 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. 1999).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the organization’s strengths. weaknesses.previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership theory. 22 . 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. 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. and developing commitment with and in the followers (Bass. This is accomplished by the leader articulating their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization. focusing on a common purpose. However. Bennis. 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. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going beyond individual needs. 1985. Leithwood & Jantzi. 2000). addressing intrinsic rewards and higher psychological needs such as self actualization. Transformational Leadership Defined Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based on shared common goals and objectives. and comparative advantages. 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. 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

transactional. 18 dissertations. and laissez-faire leadership. A total of 152 employees from various industries rated their superiors’ transformational leadership behaviors and also how much they felt empowered. Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences. dissertations. Dubinsky. 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. and unpublished reports published from 1887 to 2003) the criteria used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis referenced transformational leadership as well as related terms such as charisma. and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. 1994. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational leadership. and vision. studies that referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions were also included. 1996. 1998. & Jolson. These studies reported a total of 626 correlations. book chapters. Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational. Similarly. communication and team performance. Bass. 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68 journal articles. Comer. the more effective the team will be. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles. Carless. transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational 31 . Several studies (Bass & Avolio. & Atwater.subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. 1997) have been conducted that investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures. and 1 unpublished data set). In total. Yammarino. Avolio. charismatic leadership. They also evaluated their teams’ effectiveness in terms of innovativeness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bass & Avolio. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x. Ammeter. there is no empirical support for a positive association between EI and effective leadership. as Prati et al. As admitted by proponents of such a relationship (e. According to Antonakis (2003). Ferris. Prati. For example.g. Weinberger (2003) used a correlational research design to examine the relationship between EI. Douglas. and the Neo-FFI (Piedmont. However. leadership style. Costa. Two commercially available survey instruments were administered. 1995) was administered to 791 subordinates of the managers to assess their perceptions of their managers’ leadership style and effectiveness. Results showed no relationships between perceptions 53 . the MSCEIT for Emotional Intelligence.. the field is at an early stage of development and consequently there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. 2003a. and others (Dearborn. Schulte (2003) found that EI was strongly predicted by general cognitive ability and personality but did not aid in the prediction of Transformational Leadership in a sample of 194 using Bass and Avolio’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Transformational Leadership style. However. & Buckley. Managers included all levels of management across all functions in the company. The MSCEIT (Mayer et al.Criticism of the Leadership–EI Connection Arguments supporting the hypothesized relationship between leadership and EI have come under criticism. 2002) argued. & McRae. 1991) for the five Domains of Personality. and leadership effectiveness in a population of 151 managers (124 males and 27 females) at one international manufacturing organization headquartered in the Midwest. 2003b). there has not been much solid empirical evidence to support the hypothesized relationship. Antonakis’s criticism is only partially valid.. 2002) was used to measure EI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix).” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. individual data were not made available. 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. 2. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67 . the 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). Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “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. click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research.

HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 4.3. 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. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents 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. 68 . H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS.

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

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

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

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

Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.CHAPTER 4. while not substantial. As previous research. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between factors of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On EQi and Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) scores measured by the MLQ. suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. 2. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores. Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis used for this study was designed to statistically investigate the following research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: 1. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 .

and if so. 3. and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. Expected Findings Findings of this research should indicate whether (a) a significant relationship exists between the use of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and TLS.H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 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. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 74 . the nature and strength of that association. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 4. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.

log or other transformations of the variable in question will be performed at that point to normalize the distribution (Field.. p. Descriptive Statistics—Demographic Variables Frequency distributions for demographic variables are shown in Table 1. Results are organized as follows: (a) Descriptive data for all of the demographic and scaled variables. 75 . p.range values were identified using SPSS Procedures Descriptives and Explore (Field. 65). (b) Univariate inferential analyses examining the relationships between independent and dependent variables. components of the EQi) to differences in TLS. Errors in scoring/data entry. using SPSS Procedure Frequencies. 94). and frequencies (N) and percentages (%) obtained for the categorical demographic variables. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were generated for each continuous. 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. 72). missing and out-of.Data Analytic Strategy and Organization of Results Preliminary Data Analysis All data received from the assessment/scoring services were entered into an SPSS database along with the unique alpha-numeric identification code generated by the assessment service to each participant to assure the anonymity of their responses. as appropriate. or scaled variables.g. outliers. If necessary. 2005. and (c) multivariate analyses assessing the relative contributions of each predictor variable (e. 2005. p.

9 3.7 5.7 20.1 10.8 3.2 12.7 10.8 2.1 11.8 5.4 3.Table 1.3 8.6 16.1 22.7 5.2 55.9 6.4 24.4 19.1 25.9 12.5 45. 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 60.2 5.8 1.2 2.6 76 .7 29.1 39.7 7.0 11.5 4.5 5.

9 12.20).9 2.4 8.Table 1.9 1.2 10. **Includes Pacific Islander.5 4. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.8 Between $40–70.000 44 27.7 16.7 31. East Asian.70.7 Current income Less than $40.1 9.0 2. Minimum age 24. 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. SD = 8.000 17 10.8 Between $70–100.7 34.5 1. N = 158.3 12.000 15 9. 77 . Arabic or other.000 23 14.7 2.9 10.25 85. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.9 65. maximum age 67.3 20. American Indian.000 55 34.1 32.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.8 More than $150.6 Between $100–150.

n = 135) male (60. and a median of 5. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76.2%. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. Notably.4%.6%.000 per annum (49. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates). n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%.1%. Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. 78 . or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. Most respondents earned from $40.6%. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category.000–$100. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. n = 72). from between 3–6 to more than 16. 25. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. or mean of 3. n = 78). n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. The sample of the population in this study has an average.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. for-profit organization. n = 103). n = 121) in a private.4%. Addressing racial diversity.7%.32 subordinates. n = 106).15 direct reports. In terms of supervision responsibilities. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.95 years of college education. However.

Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. 102.41). in descending order.77 years. For the income this is going to be most apparent. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.05). because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. Total EQi Score.49). the mean income was $68. Stress Management.65 years.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed.00). The mean age of the subjects is 48. EQi component scores were. Adaptability. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. 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. with a nearly identical median of 48.86 (SD = 13. This figure has many problems specifically because the exact dollar amounts were not listed and an estimation of the group score is taken to calculate these values. and General Mood Components. 107.730. As far as income.63 (SD = 12. Summed TLS Score. 103. 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 2.900 and the median was $54. 105. 105.85). This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.02 (SD = 13. Interpersonal.01). Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. Intrapersonal.49 (SD = 14.97 (SD = 13. 79 .02 (SD = 13.

28 103.63 103.17 104.85 12.41 12. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.66 101.02 105.62 13.52 103.41 106.86 12.05 14.36 Total EQi Score 105.70 13.19 13.49 13.64 107. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.67 13.21 105.74 13.Table 2.60 14.93 13.61 105.61 102.49 103. 80 .46 102.66 14. 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 107.54 103.73 12.00 12.45 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.01 13.86 106. N = 157.31 103.44 13.02 102.63 103.04 12.97 13.

35 (SD = 0.95 (SD = 0.53).63).58 0.35 3.57). 3.18 SD 0.59). Individualized Consideration. and Intellectual Stimulation. 2.04 (SD = 0.57 0. Inspirational Motivation.59).63 0.57 0. 2004).09 3. which are as follows. 3. N = 157.08 3.09 (SD = 0.16 (SD = 0.26 (SD = 0.Table 3. Individualized Consideration.13 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed). 3.99 (SD = 0. 3. 3. 2.59). Idealized Influence (Attributed).52). 2. 3. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U.59 0. 81 .13 3. 3. Idealized Influence (Behavior).57). Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.59). Intellectual Stimulation.18 (SD = 0. TLS component scores were.96 (SD = 0. Mind Garden. 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. Inspirational Motivation. Idealized Influence (Behavior).58).59 Note.52.26 3. *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. in descending order.S.08 (SD = 0.

2001).59 0. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.63 0.18 3. of a distribution (i.375.53 0.04 2.08 3.99 3.. TLS Component Scores: U. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. **N = 3. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .e.52 M 3.59 0. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.13 3.02 2. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.16 SD 0. Norm group** M 3.35 SD 0. Skew represents the even-ness.58 0.55 0.26 3.59 0.0 indicate a non-normal distribution.59 0.Table 4.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.95 2. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.09 3. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis. Group Norms vs.S.52 0.57 0. or scaled variables. or symmetry.96 3.

0. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. Inspirational Motivation = –.18.09. and (c) 9.61.66.67. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. and Individualized Consideration = –1. respectively. (b) 6. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.83. and (e) Individualized Consideration = . (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . Intellectual Stimulation = –.49. 2001).76. with skew > +/–2.80. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. (d) Adaptability = .24. 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.06.16.63. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. but normally distributed. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . 83 .70. and not individual MLQ items.64. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = .73.40.78. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. (b) MLQ 23 = –2. (c) Inspirational Motivation = . Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.67.0. (c) Stress Management = . and (e) General Mood = . (a) MLQ 5 = 2. (b) Interpersonal = . An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed. the decision was made to keep them in their original form.83.85.

N = 158.41* . To address the first research question. and IC = Individualized Consideration. Interpersonal 3.44* .37* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.01. a p < . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). IS = Intellectual Stimulation.19 a . *p < .28* .40* .52* .40* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.44* . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.29* .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.48* .36* .37* IIB .30* .25* .35* . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). 84 . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.23* .05.05).37* . Table 5.33* .46* IM . Pearson’s r was obtained. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. Intrapersonal 2. Stress Management 4.32* IC .37* . General Mood IIA . Adaptability 5. The significance level was set at (α = .43* Note.31* .59* IS .

The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. EQi component scores also increased. All correlations were in the positive direction. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .001) and Inspirational Motivation.16. 85 . Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. which was still significant at p < .20 and . Most of the correlations ranged between .19. p < . which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. all of the Pearson’s r’s were .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). With one exception. (c) Self-Actualization (r = .05).45.05. (b) Happiness (r = . using the same Procedure Correlations. p < . with (α = . p < .23 or higher.05). at r = .59. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. p < .001).23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . Inspirational Motivation (r = . 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.50. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.001).51. Results are shown in Table 6. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components.

26* .33* .37* .24* .40* . Self-Regard 2. Social Responsibility 8.28* . 86 .43* .36* .44* .16 a .29* .37* .32* .30* .40* .37* . *p < . Problem Solving 14.32* .45* .15 (ns) .31* .33* . Happiness IIA .21* .Table 6. All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.43* . ap < . Stress Tolerance 10.15 (ns) .11 (ns) . IM = Inspirational Motivation.39* .13 (ns) .51* IS .24* . Self-Actualization 6. IS = Intellectual Stimulation.23* .30* .33* .24* .38* .19 a . Reality Testing 12.01. Interpersonal Relationships 9.17 a . and IC = Individualized Consideration.12 (ns) .31* IIB .46* .40* .33* . Flexibility 13.37* .27* .03 (ns) .48* .36* .44* .35* .34* .28* .59* .38* . IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).43* . Impulse Control 11.05).16 (ns) . Optimism 15. Independence 5.32* . Assertiveness 4.37* .25* .33* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.30* .36* Note.25* IC .37* .05 (ns = nonsignificant. p ≥ .31* .40* .50* . Self-Awareness 3.23* .39* IM .35* .38* .24* .45* . Empathy 7.36* . N = 157.33* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).34* .26* .

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

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

30* .82* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.45* 1.42* .58* . Assertiveness 4. Interpersonal Relationship .16* .00 .66* .53* 1.37* .47* . Empathy 89 7.50* .51* 1.50* .55* .64* .00 .42* .00 1.32* . Flexibility 11. Social Responsibility 8.36* 9.40* .52* .51* .55* .Table 7.33* .55* .42* .38* .54* .74* .50* 1.61* . Problem Solving 12.37* .50* .00 .15* .35* .50* .39* .37* .32* Subcomponent 1.55* .43* .59* .40* .61* .43* .50* .36* .60* .23* .42* . Self-Actualization 6.60* .38* .41* . Self Awareness 3.53* .43* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .43* 1.60* .60* .65* .42* .60* . Stress Tolerance 13.41* .72* .42* .32* .24* .49* .50* .25* .23* .25* .36* . Independence 5.66* .56* . Self-Regard 2.20* .71* .58* . Reality Testing 10.61* .00 1.40* .27* .00 .59* .33* .47* .52* .00 1.53* 15 .51* .62* .00 .39* .00 .32* .51* . Impulse Control .39* .56* .15* .28* .00 1.40* .55* .00 .61* .47* 1.40* .41* .00 1.47* .52* .00 1.26* .43* .

*p < . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.00 15 .05.Table 7. 90 . Optimism 15. N = 157. a p < .00 Subcomponent 14. bns = nonsignificant. Happiness Note.01.64* 1.

General Mood and 91 .61* .55* .015). to a minimal extent. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Results are shown in Table 9.72* 1.287). Stress Management at Step 3. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. 1 1.54* . Individualized Consideration Note. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. and. Overall.00 3 . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.01. Results are shown in Table 9. the Interpersonal component (R2change = .00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. followed by General Mood (R2change = . 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. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.019).00 4 .59* . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . Stress Management at Step 3. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.Table 8.60* . N = 157.00 2 . *p < . Intellectual Stimulation 5. Inspirational Motivation 4. Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1.64* 1.58* 1. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.57* 1.00 5 .62* .

87 .008 .728 –0.034 4.033 –.Interpersonal components.66** .05. entered at Step 4.25 .000 . **p < .069 2.04* 62.32 . R2 = . R2 = . and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. 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.073 –. accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.25 2.301 at Step 2. R2 = . nor Adaptability.000 .287 at Step 1. F change R2change . entered at Step 3. In summary.015 . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS.66 3. N = 157. † TLS Summed = D.320 at Step 5.316 –0.07 . Neither Stress Management.162 .287 .04 .000 .019 Note. *p < . 92 .V. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).01.301 at Steps 3 and 4.85 . Table 9. R2 = .24 . the EQi Intrapersonal.

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

bn = 62. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.67 2. *p < .48 104. bn = 62. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.75 12. Males scored a mean of 0.05.44 2.50 2.05.05.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. *p < . a difference which was significant at p < .14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95.21 14. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. Table 13.Table 12.16 0.97 0. 96 .

These were ranked from highest to lowest mean for each gender to identify EQi subcomponents on which males and females ranked highest (and lowest).64.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. achieving the highest respective mean scores (males: M = 109.08. Interestingly. and (d) analyses on subgroups of males and females were conducted to delineate the relationship among gender. These data are presented in Table 14. scores on the 15 EQi components and TLS. males ranked lowest (15) on the Social Responsibility and females ranked lowest (15) on the Self-Regard subcomponents. the second-lowest ranking for both males and females (14) was on the Happiness subcomponent.68) compared to the remaining subcomponents. females: M = 106. SD = 14.77. Both males and females in the sample ranked highest on the EQi Emotional SelfAwareness subcomponent as seen in the rankings in Table 15. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) were obtained for males and females on the 15 EQi subcomponents. respectively. SD = 14. Descriptive statistics. (c) regression analyses were conducted separately for males and females to identify which EQi subcomponent(s) successfully predicted TLS in males and females. (b) an independent-samples t test was performed to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. 97 .

67 103.14 15.33 105.84 11.77 102.97 15. Social Responsibility 98 .21 105.09 109.28 (14) 100.37 14.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.47 104.56 102.80 14.06 102.75 13. 13).76 106.62 103.34 12.40 14. Empathy (4 vs.37 105.19 12.78 13.89 103.18 14. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.07 14.Table 14.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.55 13.80 106.74 15. **n = 62.26 103. *n = 95.16 103. Self-Actualization (9 vs.61 104. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender _________________________________________________________________________ Male Female EQi subcomponents M SD Rank M SD Rank _________________________________________________________________________ Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism 104. As a group.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.72 101.41 11.17 103.37 12.50 12.08 11.43 11.63 13.23 13.92 102.68 14.50 109.57 13.48 13.74 11.27 11.99 107.80 102. N = 157. 11).92 13.01 103.70 13.53 12.24 104.64 109.34 102.93 13.

07 14. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. As a group. n = 95. **p < . 12).01 102. *p < .36** 1. among others. They also scored higher on the 99 . Females.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. a Marginally significant. (2 vs.99 M 99. Assertiveness.01.05.74 15.(5 vs. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. Males scored a mean of 7.42* Note. 13).97 109.21 105.11 107. 15). Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). Self-Regard (8 vs. 10).80 102.26 Females SD 13. 10).39 109. Table 15. Stress Tolerance (4 vs. a difference which was significant at p < . Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.86 11. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. 15). 12).18 14.57 12. p = .67 SD 11.07* 3. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. Independent-samples t test.80 11. Males. n = 62.01.74 t 2. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents. and Flexibility (6 vs.05.91a 2.

01) although this difference was only marginally significant. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. Further. all of which were significant at p < . Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. Specifically. regression analyses were performed separately for males and females using as the set of predictors the four EQi subcomponents on which significant gender differences had been identified. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents.05. scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. stress tolerance did not predict TLS in either males or females. Results of these analyses are shown (for both males and females) in Table 16. Regression analyses. were important predictors of TLS in females. or combination.13). They also scored 4.11) than did females (M = 105. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. but did not predict TLS for males.08). and independence (R2 change =.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender.41) subcomponents. To summarize. and the only one that predicted TLS in males. As a follow-up.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109.

12 2.55 –. **p < ..261 at Step 1.05 .04 2.379 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .73 .131 .85 . R2 (adj) = . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .002 . F change R2change .81 1. Table 16.63** . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.e.24 14. R2 (adj) = .253 at Step 2.000 . R2 (adj) = .41 .73 1.302 .378 at Step 3.263 at Step 4.001 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).269 .000 . R2 (adj) = .010 .45 .02 .022 .01.176 at Step 1.19 .268 7.255 at Step 2.21 –.001 .755 .190 .606 .on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i. N = 157. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .248 at Step 3.989 34.097 .098 12. 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.18 .08 . It was thus decided that using 101 .011 Note.99** .67 –1.669 3. The 15 EQi subcomponents were chosen for the analysis rather than the five components because significant gender differences were found on four EQi subcomponents compared to only one of the components.167 1. R2 (adj) = .088 –.

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

8%.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.6%.5 59. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.3 46. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.1 45.8 43. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components. **n = 62.4 54.7 47.7 51.3 48.4 50. *n = 95. the highest percentage of females (54.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.4 50. The highest percentage of females (59.7 53. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 .5 40.3 52.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total Note. N = 157.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.5 53.6 49.5 46. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.1 50.3 46. Table 17.7%. The highest percentage of males (52.(Behavior).2 56.7 53. Comparison of Low.

followed by the three lowest means for males and females.50 114. Table 18. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.91). Secondly.04 16.76 110.66 114.28 11.64 112.45 112.00 9.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 .12 110. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.83 111.15 10.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. Once this subsample was selected.29 SD 14.75 9. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance Assertiveness Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Stress Tolerance M 111. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.55 114.75 10.11 113.14 11.68 12.00 112.92 111.24 111.09 10.51 111.98 111.85 12.66 11.88 11.11 11.30 10. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females. First.

39 9.23 106.28 110.12 10.15 108.50 11.17 9.Table 18.26 112.25 104.39 M 110.90 103.13 107.50 107.20 9.13 111.44 9.64 9.03 7.38 14.21 11.07 14.51 7.28 108.15 104.92 105.53 109.40 12.18 109.42 109.55 12.28 107.22 108.62 107.51 107.55 11.22 13.71 106.86 105.84 11. 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 104.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .50 11.73 9.55 12.68 10.56 SD 10.23 108.41 8.36 13.

57 104.01 8. 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.03 102.79 105.00 103.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.56 105.14 105.4 102.20 11.09 104.86 12.85 14. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .06 12.50 105.96 105.73 10.43 11.63 12.67 10.65 103.27 14.Table 18.75 104. (b) Assertiveness.81 17.66 10.42 9.82 105.66 104. (c) Independence.47 12.90 12.89 11.35 103.41 10.06 13.59 14.68 106.77 101.26 105.12 10. 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 SD 10.33 M 104.78 103.

and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. Males scored 107 . however.across the five TLS components. (b) Happiness. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. (b) Independence. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Impulse Control. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.05.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. a difference which was significant at p < . three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents.05.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. Females scored a mean of 4. Independent subsamples t test. (b) Social Responsibility. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. (d) Empathy. (d) Problem Solving. Assertiveness. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. While males scored 5. In summary. 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. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . (c) Social Responsibility. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. Males scored a mean of 5. which was also significant as shown in Table 19.

00 14.05.94a –2. p = . Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents).16 Females SD 13. however. *p < .and high-scoring) 108 . a Marginally significant.09 108.01* 2. 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. To do this.96 10. Subsample N = 82. 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. categorical variables (low.78 8. 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. n = 31. Categorical variables.57 M 107. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.e.43 t 1. Females. n = 51.61 106. EQi.43 104.04* Note. Males.05 10.33 111.. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1.05.80 SD 10.

Descriptive data (N and %) for low. n = 32).5%.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. 109 . n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. Once the subsample was selected. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females. again based on each EQi subcomponent. The highest percentages of males (61.5% (n = 35) of females did so. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance.1%.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. Interestingly. The highest percentage of males (50.6%. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. More than one half of males (53. However.97). The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.0%.3%. Then. followed by 59. The highest percentage of females (61. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56.

2 55.9 44.9 45.0 48.5 56.8 38.2 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 % 61.3 55.8 49.2 51.5 43.2 56.5 59.9 44.8 43.3 45.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 = 95.8 38.0 54.2 57.3 52.2 61.7 47.2 61.2 50.8 54.2 41.Table 20.5 46.8 High % 38.1 54.4 45.1 56.8 44.8 58.1 55.5 45.2 55.0 110 .5 53. Female** High Low % 53.2 50.9 43.0 52.6 46.8 45.5 53.9 43.0 47.0 51.7 44. **n = 62. Comparison of Low.8 50.6 54.8 42.1 56.4 53.5 46.5 40.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.3 48.7 54.0 45.2 45.5 54.8 50.7 51.1 55.

47 0.48 3.54 0.61 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.52 3.51 0.47 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.54 0.60 0.55 3.49 3.37 3.58 3.47 0.57 0.43 111 .49 0.55 3.53 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.52 3. Table 21.52 0.49 0.55 SD 0.5 3.49 3.37 0.51 3. followed by the lowest mean.47 3.48 0.55 3.

35 3.40 0.45 0.42 3.21 0.51 3.37 0.37 0.22 3.39 0.41 3.36 3.35 112 .34 0.37 3.44 0.45 3.55 3.44 3.37 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Males Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed 3.40 0.42 0.51 3.6 M 3.38 3.46 3.42 3.43 SD 0.45 0.Table 21.49 0.36 0.30 0.39 0.37 3.

57 0.57 0.08 3.25 3.19 3.45 113 .53 M 3.22 3.58 0.24 3.53 0.21 3.5 0.24 3.14 0.18 3.22 3.51 0.61 0.57 0.58 0.61 0.6 0.43 0.59 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.1 3.Table 21.24 SD 0.52 0.51 0.2 3.15 3.2 3.2 3.28 3.

57 Descriptive statistics. Optimism and Happiness.11 3. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.16 3.59 0.49 0.63 0.06 2.95 3.62 0.11 3.58 0.6 0.14 3. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed M 3. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.02 3.13 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .21 3.Table 21. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.55 0.05 3.68 0.63 0. Empathy.67 0.08 SD 0. with the exceptions of Independence.

n = 33. 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.57 M 106. 115 . Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. In summary. a difference which was significant at p < .22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Table 22. Females SD 10. Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. p = . Independent subsamples t test.43 t 2. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation.Motivation.04* M 111.80 Males scored 0. 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. n = 54.16 SD 14.05.05. a Marginally significant. Females. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. *p < .05. Idealized Influence (Behavior). Males.

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

S. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. Hay/McBer.6% of the 48 million employees in management. 2008). with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. women held 15. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U.Sosik & Megerian. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. Over the next decade. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. down from 16. 2000. 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. In fact. 2003). Mandell & Pherwani. The women 117 . professional. In 2007.4% in 2005. and related occupations (U. In 2001. 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.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. workforce is growing in its diversity. 47% law degrees. 2007). The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. 30% of women earned medical degrees. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. However. 1999). 80% of the U.S. However.S Department of Labor.2% last year (Hymowitz. 2003). with women currently representing 50. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college.

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

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

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

independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. 2004. 2003. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. 2002). 1998. 2004. Further. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . 2003). Hay/McBer. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were .. In addition. Judge et al.. 2001). Walls. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). The significance of this research finding is that it lends itself in providing empirical support of previous research findings that identify a significant positive predictive relationship between the two constructs in which individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs were found to score high on the other as well (Goleman. 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 = .23) to moderate (r = . Law et al. rejecting the first null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the five components of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS.” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. Palmer. Burgess..59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. 2000.23 or higher.21) to moderate (r 121 . Thus. Kobe et al. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. Mandell & Pherwani.. & Stough. Mandell & Pherwani. 2001.

2003).51) with the exceptions of Impulse Control and Reality Testing. Stress Tolerance.= . Hay/McBer. Thus. 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 resist or delay an impulse. which were insignificant with Pearson’s r’s ranging from . is a subcomponent of the overall EQ Stress Management Component. Impulse Control and Reality Testing to TLS.03 to . Impulse Control.” 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. 122 . For example. 1998. 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. it is suggested that a plausible explanation to account for this outcome may have been a result of overlap in EQ subcomponents. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable.16. or temptation to act. 2002). demonstrates that the EQi subcomponents do predict significant differences in TLS. However. rejecting the second null hypothesis considered in this study: “Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. which in this present study was found to be significantly correlated with TLS. a number of questions arise in considering what may be involved in the insignificant correlation involving the two EQ subcomponents. is also a subcomponent of the EQ Stress Management Component. 2000. Mandell & Pherwani. drive. As well.

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

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

17). suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. 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. 1995.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. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. 2000). which this current study used. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.05. all of which were significant at p < . The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. 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. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.” 125 .18).10. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.41). While this current study supports previous research findings. Petrides & Furnham. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence.

the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. and should not come as a great surprise. President of MHS. 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. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. ¶ 1).0%. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50.7%. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. According to Dr. are independent.18). “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. n = 31) scored above 126 . the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. To do this. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3.The research findings of this current study are consistent with Goleman (1998) and Bar-On (2002) where research indicated men tend to be stronger in Intrapersonal capacity (Assertiveness subcomponent). are better at handling stress. 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. Steven Stein. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women.

Thus.64. p < . and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. 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. 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. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy. 2007). who analyzed the scores on over 7. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5.the mean across all of the TLS components. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. Assertiveness. Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents. p < . and Social Responsibility.” was rejected. p < .05). and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men.700 administrations of the EQi. Stress Tolerance. self-assuredness.05). and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). In addition.33. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. inner strength. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5.28.

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

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

which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. 1998. as well as higher on all five components than males. 2000).2). 98. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough.8 vs.58 vs.. Schutte et al. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.. in the present research.decoding (Byron. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that.21 vs. 130 . 2005). unlike the present results. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. men scored a mean of 4. 63. 92).31) and TLS (65. 101.7) (p. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 2005. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified.31). 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. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. However. women scored higher overall. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). 2005. similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS.7 vs. Van Rooy et al. 104. Butler. unlike findings of previous research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. & Avolio. (2004).231. 541–554.. Retrieved from http://www.net/tc3/TC019239. 52(2).130 Bass. doi: 10. M. (1995). B. M. Bass.reuvenbaron. B. R. M. 375–377.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. M. (1999). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. International Journal of Public Administration. (1990). M. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. B. 143 . Retrieved from http://redalyc. Menlo Park. (1990).1080/01900699408524907 Bass. J. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. 19–31.2. & Avolio. 18(3).uaemex. 17(1). B. B. J. B. B. (1994). B. B...php?i=25 Bar-On. B. New Braunfels. 17(3/4). Public Administration Quarterly.pdf Bar-On. M. J. Psicothema. J. B. Bass. 13–25. M. & Avolio. B. R... J. 130–139. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. doi: 10. Leadership Quarterly. Organizational Dynamics. B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual.). B.. 18(Suppl. B. & Avolio. New York: The Free Press. (1993). M. Bass. Retrieved from http://205. & Avolio.htm Bass. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. (1997). (1999). The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). doi: 10. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. & Handley. M. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. 4(3). (2006). 112–121. Retrieved from ProQuest database. M. CA: Mind Garden.84.Bar-On. (1993). (1985). R. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). Bass.1037/0003-066X. B. (2007). CA: Mind Garden. Bass.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501.html Bass. TX: Pro-Philes Press. Redwood City. J. & Avolio. R.242/demo/intro/tformlead.org/bar-on-model/essay.52. Leadership and performance beyond expectations.

aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI).htm Bryant. B. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. (2007).. J. E. (2003). Hafetz.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. E. J. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.library . R.35. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. S. doi: 10. Bass.. Social Behavior and Personality.capella. A. (1996). 86(1). B. M. D. E.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. L. (2003).haygroup. (2007)..org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J.. Jung. (2004). & Henninger. 9(4).41 144 . doi: 10.2.207 Bennis. J.haygroup. University of Nebraska. Retrieved from http://ei. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.htm Burns. & Wheeler. 47–64. Doctoral dissertation. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Burton. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation. M.2007. N.eiconsortium. D. 35(1). 27(5). doi: 10. (2004). A. I. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. R.Bass. J. Retrieved from http://www. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. K.ebscohost. B. 44–46.2224/ sbp. 32–44. M. Murphy. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. Avolio.com/login. Retrieved from http:// www. 207–218. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. 45(1). E. Leadership. Retrieved from http://www. 5–34. B. (1978). W.pdf Brody. L. 234–238. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. South Carolina State University. J. Applied Psychology: An International Review..88. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development.. Psychological Inquiry.1. 41–50.edu/login?url=http://search. 88(2).pdf Boyatzis. Lincoln. New York: Harper & Row.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. M. & Atwater. J. Y.. Avolio.. (2000). (2003).1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. 15(3). Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10. (1990).1177/107179190300900403 Burbach.. Psychological Reports. & Berson.eiconsortium.1037/0021-9010.

A. Dahlstrom. S.org/ Center for Creative Leadership.ccl. Retrieved from http//www. L. 887–902. Journal of Management. J. & Kaemmer. doi: 10. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). (1989).1037/0022-3514.eiconsortium . D. & Monroe. and subordinate perspectives. 2008. A.eiconsortium.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless.aspx Cherniss. Doctoral dissertation. (1997). 565–76. C. R. Journal of Social Issues. G. (2003).. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Byron. (2008. 725– 741. C. doi: 10. doi: 10. (1989).. Retrieved August 10. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. L..eiconsortium . May). L. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract].6. N. Colorado State University. doi: 10.. (1998). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Retrieved from http://www.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. A short measure of transformational leadership. Graham. J. (2001). L.Butcher. K.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders.00238 Cavallo. 23(3).. B.. J. Butler. Retrieved from http://www. Wearing. & Brienza. J. (1998. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top.htm Cannella. Doctoral dissertation.. 56(4). 213–237.. (2005)..964 Carli. A. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. 39(11/12). A. K. Journal of Business and Psychology.1111/0022-4537. Georgia State University. October). & Mann. Fort Collins. Gender and social influence. L. Retrieved from http://www. M. L. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. & Goleman. S. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. 57(4). W. leader. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. Sex Roles. D. doi: 10.57 . The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2002).org/-report.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. Tellegen. A.htm 145 . 389–405. 14(3). (2000).

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

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

(2008.1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. (2000). C. HR Focus. 751–765. emotional intelligence competencies.). (1977).edu/login?url=http://search . too few people. 43–57. Impending crisis: Too many jobs.com/ login. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. Upper Saddle River. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. You’ve got to change to retain. Hersey. R. Journal of Applied Psychology.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. R. & Matteson. E. H. (2005). 85(5). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. NJ: Prentice Hall. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. Hopkins.ebscohost.. Retrieved from http://www. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. T.library.1037t/00219010. On diversity. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed. G.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 . Organizational Dynamics. (1999). P. T. A.htm Hymowitz. 6–18..com/login. Judge. A. Winchester. J.eiconsortium. M. & Olivo. S1–S4. K. M. T. Hersey. Boston: Irwin.751 148 . Retrieved from http://ezproxy.capella. VA: Oakhill Press. (1998). Gioia. (1997). M. The impact of gender.edu/login?url=http://search. A.).library. 13(1). Academy of Management Executives. (2000). P. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. K. & Blanchard.Herman. Case Western Reserve University. doi: 10. (1993). 28(3). J. Englewood Cliffs.ebscohost.85. M.wsj. 75(9). America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is.). Hitt. D. Retrieved from http://online. 74(6). 15– 16. Wall Street Journal. NJ: Prentice Hall. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed.capella.. & Bono.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland.. (1997).aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman. HR Focus. J. H. (1993). Ivancevich. & Hitt.5.. R. Doctoral dissertation. and styles on leadership success [Abstract].. R. February 25).org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. H. doi: I0. & Blanchard. London: McGraw Hill. (2003).. M.

The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Kroeck. A.15304. Current Psychology. & Johnson. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. D.edu/login?url=http://search. Noack.1037/0021-9010.00. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies.. G. Journal of Applied Psychology. 125(4). L. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. N. J. Wong. doi: 10. R. 89(3).wiley.89. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. 173–180. A... Leadership Quarterly. G. Z.. E. Reiter-Palmon. F. (2005). Journal of Research and Technology Management. T.3. & Jantzi. B. K. & Rickers.. S. J. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.5.. Education. R. 154–163. doi: 10. K.com/login. T.. doi: 10. 113–118. S. (2001). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. K.1037/0021-9010.1037/0021-9010. A. 38(3). B. 542–552. & Ilies. 89(3). doi: 10.. & Beers. Journal of Educational Administration. 385–425. 5(1). (2000)... K. A. doi: 10.capella. (2005). (2004). B.. M.. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. (1995). & Sivasubramaniam. doi: 10. June). 755–768. 7(3). P. 20(2).pdf Law. Retrieved from http://basepath. Transformational leaders make a difference. (2004).113 Lowe. Colbert.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. D. & Song.5. N. L. 89(5). C. 41–44. & Piccolo. European Psychologist. Salovey. R.3. 38(2). Côté. L. P. Emotion.. A. 112–129. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.ebsco host. doi: 10.1037/15283542. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J. (2004). M.library.483 Leithwood. (2000. P. Journal of Applied Psychology.com/cda/media/ 0.89. 483–496.. (1996).1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes.755 Kaufhold. S. Kirkcaldy.. J..1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 .. R. M. Journal of Applied Psychology.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.Judge.. 615–626. doi: 10.542 Judge. Furnham.89. (2007). & Siefen. R. & Posner.1348/026151000165869 Kobe.1. 12(3)..

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

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

68(6). European Journal of Personality. Sex Roles. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 425–448. V. J. L.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b. A. K. Retrieved from http://www. Ammeter. Catholic University of America. R. 11(1).capella. P. Harvard Business Review. Boston: Allyn Bacon. Doctoral dissertation. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. T. R. Emotional intelligence. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 18(2). V.. B. 42(5/6).1002/per. L. 449–461. R. (2001)... doi: 10. Leadership Quarterly. & McRae.. R. 363–369. Ferris. 60(4).aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. Supervision (6th ed... V.. Douglas. (1992). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. 121–133. Leadership and management styles. (2004). International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Costa. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. A.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . Retrieved from http://www.library.Petrides. (1990). (2003).. Petrides. Prati. Plunkett (Ed..com/login. M.01.60. R. R. K. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Retrieved from ProQuest database.2007. P. & Buckley..1037/0022-3514. A.. L.eiconsortium. C. M. 744–755.edu/login?url=http://search. Ferris. Emotional intelligence. R.. Case Western Reserve University. Douglas. 11(4). B.). (2000). Doctoral dissertation. R. In W. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis.003 152 . and team outcomes. K. M. & Furnham. G. A. L.htm Rivera Cruz. P. R. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent.4. doi: 10. 15(6). leadership effectiveness. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. Prati. pp. (2003a)... (2003b).1016/j. J. M. & Buckley. 323–351).eiconsortium. 41–62.416 Piedmont. (1991). Purkable.leaqua. leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract].htm Rosener. & Furnham. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. T. Ways women lead.ebsco host. W. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Ammeter. G. doi: 10. & Heinitz. (2007).630 Plunkett. C. 119–125.

and Matthews (2001). J. 2008. 21–31.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. J.. W. Hall. doi: 10.. 94– 110. et al.com Web site: http://www. Golden. Emotional intelligence. emotions. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. D. J.eiconsortium.d. J. 1(3). Race. S. 25(2). (2003). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.3.capella. 9(3). M. (1998).243 Schermerhorn. J. J. P. 9(4). L. E. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2001). Emotion.library. T. Race. and Personality. Cognition. E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2001). 9(4). L. E. (1990). N. Malouff. 16(4). and socialization. W.. Retrieved from http:// www. Hunt. (2003).answers.1.com/topic/senior-management Smith.. J. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. J.. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Retrieved from http://www. J. Organizational behavior (7th ed. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. Doctoral dissertation. Our Lady of the Lake University. Retrieved from ProQuest database.pdf Sanders. doi: 10.74. from Answers.unh.3. F. E. Retrieved August 31. Comment on Roberts. Cooper. G.). (2002). R.. Imagination. (n.capella. Schulte.. Schaie.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 .ebscohost. 74(3). B. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership.Rudman.com/login. 693–703.. C.).com. & Bass.eiconsortium. M. Haggerty. D.1037/0022-3514.edu/login?url=http://search .1037/1528-3542. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract].org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Zeidner.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints...org/ Salovey. K. A. Gender & Class.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. J. D.sciencedirect. Hopkins. (1990). 167–177.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. 185–211. (2000). doi: 10.629 Sala.. Journal of Management.library. Retrieved from http://www. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management. (1998).. J. 629–645. 243–248. M. New York: Wiley.. & Mayer. & Osborn.. Retrieved from http:// www. Personality and Individual Differences. & Geroy.htm Schutte.

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

Wolfe. & Jolson. (1998). 89–92. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. A..com/login. 8(2). leaqua. (2003).001 155 . I.). Human Relations. (2007). S. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.1016/j. & Spangler. Emotional intelligence at work. Comer.06. J. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. G.ebscohost. G.edu/login?url=http://search. E. (2000).. 34(10).. (2005).. University of Minnesota. 39–52. 975–995. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. B.com/login. K. (2002). The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lancaster. F. H. Retrieved from ProQuest database. 40(1). (2003).com/login.library. 43(10). Doctoral dissertation.. doi: 10. 28–32. L. M. 15(2). A. (2001). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract]. 16(1). R. M. W. J. Journal of Management.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. 251–289. Upper Saddle River. H. doi: 10. C. Yammarino.capella.capella. Developing emotional intelligence. & Bass. Chew.capella. doi: 10. The Leadership Quarterly.2004.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. F. (1990).library . Leadership in organizations (5th ed.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger.edu/ login?url=http://search. B. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. Zhu.htm Weisinger. The perfect labor storm 2. Retrieved from http://www .ebscohost. D. I. A.eiconsortium. Yukl. NJ: Prentice Hall.library. Nursing Management. J. (1989).ebscohost.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. 15(2). (1997). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management. 205–222. Academy of Management Journal. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. M.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. PA: Poised for the Future Company. Dubinsky. J. W.edu/login?url=http://search. L. 99–125.Viator.. Journal of Information Systems. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence.

APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Data will be pooled for analysis and no individual data will be identified in order to maintain confidentiality according to APA ethical standards. 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 .

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

000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.000.00 Between $100.000.000.000.00 158 .000.000.00 Between $70.00 and $100.00 and $70.00 and $150.00 Between $40.00 More than $150.