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. .Abstract The U. predicts that by 2010. In addition. along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002–2012 employment projections.S. 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.000 billion annually. and healthcare professions. this research compared and contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational Leadership Style. Individuals in leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision were selected for participation in this study. Department of Labor. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine these questions. education. quantitative survey is to examine the relationship between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style that may lend itself to the development of more effective leadership training and development programs to meet the upcoming challenges. The purpose of this cross-sectional. there will be approximately 10.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. The greatest concentration of jobs will be found in the engineering sciences.

. iii . and to my Grandparents. who laid the cornerstone of my being.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 . .

. . . .Acknowledgments I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations. Bruce Gillies. and to my girlfriend who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided me in understanding this road less traveled . . 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 . who has helped me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!). . . . understood and supported my absence throughout this process . . . . the voice of reasoning (smile!) . for the most part (smile!) . for making this research possible. . Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. Joseph Damiani. . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all. and to Dr. and your respected members who participated. And to my family and friends who have . . Lori La Civita. . thank you sincerely. to Dr. 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. . who helped me start this journey. you my friend have been a gift from God. I love you all! iv . Dr. With my deepest gratitude I would like to acknowledge the role of my good friend Douglas Wagner for his unwavering support in helping me to finish this research project in such a manner as to maintain my sanity .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

higher group performance (Keller. 1998) and the transformational leadership theory (Bass. Goleman. Thirty-eight additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their relevancy to this research. 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.gender. 1995. 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. 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. and greater effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass. Specifically. 12 . 1999). 2006. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On. 1995). and dissertations. In addition. 1990) compared to other leadership styles. In total. 22 articles were relevant to this study. 1988). 1985. books. 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. to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of 200 journal articles. along with several books and dissertations. Bass & Avolio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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. 57 . leadership styles. 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. These results suggest that the association between leadership and some aspects of EI may manifest itself differently for men and women. As noted previously. 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. Specifically. No differences were found between men and women on any of the three measures. one aspect of EI is the ability to read emotions from nonverbal behavior. but not male. 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. Byron (2003) conducted two studies that examined whether managers ability at nonverbal emotional decoding affects their subordinates and supervisors perceptions of their job performance. and success. Results of the second study showed that managers who were more skilled at decoding emotions from nonverbal cues received higher ratings from their subordinates.avoidance coping. managerial and nonmanagerial employees.

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

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

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

one nontransactional leadership construct and three outcome constructs and is the latest version of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. nonprofit. using a sample of convenience of 150 participants. food and beverage. phone. health care. For the purpose of this research 61 . Executives. advertising and marketing. Variables Dependent Variable Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) served as the dependent or criterion variable in this study and was measured using the MLQ 5x assessment (MLQ). and Midlevel management responsible for three or more direct reports under their supervision. 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. Postal services requesting their formal organizational consent granting researcher permission to conduct research. financial services. Senior.S. to gather a small microsnapshot of current leadership management driving the American workforce.formal request to solicit potential research participants via face-to-face introductions. ranging in size from small to large. legal services. e-mail. and provide goods and services from a wide range of industries to include among them software and development. three constructs of transactional leadership. and the use of U. 2004). The MLQ assesses five constructs of transformational leadership. market. Organizations targeted were organizations that develop. and a host of other business and service providers.

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

respected and trusted. 2.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio. 4.080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying.81 to . Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. with a strong sense of purpose. and display a sense of power and confidence. 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. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. and values. the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. 2004): 1. Followers identify with and want to emulate them.85. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. principles. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. 5.53 to . Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . 3. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. 2004) and was based on data from 2.96. mentoring and growth opportunities. The testretest reliabilities ranged from .

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

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

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

click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. 2. 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.” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. the MLQ assessment.” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67 . Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix). Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis.Consent was implied by participants who after reading the “Waiver of Signed Consent” (a detailed explanation of participants rights as a volunteer participant in research that outlined the safeguards researcher implemented to avoid any issues of potential harm or risk of their confidentiality and privacy). and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent.

4. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 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. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 68 .3. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS.

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

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

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

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

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. 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. As previous research. For this purpose correlational/bivariate analysis was used to determine the following research questions and their corresponding relational hypotheses. while not substantial. 2. could have implications for future selection and training in workforce retention.CHAPTER 4. 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. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? The hypothesis tested was 73 . suggests that an individual scoring higher in either one of these constructs was usually found to score high in the other as well. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS scores.

and (b) there will be important gender differences in the relationship between use of EI and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 4. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 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. HA4: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? The hypothesis tested was H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 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. 3. 74 . and if so. the nature and strength of that association.

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

5 45.2 5.3 8.1 25.1 22.6 76 .9 6.9 12.6 16.4 19.7 29. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.7 10.0 11.4 24.7 5.1 10.8 5.5 4.8 1.2 12.9 3.2 55.Table 1.7 20.5 5.8 3.7 5.8 2.1 39.2 2.1 11.7 7.4 3.

SD = 8. Arabic or other.7 34.2 10.25 85.000 23 14. **Includes Pacific Islander.Table 1.70.5 4.1 9.8 Between $40–70. maximum age 67.000 17 10.7 2.1 32.8 Between $70–100.5 1. 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 32.9 2. East Asian. N = 158.000 44 27. American Indian.7 Current income Less than $40.9 65. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.7 16.3 20.20). Respondent mean age was (M = 48.9 1.9 12.7 31.000 15 9.0 2.3 12. 77 .9 10.000 55 34.4 8.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.8 More than $150.6 Between $100–150.

the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7.000 per annum (49. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.95 years of college education. The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry.4%. for-profit organization. n = 121) in a private.6%. n = 135) male (60. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. and a median of 5. 25. n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates).7%.1%. The sample of the population in this study has an average. In terms of supervision responsibilities. n = 106). from between 3–6 to more than 16. n = 72). However.15 direct reports. n = 103).Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. Most respondents earned from $40.000–$100.6%. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. Addressing racial diversity. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. 78 . n = 78).2%. Notably. or mean of 3. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.32 subordinates.4%.

63 (SD = 12.85). 79 . and General Mood Components. 105. For the income this is going to be most apparent. 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. 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 3.01). 107. EQi component scores were. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105.49).00).900 and the median was $54. This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.02 (SD = 13.02 (SD = 13. Interpersonal. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows. Summed TLS Score. 102. Stress Management. The mean age of the subjects is 48.49 (SD = 14. Intrapersonal. because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates.77 years.730. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. Adaptability.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed. 105. As far as income.86 (SD = 13. in descending order.97 (SD = 13.65 years. with a nearly identical median of 48. This figure has many problems specifically because the exact dollar amounts were not listed and an estimation of the group score is taken to calculate these values. Total EQi Score. 103. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable. the mean income was $68.05).41).

85 12.44 13.66 101.49 13.01 13.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.66 14.45 13.19 13.62 13.52 103. 80 . This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.63 103.28 103.21 105.02 102.Table 2.60 14.86 12.31 103.49 103.41 12.86 106. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components.46 102.02 105.41 106.61 102. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of the EQi ____________________________________________________ EQi components and subcomponents M SD ____________________________________________________ Intrapersonal Self-regard Assertiveness Independence Self-actualization Interpersonal Empathy Social responsibility Interpersonal relationships Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality testing Flexibility Problem solving General Mood Optimism Happiness 107.64 107.05 14.17 104.04 12.61 105.67 13.93 13.74 13.97 13.63 103.00 12. N = 157.70 13.73 12.36 Total EQi Score 105.54 103.

09 (SD = 0. Individualized Consideration. 3.95 (SD = 0.59).59 0. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4. 2.57 0.63 0. Inspirational Motivation.52).52.57).63). TLS component scores were. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.Table 3.35 3.58).59 Note. 2004). Idealized Influence (Attributed).53).59). Individualized Consideration. Idealized Influence (Behavior). 3. in descending order.26 (SD = 0.16 (SD = 0.99 (SD = 0.04 (SD = 0.08 3.26 3. 3.58 0. 3.96 (SD = 0.13 3.S.59).08 (SD = 0. Mind Garden. 81 .09 3.35 (SD = 0. Intellectual Stimulation. 3. 2.18 SD 0. and Intellectual Stimulation. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. Inspirational Motivation. N = 157.59). Idealized Influence (Attributed). *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5). which are as follows.57). Idealized Influence (Behavior). 3. 2. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Mean TLS Score* M 3.18 (SD = 0.57 0.13 (SD = 0. 3.

or symmetry.63 0.53 0. Skew represents the even-ness. Group Norms vs.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.96 3.55 0.59 0.S.52 M 3. A skew statistics greater than +/–2. of a distribution (i. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell.59 0. TLS Component Scores: U..02 2.08 3. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables.16 SD 0.59 0. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.13 3. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis. or scaled variables.59 0.35 SD 0. Norm group** M 3. a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution). Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.57 0.Table 4. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.26 3.58 0. 2001).e. **N = 3.99 3.18 3.09 3.52 0.95 2.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 .04 2.375.

24. (b) Interpersonal = .66.83. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = . (c) Inspirational Motivation = .67.80. 2001). (a) MLQ 5 = 2. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.85. and (c) 9. (c) Stress Management = .83. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2. 83 . with skew > +/–2.09. (b) MLQ 23 = –2. Intellectual Stimulation = –. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed. Inspirational Motivation = –.76.73.64. and (e) Individualized Consideration = .06. Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2.40.18. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = . respectively.49. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were. and (e) General Mood = .67. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . the decision was made to keep them in their original form. and Individualized Consideration = –1. Reliability Analyses for the Five EQi and TLS Components Cronbach’s alpha (α) was obtained for each of the components of the EQi and TLS using SPSS Procedure Reliabilities. (d) Adaptability = . Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . and not individual MLQ items.0.70. log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary.63.16. (b) 6.61.0. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.78. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. but normally distributed. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered.

IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). N = 158.05.40* .36* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1.52* . To address the first research question.37* IIB . General Mood IIA . The significance level was set at (α = .44* . 84 .48* . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. IM = Inspirational Motivation.05).41* . Table 5.37* .30* .37* . Intrapersonal 2.35* .33* .29* . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.19 a .40* . *p < . Interpersonal 3. IS = Intellectual Stimulation. Stress Management 4. a p < .43* Note.37* .31* .01. a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.25* .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.23* . Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.28* .44* . SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used.46* IM . and IC = Individualized Consideration. IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).32* IC . Pearson’s r was obtained.59* IS . Adaptability 5.

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.51. using the same Procedure Correlations. at r = .19. p < . which was still significant at p < . (b) Happiness (r = . p < .59.05.23 or higher. (c) Self-Actualization (r = .50.001). p < .20 and . Most of the correlations ranged between .05). The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed. All correlations were in the positive direction. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components.001) and Inspirational Motivation. Results are shown in Table 6. 85 . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. p < .05). which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.001). Inspirational Motivation (r = . meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. With one exception.Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component. with (α = . Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components.45. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = .16.23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = .59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). EQi component scores also increased.

Impulse Control 11.03 (ns) .44* .11 (ns) .39* IM .29* .32* .24* .51* IS .33* . Independence 5.40* .44* .39* .19 a .30* .34* .38* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.31* IIB .31* .15 (ns) .21* .37* .30* . N = 157.31* .45* .34* .33* .33* . Flexibility 13. Interpersonal Relationships 9. Self-Actualization 6. IM = Inspirational Motivation. Self-Awareness 3.24* . Assertiveness 4.33* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.50* .16 (ns) . 86 .05 (ns = nonsignificant.59* .37* .33* . Social Responsibility 8.26* .32* .24* .36* Note. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).35* . ap < .40* .36* .48* .37* .12 (ns) .37* .46* .43* .45* .16 a .Table 6.23* . p ≥ .40* .36* . Reality Testing 12.24* .25* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.40* .28* .37* .43* . Problem Solving 14.33* .35* .28* .25* IC . Empathy 7.32* .43* .17 a . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.38* .30* .27* . Stress Tolerance 10.01. *p < . Optimism 15.36* .38* . Happiness IIA . Self-Regard 2.26* .15 (ns) . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).05).37* .13 (ns) .23* .

p. All correlations were in the positive direction.001). p < .24.001). In summary. no significant relationship was found between this EQi subcomponent and either Idealized Influence-Attributed or Intellectual Stimulation. Correlations 87 . Prior to conducting the multiple regression analysis. 2001).While Reality Testing was significantly correlated with each of (a) Idealized Influence-Behavior (r = . which can occur when variables are too highly correlated.001). This is done to assess possible multicollinearity among components of the independent variable.30. a correlational analysis was performed to identify intercorrelations among the EQi subcomponents. and (c) Individualized Consideration (r = .26. 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. 170). p < .90 (Tabachnick & Fidell. p < . all but two of the EQi subcomponents significantly predicted differences in TLS component scores—the exceptions were Impulse Control and Reality Testing. A well-established cut-off point for multicollinearity among independent variables is a Pearson’s r greater than . Inferential analyses IIb—intercorrelations among the 15 subcomponents of the EQi. (b) Inspirational Motivation (r = . This is a potentially serious issue. the decision was made to proceed with the linear regression analysis. Given the large number of significant correlations between subcomponents of the independent variable and components of the dependent variable. since multicollinearity in linear regression analyses may result in overinflated beta coefficients and make the results difficult to interpret. EQi component scores also increased. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. 2005.

Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. p < .71. None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than .82. this intercorrelation is to be expected.01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . based on the . The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = . multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . p < . multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue.64. Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72. The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8.90. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ. 88 .01). The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7.01). p < . p < . Therefore. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than . 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. However.90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).01).72. The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component.(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents.

28* .00 1.52* .43* .54* .71* . Social Responsibility 8. Problem Solving 12.51* .43* 1.50* .37* .00 .56* .47* .00 .60* . Stress Tolerance 13.55* .43* .42* .24* .15* .42* .39* .20* . Assertiveness 4.42* .23* .50* 1. Reality Testing 10.32* .27* .53* .43* .Table 7.33* .60* .50* .25* .00 1.37* .00 1.47* 1.33* .58* .15* . Flexibility 11.40* .55* .53* 15 . Self-Regard 2.00 .41* . Self-Actualization 6.53* 1.00 .00 1.61* .36* 9.47* .64* . Interpersonal Relationship .50* .66* .55* . Empathy 89 7.59* .62* .40* .60* .25* .43* .61* .74* .16* .36* .51* . Impulse Control .58* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.61* .40* .00 .49* .39* .41* .00 1.00 1.60* .40* .50* .32* .39* .38* .52* .51* .00 .52* .32* .56* .30* .23* .35* .42* .82* .36* .41* .55* .65* .00 . Self Awareness 3.40* .47* .32* Subcomponent 1.45* 1.59* .55* .72* .51* 1.50* .26* .50* .38* .60* .37* .61* .66* .42* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .42* . Independence 5.

90 .01. *p < . Optimism 15. Happiness Note. bns = nonsignificant.64* 1.Table 7.05.00 15 .00 Subcomponent 14. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. N = 157. a p < .

00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Intellectual Stimulation 5. Stress Management at Step 3.60* .Table 8.55* . The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . followed by General Mood (R2change = .57* 1. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1.00 2 . Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.00 5 . Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3. about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal.59* . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.61* . the Interpersonal component (R2change = . Results are shown in Table 9. 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. N = 157. General Mood and 91 . Results are shown in Table 9. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.00 4 .01.58* 1.019).72* 1. to a minimal extent. and. *p < . Stress Management at Step 3. The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Overall.015). Inspirational Motivation 4. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.287). Individualized Consideration Note.64* 1.62* .54* . Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.00 3 . 1 1. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.

287 at Step 1.25 2.25 .000 . accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.Interpersonal components.019 Note. Neither Stress Management.24 . *p < . N = 157. the EQi Intrapersonal.V.073 –.287 . R2 = .000 .033 –.034 4. **p < . † TLS Summed = D.32 .316 –0.301 at Steps 3 and 4. entered at Step 4. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5).008 . Table 9.015 .05.66 3.07 .85 .66** . Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS.04 . R2 = .320 at Step 5.069 2. F change R2change .301 at Step 2. R2 = . R2 = .04* 62. 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. entered at Step 3. 92 .000 . nor Adaptability.87 . In summary.162 .01.728 –0.

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

96 .97 0.50 2.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.75 12.05. Table 13.16 0. *p < . bn = 62.05.Table 12.21 14. bn = 62.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females.48 104. a difference which was significant at p < .05. Males scored a mean of 0. *p < .44 2. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ __________________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb TLS component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Stimulation 3.67 2.

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

Table 14.37 12. Empathy (4 vs.75 13. Social Responsibility 98 .37 105.80 14.97 15.34 12.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.37 14.17 103.21 105.26 103.74 15.24 104.40 14.99 107.08 11.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note. 13).89 103.68 14.23 13.72 101.80 102. *n = 95.06 102.09 109.07 14.50 109.67 103.47 104.43 11.18 14. 11). Self-Actualization (9 vs.62 103.78 13.16 103.61 104.92 102.74 11.33 105.27 11.41 11.19 12.63 13. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents.34 102.64 109. 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 104.70 13.92 13.48 13.56 102.14 15.77 102.50 12.84 11. **n = 62.57 13.76 106.80 106.55 13. N = 157. As a group.01 103.53 12.93 13.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.28 (14) 100.

(5 vs. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.21 105.39 109. Males.67 SD 11.74 15. 10). n = 62. among others.01 102. As a group.18 14. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs.07* 3.74 t 2. and Flexibility (6 vs.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). Stress Tolerance (4 vs. They also scored higher on the 99 . 12). p = . They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs.86 11.26 Females SD 13.05. Table 15. Assertiveness. a Marginally significant.99 M 99. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Self-Regard (8 vs. 15). 15). (2 vs.42* Note. 10). a difference which was significant at p < .01.07 14. Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15.97 109.80 11. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103.57 12.80 102.11 107. n = 95. Females. 13). Males scored a mean of 7. **p < .36** 1.91a 2. *p < . Independent-samples t test.05.01. 12).

scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and using transformational leadership styles. No other significant gender differences were found on the remaining 11 EQi subcomponents. TLS and the 15 EQi Subcomponents— Part 1 The purpose of this analysis was to identify relationships among gender. 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. of subcomponents was the most important predictor of TLS in males and in females.41) subcomponents. but did not predict TLS for males. or combination. Both assertiveness (R2 change = . were important predictors of TLS in females.17) and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 5. Table 16 shows that self-regard was the only EQi subcomponent that predicted TLS in both males and females. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant.11) than did females (M = 105.13). and the only one that predicted TLS in males. As a follow-up. Specifically. Using Subsample of High Scorers in TLS Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. all of which were significant at p < . The purpose of these individual regression analyses was to determine which one. Further.10 higher on the Independence subcomponent (M = 109. and independence (R2 change =.Self-Regard (mean difference of 4.08). They also scored 4. To summarize. this analysis sought to identify gender differences on the 15 EQi subcomponent scales based 100 . males scored significantly higher than females on three of the EQi subcomponents. Regression analyses.01) although this difference was only marginally significant.05. 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.

000 .176 at Step 1.04 2.302 . R2 (adj) = .248 at Step 3.02 .098 12. Table 16. **p < .010 . 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. 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. N = 157.63** .097 . R2 (adj) = .190 .24 14.263 at Step 4. R2 (adj) = .41 .755 .131 .67 –1.19 .73 1..18 .255 at Step 2.268 7.002 . cFor females: R2 (adj) = .022 .01.011 Note.379 at Step 4.378 at Step 3. a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.81 1. bFor males: R2 (adj) = .088 –.21 –.001 .99** . It was thus decided that using 101 .e.269 .261 at Step 1. R2 (adj) = .167 1.85 .08 . R2 (adj) = .989 34.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.669 3. who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).12 2.05 .73 .001 .45 .253 at Step 2.55 –.000 . R2 (adj) = . F change R2change .606 .

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.e. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the 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. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. 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).the 15 subcomponents would be more useful in detecting significant gender differences in using TLS in a subsample of males and females. To do this. Finally. Descriptive data were obtained on (a) EQi strengths and weaknesses (i.7%. and exactly one half of females (50. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. The highest percentages of males (53.7%. n = 31) scored above the mean across the TLS components. Categorical variables.. categorical variables (low. More than one half of males (53. (b) Idealized Influence 102 . 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..0%.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.e. Subgroups of males and females were selected based on their scores on the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. and (b) how males and females who scored higher than the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents used the 5 transformational leadership styles (i.

2 56.7 51. The highest percentage of females (59. The highest percentage of males (52.7%.3 52.(Behavior). n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component.5 46. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.5 59.3 48. Table 17.7 53. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.5 53.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46.1 50. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5 TLS Components Males* Low TLS components Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Total Note.3 46. N = 157. Comparison of Low. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component.1 45.3 46.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.4 50.4 54.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51.8 43. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . the highest percentage of females (54.4 50.6%.7 53. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.6 49.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82).7 47.8%. **n = 62.5 40. *n = 95.

45 112.15 10.88 11.00 9.64 112.76 110.11 11. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.09 10.00 112. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.66 114.75 10. First.98 111.28 11. Secondly.75 9.92 111.04 16.68 12.91).29 SD 14.55 114.83 111.14 11.51 111.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 . followed by the three lowest means for males and females.11 113.66 11. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen.24 111.50 114.85 12. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.12 110. 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. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females. Once this subsample was selected. The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18. Table 18.30 10.

50 11.21 11.90 103.42 109.62 107.51 7.12 10.20 9.38 14.50 107. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Idealized Influence (Attributed) Males’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Independence Social Responsibility Empathy Females’ 3 highest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Behavior) Independence Self-Actualization Social Responsibility Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Emotional Self-Awareness Independence Problem Solving Independence Problem Solving Reality Testing Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Social Responsibility Impulse Control Problem Solving Impulse Control Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Impulse Control Social Responsibility Problem Solving 104.Table 18.44 9.56 SD 10.41 8.55 12.26 112.73 9.22 13.28 108.39 9.55 11.84 11.17 9.15 104.15 108.92 105.71 106.25 104.18 109.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .55 12.23 106.13 111.28 107.86 105.50 11.40 12.51 107.64 9.22 108.13 107.36 13.07 14.23 108.03 7.39 M 110.53 109.28 110.68 10.

89 11.66 104.26 105.01 8. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .57 104.27 14.14 105.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics.59 14. (c) Independence.79 105.81 17. (b) Assertiveness.03 102.63 12.50 SD 10.86 12.12 10.20 11.90 12.35 103.42 9.85 14.66 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 102.47 12.56 105.65 103.Table 18.96 105.67 10.75 104.06 12. The subsample of males scoring above the mean on the summed TLS score (n = 51) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.73 10.4 102.68 106.82 105.09 104.78 103.33 M 104.50 105.41 10.06 13.43 11.77 101.00 103.

33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent.05. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. (c) Social Responsibility. a difference which was significant at p < . (d) Empathy. Assertiveness. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components. (d) Problem Solving.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. Independent subsamples t test. (b) Independence. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. Males scored a mean of 5. this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = . three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents.across the five TLS components. Males scored 107 . and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components. however. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. 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. (b) Social Responsibility. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. (b) Happiness. 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. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness. While males scored 5.05. In summary. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (c) Interpersonal Relationships. Females scored a mean of 4. which was also significant as shown in Table 19.

who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). n = 31. Males. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender.96 10.05. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1. Table 19..05 10. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.e.43 104.00 14.80 SD 10.33 111.78 8.94a –2. Females. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. a Marginally significant.43 t 1.61 106.57 M 107. p = .16 Females SD 13. the goal here was to identify significant gender differences in using TLS based on a subsample of males and females identified as high scorers on the 15 EQi subcomponents (i. however. categorical variables (low.09 108.04* Note. 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.05. EQi. *p < . Subsample N = 82.and high-scoring) 108 . To do this. n = 51. Categorical variables.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.01* 2.

7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control.5% (n = 35) of females did so. More than one half of males (53.5%.6%. Once the subsample was selected. Then. The highest percentage of males (50.97). n = 32). 109 . n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard.3%. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51. However. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. followed by 59. obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. The highest percentages of males (61. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen. 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56.1%.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers. The highest percentage of females (61.0%. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. Interestingly.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 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 TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring.

5 53. Female** High Low % 53.3 48.3 55.0 47.8 38.5 45.2 57. **n = 62.2 51.1 56.2 n 51 53 59 51 52 55 50 53 48 52 53 49 50 54 59 52 n 24 27 30 28 26 27 29 27 27 25 28 28 31 32 29 28 n 38 34 32 34 36 35 33 35 35 37 34 34 31 30 33 34 % 61.1 54.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.4 45.9 43.7 44.8 50.1 56.8 44.8 42.3 52.5 46.8 45.0 48.8 High % 38.9 45.2 41.2 45.5 40.7 54.8 58.9 44.8 38. Comparison of Low.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total *n = 95.0 52.2 61.0 54.7 47.2 50.2 56.2 61.Table 20.6 54.2 55.5 59.8 50.1 55.4 53.0 110 .3 45.2 55.6 46.1 55.8 54.7 51.5 43.5 54.0 45.8 49.0 51.5 56.8 43.9 43.9 44.5 46.2 50.5 53.

47 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.57 0.49 3.60 0.51 3.49 3. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first.47 0.47 3.49 0.52 3.58 3.49 0.43 111 .47 0.48 0.52 0. Table 21.55 SD 0.52 3.54 0.61 3.37 0.48 3.54 0. followed by the lowest mean.55 3.37 3.5 3.55 3.53 0.51 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.55 3.

44 3.42 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.39 0.30 0.35 112 .46 3.36 0.35 3.22 3.37 3.42 3.34 0.40 0.38 3.51 3.36 3.37 0.49 0.42 3.45 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 3.43 SD 0.51 3.37 3.21 0.41 3.6 M 3.37 0.Table 21.55 3.40 0.45 3.37 0.

6 0.45 113 .61 0.22 3.57 0.24 3.2 3.2 3.14 0.43 0.25 3.Table 21.5 0.59 0.51 0.61 0.58 0.1 3.58 0. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.21 3.53 M 3.15 3.18 3.57 0.2 3.08 3.51 0.22 3.57 0.24 3.52 0.19 3.28 3.53 0.24 SD 0.

11 3.57 Descriptive statistics.11 3. Empathy.49 0. with the exceptions of Independence.95 3.55 0.62 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.6 0.05 3.13 3.08 SD 0.59 0.21 3. where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 . where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation.Table 21.67 0.06 2.02 3.63 0. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.68 0. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.58 0.63 0. Optimism and Happiness.14 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Females EQi subcomponent Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed M 3.16 3.

57 M 106. 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. 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. Independent subsamples t test. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note.Motivation. 115 . Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. In summary. n = 54.05. *p < .80 Males scored 0.05. Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. Females SD 10. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component. a Marginally significant.04* M 111. a difference which was significant at p < . Females.05.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. p = . Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. Idealized Influence (Behavior). n = 33.16 SD 14.43 t 2. Table 22. Males.

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

with women currently representing 50. Hay/McBer. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. 1999). 47% law degrees. Over the next decade. In fact. Mandell & Pherwani. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions. 80% of the U. In 2007. and related occupations (U.6% of the 48 million employees in management. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. during the last 25 years women’s employment has increased by 30% or more in every age category up to age 55 while men’s employment has declined in every age group over age 25.2% last year (Hymowitz. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. 2008). 2003). women held 15.4% in 2005. 2003).S. 2000. workforce is growing in its diversity.S. 30% of women earned medical degrees. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. However. However. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe. In 2001.Sosik & Megerian.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. professional.S Department of Labor. 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. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. The women 117 . down from 16. 2007). fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college.

3 trillion in annual revenues are generated in the U. woman felt they were excluded from receiving important information from meetings and other informal networks of information that was otherwise openly shared (Wolfe. businesses owned by women. Talent management is top-of-mind for many organizations seeking to be competitive in the long term. The reasons these entrepreneurs cited for starting their own businesses included the freedom to set their own schedules. the chance to pursue an opportunity. and the desire to escape from the “glass ceiling” that they felt limited their careers in corporations (Wolfe. women are a crucial part of the talent equation. In addition. The Center for Creative Leadership’s (2008) Sara King suggested that engaging and retaining senior women executives is not only critical to the competitiveness of individual organizations but also for entire industries. if they exist. 2007). Not surprisingly. while other research suggests there are no significant differences between genders when predicting TLS. with some studies suggesting women managers score higher on measures of transformational leadership than men.S. As a result of this ambiguity. influence TLS may contribute to a better understanding of cultural diversity as it relates to organizational development.S. Results of research in the area of gender differences have been ambiguous.stated they felt their roles were not valued and that they were not “heard” by senior management. Identifying how gender differences in EI. In the overall U. researchers have recommended that further studies explore the relationship 118 .3 trillion in annual sales.5 million people and generate $1. 2007). Approximately 50% of privately owned firms in the top 50 metropolitan areas are held by women and collectively employ 9. nearly $2.

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

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

. 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. Mandell & Pherwani. 2003). Burgess.independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables. 2002). representing correlations ranging from modest (r = . 1998. 2004. Judge et al.21) to moderate (r 121 . 2000. Kobe et al. 2001). Further. & Stough. who found no relationship between subordinates perceptions of a managers leadership style as measured by the MLQ5x (Bass & Avolio. the present findings contradict those of Weinberger (2003). Hay/McBer. Mandell & Pherwani. Research Question 2: Do scores on the 15 EQi Subcomponents predict significant differences in TLS? All but 2 of 15 EQi subcomponents were found to significantly predict differences in TLS component with Pearson’s r scores ranging from modest (r = . 2004.” as the 5 EQi components do in fact predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components. 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.59) demonstrating that the EQi components do predict significant differences in TLS. 2003.. Thus. A significant positive relationship between EI and TLS was identified as all of the Pearson’s r’s were . Walls. In addition. Palmer..23) to moderate (r = .23 or higher. 1995) and a managers EI as measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al.. 2001. this research finding also lends further credence to the view that leadership includes both emotional and social skills (Ashkanasy & Dasborough.

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

62 (p < . entails adjusting our feelings. Thus.19 (p < . Males scored a mean of 4. This component of emotional-social intelligence refers to our overall ability to adapt to unfamiliar.Reality Testing.05) higher on the Intrapersonal component than females. Problem Solving (the ability to effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature) and Flexibility (the ability to adapt and adjust our feelings. the third null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the 123 . 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. Males scored a mean of 0. which were both found to be significantly correlated to TLS as well. unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. which could be counterbalanced by the EQ Adaptability component’s two other subcomponents. thinking and behavior to new situations. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. 2002).” is the subcomponent within the overall EQ Adaptability component. Nevertheless. defined as “the ability to assess the correspondence between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists.05) higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. BarOn. 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. thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions.

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

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. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. 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. suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles.10. 1995.41). Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. While this current study supports previous research findings. all of which were significant at p < .05. 2000). Petrides & Furnham. numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence.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.” 125 .18). which this current study used. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7.17).

More than one half of males (53. n = 31) scored above 126 . 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. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. are better at handling stress. ¶ 1). where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. President of MHS. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. “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. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50.18). “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. are independent. Steven Stein. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women.7%.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).0%. and should not come as a great surprise. To do this. According to Dr. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4.

inner strength.05). Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted. p < . Thus.64. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4.05). 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. p < . who analyzed the scores on over 7. p < . 2007). Assertiveness. Stress Tolerance. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents.” was rejected. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 . self-assuredness. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000).33. self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.the mean across all of the TLS components. and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. 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.28. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered.700 administrations of the EQi. In addition. and Social Responsibility.

In essence. involves taking responsibility for the actions of oneself and the organization. based on performance of organizational outputs (Bass. EQ Social Responsibility refers to the ability for a leader to do things for and with others. and Assertiveness. 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.of females in this group scoring significantly higher in Social Responsibility. A weakness in this current research design is that only TLS component scores were used from the MLQ. Transactional leaders tend to be directive and sometimes dominating. 128 . the ability to work with and collaborate with groups. as they tend to be action oriented using conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers in an exchange previously contracted with. Assertive people are not overly controlled or shy. the combination of lower scores in Social Responsibility and high scores in Assertiveness raises the potential for a leadership profile of Transactional leadership. However. for the leader. The males in this subgroup remain consistent in that they still score significantly higher than females in Stress Tolerance. defined as the ability to constructively express one’s feelings and oneself in general. and. 1993). defined as the ability to effectively and constructively manage emotions. Compensating for this shortcoming is the reason a subgroup scoring above the mean was used.

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

who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109.21 vs. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified.58 vs. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. 98.decoding (Byron.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 63.31) and TLS (65. men scored a mean of 4. unlike the present results. Butler.7 vs. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS. 92). which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity.7) (p. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. unlike findings of previous research. 2005. 2005). Schutte et al..2). 1998. 2000).31). similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107. Van Rooy et al. 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. 130 . It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). 2005. as well as higher on all five components than males. 104. However. 101. women scored higher overall.8 vs.. in the present research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a result. Future researchers. Department of Labor employment projections for 2010 suggests there will be approximately 10. Tellegen. Concerning the narrowing of industries.S. might consider using the scores of the other constructs within the MLQ where generalizations may be more appropriate and provide additional insight. and 139 .designed to detect socially acceptable or defensive response patterns. education. 1989). Dahlstrom.033.000 more jobs available than there are qualified people in the labor force. The present study only used the self-reported scores of the TLS construct to examine the relationship with emotional intelligence. it is suggested that future research might narrow the selection of potential research candidates to Senior/Executive leadership positions. workforce. the U. in addition to using 360 assessments or other methods of reducing the limitations of self-report. Butcher. Therefore. & Kaemmer. 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. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-R) provides three different scores for three different leadership styles. as stated previously. participants ranged from midmanagement to CEOs and Founders.S. could be administered with the selfreport versions of the EI and leadership measures. Protocols of participants who answered in a socially acceptable or defensive manner could then be discarded. such as the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2. as well as the industries they represent. In addition this study attempted to provide a small diverse snapshot of leadership in the current U. with the greatest number of openings occurring in the engineering sciences. This may contribute greater validity in the generalization of results when assessing TLS with EQ.

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

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

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

B.net/tc3/TC019239. B. M. & Avolio. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. J. Leadership and performance beyond expectations.1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. Bass. 18(3). doi: 10.html Bass. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. CA: Mind Garden. B.org/bar-on-model/essay. B.242/demo/intro/tformlead. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI).uaemex. Leadership Quarterly. B. J. Retrieved from ProQuest database.Bar-On. doi: 10. 13–25. M. B. 17(1)... (1985). (1990). B. Psicothema. New York: The Free Press. (1993). (1997). 112–121. (1999). B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online).mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501. 4(3). doi: 10. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. M. M. Bass. J. & Avolio. 18(Suppl. B. (2007). (2004). 375–377. & Handley. & Avolio. Bass.2. (1993). 143 .1080/01900699408524907 Bass. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. (2006). A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. B. International Journal of Public Administration. M. & Avolio.1037/0003-066X.htm Bass.231.52. & Avolio.pdf Bar-On. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. Public Administration Quarterly. Transformational leadership and organizational culture... B.php?i=25 Bar-On. 130–139. Menlo Park. R. New Braunfels.).. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. 52(2).. M.130 Bass. B. 17(3/4). Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. R. (1999). (1995). J. 19–31. J. R. B. Organizational Dynamics. Redwood City. (1994).84. Bass. Retrieved from http://205. B. & Avolio. M. J. TX: Pro-Philes Press. M. Retrieved from http://redalyc. Retrieved from http://www. Bass. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. (1990). 541–554. R. M. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual.reuvenbaron. B. B. CA: Mind Garden. M.

Retrieved from http://ei. N.eiconsortium. Retrieved from http://www. 15(3).2007.207 Bennis. Avolio.eiconsortium.pdf Brody.haygroup.capella. B. 86(1). (1990). E. D. B. A. New York: Harper & Row. Applied Psychology: An International Review. doi: 10. (2003). & Atwater.. Psychological Reports. A. M.edu/login?url=http://search. 27(5). B.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. J.1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. J.1037/0021-9010. (2000). Psychological Inquiry. Jung.com/login. Burton. 35(1). (1978). & Wheeler.. J. Doctoral dissertation. 45(1). Leadership. R.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. (2007). M.88. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. K. W.Bass.htm Burns. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.41 144 .org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. doi: 10. 207–218. J. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. I. B. 32–44. University of Nebraska. D. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women.library . Social Behavior and Personality. Gender differences in relational and physical aggression.. E.. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership... (2004). & Henninger. Y. (2003). The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. doi: 10. 88(2). Doctoral dissertation. Journal of Applied Psychology. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge.org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. Bass..aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. M. 41–50. (1996). Avolio.ebscohost. South Carolina State University.pdf Boyatzis. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.htm Bryant. L. M.2. J. 47–64. Hafetz. 44–46. (2007).. E. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. 234–238. Lincoln. (2003). Retrieved from http://www. J. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. S.1. R. doi: 10.. (2004).2224/ sbp. & Berson. 5–34. Murphy.haygroup. 9(4). L.35. Retrieved from http:// www. E.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article.

Fort Collins. 39(11/12). May). A.00238 Cavallo. D. & Goleman. (1997). Sex Roles. & Mann. Graham. doi: 10. Journal of Social Issues.57 . Butler. doi: 10. Wearing. 389–405. Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract].. Retrieved from http://www. Dahlstrom. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. S. Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. N. (1998). leader.1037/0022-3514. Gender differences in interaction style and influence.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. (2005). Retrieved from http://www. J. K. (2000). L. & Monroe. (1989). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. 14(3). L. Journal of Business and Psychology.htm Cannella. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders.. J.aspx Cherniss. & Kaemmer.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. doi: 10. A.Butcher. 23(3). Byron. (1989). A short measure of transformational leadership.. A. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). (2002).eiconsortium . and subordinate perspectives. A.. 887–902.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. 2008. doi: 10. B. Retrieved from http://www. 565–76. C. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. (2008.eiconsortium . 213–237. October).964 Carli. (1998.1111/0022-4537. C. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database.1177/014920639702300302 Carless. Tellegen. (2003). doi: 10. L. L. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http//www.. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. K.htm 145 . R. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. Journal of Management. 725– 741. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.ccl.. L. (2001). Colorado State University..org/-report. M. S. Doctoral dissertation. J. & Brienza. Gender and social influence. Georgia State University. J. 56(4). W..eiconsortium. A.6. G. L.. Retrieved August 10. 57(4). D.

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

P.eiconsortium. Situational judgment and emotional intelligence tests: Constructs and faking [Abstract].apa. Gellis. R. doi: 10.com/login. & Bass.. Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. Retrieved from http://psycnet. 741–748. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. A.pdf Hay/McBer. Working with emotional intelligence.695 Hay Group. London: Routledge.dfee. Furnham. J. (2005). (1995).1037/0021-9010.73. C. 17–25. (1998). C. Retrieved from http://www.Field. Moving forward with emotional intelligence..org/dissertation_abstracts/grubb_w. Frankel. Saunders. J. W. (2004). E. R. (2000). doi: 10. New York: Bantam. H. Doctoral dissertation..org/?fa=main. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Hater. CA: Sage. (2008).edu/login?url http://search. L. (1995). Gohm. 222–227. & Dickson. (1983). 25(1). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. (2001). D.4. Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. O. Journal of Applied Psychology. J.haygroup. & Rawles. L. M..1016/S01918869(99)00238-X Gardner. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Block. New York: Basic Books..library.). Nice girls don’t get the corner office. 73(4). A. ECI fact card. Retrieved from http://www.com/tl/Down loads/ECI_factcard. Retrieved from http://www..uk/teachingreforms/mcber/ Heilman.doiLanding&uid=199635718-001 147 . Psychological Inquiry. L. Grubb. M. (2004). 237–252. C. B. F. (1988).htm Hargie.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595135& site=ehost-live&scope=site Goleman. Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Report by Hay/McBer to the Department for Education and Employment). New York: Warner Business Books. Virginia Commonwealth University. 15(3). Z. 10(3). Thousand Oaks. Social skills in interpersonal communication. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. 10(6). 695–702. D. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.ebscohost.gov. Social Work Research. O. & Martell. (2003).capella. (1995).

K. Hitt. M.eiconsortium. E. Retention: Reducing costly employee turnover. Upper Saddle River. Englewood Cliffs. (1977).751 148 . A. P. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www. emotional intelligence competencies. 28(3). S1–S4. Wall Street Journal. C.htm Hymowitz. T. J. D.. Ivancevich. On diversity.org/dissertation _abstracts/hopkins_m. (1999). Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. London: McGraw Hill. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. A.. & Blanchard. & Matteson. R. Organizational behavior and management (3rd ed. M. Retrieved from http://online. 75(9). (1997). HR Focus. and styles on leadership success [Abstract]. H. & Bono..library. T. (2005). T. Academy of Management Executives.5.capella. (1997).).capella. The impact of gender. Impending crisis: Too many jobs. America isn’t putting its money where its mouth is. 13(1). Judge. VA: Oakhill Press.com/public/ article/SB120370822092186297-SRy6aZVon27ZkhkuiSz8WW6UdEs_20080325 .ebscohost. & Blanchard. (2000).). The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. M. P. too few people. H. (2000). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. & Olivo. NJ: Prentice Hall. R.com/login. HR Focus. & Hitt. (1993). R.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Ireland. 751–765.. (1998). Hersey. Organizational Dynamics. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology. G. M. 43–57. doi: I0. 15– 16.library.wsj. (2008.85. H. Hersey.edu/login?url=http://search.aspx?direct =true&db=bth&AN=9708050250&site=ehostlive&scope=site Herman.). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Gioia. 6–18. Hopkins. J. K. (1993). Winchester. J. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. 74(6). NJ: Prentice Hall. Boston: Irwin.1037t/00219010. Doctoral dissertation. You’ve got to change to retain. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.com/ login. A..1016/S0090-2616 (00)88446-6 Hofstede. R.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1051619&site=ehost-live&scope=site Herman. 85(5)... M. The management of organizational behaviour (3rd ed. February 25).Herman.ebscohost.edu/login?url=http://search .

1108/09578230010320064 Lopes. M.1037/0021-9010.542 Judge. 173–180.. Noack. 125(4).. 89(3). A.1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. D. E. 12(3). T.. European Psychologist. 41–44.113 Lowe. & Posner. Journal of Educational Administration. (2000).ebsco host. (2007). Kroeck. M. & Piccolo. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Leadership Quarterly.1037/15283542. Current Psychology.. & Johnson.library. A. doi: 10. 89(5).89. (2000. 38(3).. doi: 10... doi: 10.. Salovey. J. R. G.00. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. 112–129.5. A.Judge. Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. 38(2).1348/026151000165869 Kobe.. B. T.. 483–496. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2005). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. & Ilies. L. doi: 10. N. (2005).89. C.wiley. & Siefen.3.. B. R. (2004). & Jantzi. R. & Rickers. A.. 615–626. D. doi: 10. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Furnham. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. L. K.755 Kaufhold. (1996). Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence..3. (2001). Retrieved from http://basepath. K. Education.5. Colbert. S. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. J.89. 154–163. 542–552. F.483 Leithwood. G. & Sivasubramaniam. S. Wong. R. Emotion. P.. 113–118. 385–425. Journal of Applied Psychology.com/cda/media/ 0.pdf Law. doi: 10. B. June).aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Kirkcaldy. K. Journal of Research and Technology Management.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . P. 89(3).. Z. doi: 10. (2004). S. 5(1). P..1.capella.. doi: 10. K.edu/login?url=http://search. Reiter-Palmon. J. L. N.. R. 755–768. A. Transformational leaders make a difference.15304. (1995). & Beers. J. & Song.com/login. Côté. 7(3).1037/0021-9010.1037/0021-9010. M. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 20(2). (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.

findings. & Pherwani. M. (1999). Salovey. J. Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)..ebscohost. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Carlsmith. K.unh.100186. and implications. D. Mayer. 32(3).1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 Mayer. Emotional intelligence: Theory. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. R. C. Caruso. Dissertation Abstracts International.library. S. (2000).edu/login?url=http://search. P. G.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=14595131&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mayer. doi: 10.). R. What is emotional intelligence? In P. 405–436. Retrieved from http://www. Relationship between emotional intelligence and collaborative conflict resolution styles. D. American Sociological Review. Psychological Inquiry. F.an. Retrieved from http://ez proxy. (1998). 27(4). (2004).. J. P. P.. Emotional intelligence meets standards for traditional intelligence. Journal of Research in Personality.edu/emotional _intelligence/ei%20About%20the%20MSCEIT/ Mayer. M.edu/science/journal/00926566 Mayer. About the MSCEIT.1146/annurev. Roberts. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (p.ebscohost. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Salovey & D. J. Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. 67(1). D. The anthropology of emotions.. 15(3).1023/A:1022816409059 Massey. Salovey. & Salovey. B. & Caruso. (2003).com . Describing the person’s external environment: Conceptualizing and measuring the life space. J.capella.Lutz. 197–215... (1986).edu/login?url=http://search.. & White. G.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595133&site=ehost-live&scope=site 150 . (1997). & Chabot. R. (2007). D.com/ login. Psychological Inquiry.15. & Zeidner. D. Intelligence. Sluytrer (Eds. J.library. Annual Review of Anthropology. 9970564) Mandell. Mayer.com/login. H. M. Toronto. 17(3). 1–29. (UMI No. D. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life... 253–296. D. D. (2002). & Caruso.. D. D. 179–196. R. 05B. Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. J. P. 71). M.. S. Journal of Business and Psychology. 387–404. 61.library. Mathews. New York: Basic Books. (2002). doi: 10. & Salovey. Ontario. doi: 10.002201 Malek. (2004a).. J.capella. 267–298.capella. D. 15(2).sciencedirect. 15(3).

B. (2004). 14(1). 5–10.. MLQ international norms. M. & Fuller. A further consideration of the issues of emotional intelligence. 13(4). Walls. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. D. Burgess. (2003). L. 27–34. J. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Building emotional intelligence in negotiations. S.capella. B.mind garden. R.library. Oatley.. & L..com/docs/MLQInternationalNorms.. (2001). S. doi: 10.com/topic/middle-management Mind Garden. Ball.Mayer. Saklofske. J. (2004b). CA: Academic Press. (n. Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young adulthood. C.html 151 . & Stough. 2008.iier..022 Paulhus. & Stacey. (1997).. D.com/login . 24(6).pdf Morrison.ebscohost. 27(5).ebscohost. (2005). L.paid.org. I. Parker. & Taylor. M. 22(1).com Web site: http://www. Shaver.. Jones. 216–238.. & Caruso.edu/login?url=http://search. E. Journal of Nursing Administration. Z. Retrieved from http://www. R.2006.. Wood. Inc. (1991).d..). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. P.1016 /j.capella. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. L. (2004). Issues in Educational Research. 381–400. 26(2). Psychological Inquiry.answers. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library. from Answers.. M. H.04. 15(3). D. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. 17–59). Journal of Individual Differences. A. Robinson. Eastabrook. 249–255. R. R. Retrieved from ProQuest database. L.1108/ eb022883 Ozaralli. N. (2002). Wrightsman (Eds. 15(3).com/login. & Carsky.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14595139&site=ehost-live&scope=site Middle management. Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions. C. Retrieved August 31.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. 100–106.au/iier14/perry. (2004). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Perry. Retrieved from http://www. N. D.edu/login? url=http://search. P. R. Measurement and control of response bias. doi: 10. M.. 29–43. K. Psychological Inquiry. J.. The International Journal of Conflict Management. J. 335–344.1108/01437730310494301 Palmer. Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure.. In J. Salovey.). D. San Diego.

com/login. 42(5/6). 15(6). 119–125. Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model.org/dissertation_abstracts/purkable_t . 68(6). T. Plunkett (Ed. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent. (2004). (1991). & McRae. G. Across contexts comparison of emotional intelligence competencies: A discovery of gender differences [Abstract]. Douglas.edu/login?url=http://search.. M. doi: 10. M.1016/j. L. & Buckley. C. Sex Roles. A. R.. 11(4). B. L. 18(2). Doctoral dissertation.01.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9012241294&site=ehost-live& scope=site Rowold. 11(1). divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Retrieved from ProQuest database.. V. R. Ammeter. Leadership and management styles. leadership effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation. V. 60(4). Catholic University of America. Retrieved from ProQuest database. & Heinitz... leadership style and coping mechanisms of executives [Abstract]. Leadership Quarterly. (1990).eiconsortium. R. 744–755. 41–62. R. R. Boston: Allyn Bacon..416 Piedmont. L. Purkable. (2003). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Retrieved from http://www. T. Prati. Prati. (1992).library. (2003b). K. Ferris. and team outcomes.003 152 ..htm Rivera Cruz. & Buckley. 121–133. & Furnham. P. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2007). European Journal of Personality.60.org/ dissertation_abstracts/rivera_cruz_b.4.. K. B. M. R. A. (2003a). doi: 10. 425–448. Emotional intelligence.. Case Western Reserve University. P.capella. A. pp.1002/per. Douglas. (2001).. doi: 10. K.).Petrides. J. Ways women lead.htm Rosener. (2000)..630 Plunkett. Ammeter. G.leaqua. L. P. Costa. Harvard Business Review. International Journal of Organizational Analysis..ebsco host.. 323–351).2007. R.eiconsortium. C. W. In W. R. The role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis. V. M. Retrieved from http://www. 363–369. Ferris. R.1037/0022-3514.. Supervision (6th ed. A. 449–461. Petrides. Gender differences in measured and selfestimated trait emotional intelligence. & Furnham. Emotional intelligence. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. J. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.

(1990).. (n. and socialization. Hunt. Imagination. Hall. Zeidner.pdf Sanders. 25(2). (1990). & Osborn.3. 94– 110. L.. A. Emotion. doi: 10. Doctoral dissertation. J. F.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 . et al... Comment on Roberts. G. D.). (2001). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership.. (2003). B. E.1037/1528-3542. 693–703. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics. Gender & Class. J. Cooper. J.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. W. (2000). Journal of Management.unh. doi: 10. & Geroy.).com/topic/senior-management Smith. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved from http:// www. Haggerty. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management.htm Schutte.. (2002)..1037/0022-3514.com Web site: http://www. Retrieved from http://www. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. and Personality. E.eiconsortium. 9(3). 9(4). & Mayer. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.sciencedirect. J. Golden. D. Hopkins. 21–31.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management.Rudman.org/ Salovey.org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. Schulte. 167–177. Organizational behavior (7th ed.answers. L. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. N.. 1(3). 243–248. 185–211. 2008. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.com. W. 74(3).. Schaie. E. Malouff. emotions.capella. Race. Race. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Cognition. doi: 10. K. M.629 Sala.d.3. S. Emotional intelligence. P. T. (1998). Our Lady of the Lake University.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence.. 16(4).capella. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium.. and Matthews (2001). J. M... (2001). M. C. Retrieved from http://www. 9(4).eiconsortium. R. & Bass.243 Schermerhorn. (2003). J. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.com/login. J.ebscohost.edu/login?url=http://search . Retrieved August 31. New York: Wiley.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer.1..library. J. Retrieved from http:// www. from Answers. J. 629–645. E. (1998).library.74. J. J. D.

J. (2005). A. Group & Organization Management. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. 689–700. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.tx. (2005). (2003). W. 75(6).aspx?search=Smith. & McDaniel. 18–14. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.. S. Z. Journal of Education for Business. 49(1).se/default. J.1016/j. Barone.asp?firstlevelid=20031159263794 Stordeur. 2002. Retrieved from http://www. doi: 10.023 154 . Census Bureau of Labor... Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sojka. Tucker. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment.Smith. 331–338.A. (2001). TX.. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. Douthitt... MA: Allyn and Bacon.capella.edu/spb/ovidweb.%20(1998) Snodgrass. C. 24(3). (2002). Retrieved from http://www. Retrieved from ProQuest database.library.). & Viswesvaran.com. K.. Dallas. Criterion and construct validity evidence for a situational judgment measure.%20K. & Plemons. & McCarthy. S . 37(1).. Occupational therapy practitioners’ perceptions of rehabilitation managers’ leadership styles and the outcomes of leadership. & Megerian. Sosik. B. L. (1999).bls. D. L.gov/ cps/ Van Rooy.. Bureau of Labor Statistics.05. Wade. E. (2000).1177/ 1059601199243006 Stein.C.cgi Tabachnick. M. 38(3).S. M. C. doi: 10. Retrieved from http://www. & Fidell. L. Ellis. Department of Labor.org/Search.paid. (1998. Retrieved from ProQuest database. M.S. The EQ factor: Does emotional intelligence make you a better CEO? Innovators Alliance. R. A.pdf U. 37–43. Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications.. J. (2000). 367–390..gov/opub/ mlr/2004/02/art5full. & D’hoore. Alonso. G. S. J.% 20&%20McDaniel. Nursing Research. Journal of Allied Health.2004.ovid. Vandenberghe. Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. J. F. S.Needham Heights.. C. (2008).bls.kandidata. J. S. L. J. Employment projections: Labor force (demographic) data. Personality and Individual Differences.%20M.siop.. A.. Retrieved from http://www. April). U.

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

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

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

00 158 .Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.00 Between $70.000.000.000.000.00 and $150.00 More than $150.000.00 and $70.000.00 Between $100.000.00 and $100.000.00 Between $40.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful