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

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

. and to my Grandparents. iii . . 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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 . The overall question: Is there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style? And.Research Questions Several research questions will be examined in this study. 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. 3. In addition. 4. 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. 2. this study is intended to empirically contribute to the existing research that supports or repudiates EI as a positive predictor of that leadership style identified as transformational. if a relationship is found to exist. what elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The specific research questions are as follows: 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowe. Fourth. the study must have reported a measure of leader effectiveness. using a sample of 275 nurses. 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 results of a study by Morrison. and its effect on job satisfaction. organizational perception. the sample size must have been reported. and job satisfaction. 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). 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. Kroeck. Jones. and Fuller (1997) to determine the relationship between leadership style and empowerment. the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style from the perspective of the subordinate. along with sales/quota ratios and performance appraisals. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. Fifth.MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception. leader/unit perception. 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. suggests the impact of transformational leadership 27 . Third. Second. First.

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

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

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

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

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. b. how effective raters perceive their leaders to be at different levels of the organization. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from . b. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used to measure this behavior. d. c. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leaders to be motivating. and how satisfied raters are with their leaders methods of working with others. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high. c. Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception (Active) Management-by-Exception (Passive) 3. MLQ scales used to measure these areas are as follows: a.b. 34 . e. exceeding standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio. Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey.74 to . c. Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success of the group. 2.94. 2004).

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

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

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

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

and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term. Thus. 2004. cohesive. Roberts. 39 .. For this reason. conceptually coherent. noted the inability of EI proponents and theorists to agree on a single definition. not of empirically validated. which they argued is a direct result of EI theorists’ tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand. controversy exists about the validity of the construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions.Although this is a clear definition. and the multiple social science fields on the other. Mathews et al. they hold that EI escapes definition. These issues are explored next. culminating in the formation. 2004. emotional intelligence. 2004a. Gohm. EI Controversies Mathews. EI definitions have tended to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and literary studies. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular psychological construct. Mayer et al. is problematic. and psychologically based definitions of EI. none of which are seen by critics as comprehensive. In particular. they claimed. 2004b). but rather in a collection of assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent. Mathews et al. popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. and empirically valid definitions. (2004) began by arguing that the concept of EI has been imposed upon psychology from without rather than having emerged from within and in accordance with validated scientific concepts and theories. These criticisms have been adduced by other writers as well (Brody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

title. and manager success (Hopkins. EI. and management tenure 55 . and leadership outcomes from raters perceptions. Specifically. gender. Leadership. Brooks (2003) examined whether a sample of 57 effective managers in one financial organization scored higher in EI than managers with lower performance ratings and compared EI levels and demographic characteristics of the sample. results showed a significant predictive relationship for EI and laissez-faire leadership and leadership outcomes. 2003). with a significant interaction found for direction of self-concept and EI in predicting transformational leadership. coping (Purkable.management by exception and laissez-faire leadership over and above EI. 2005). Position. No significant interactions were found for cognitive style or direction of self-concept and EI in predicting full-range leadership style from leaders’ perceptions. The latter have included manager effectiveness (Brooks. Effectiveness was determined by manager performance ratings. 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. contingent reward leadership. Regarding raters perceptions. 2003). contingent reward leadership. with mixed results. 2003). Using performance ratings and demographic data. These are reviewed as follows. and leadership outcomes from raters’ perceptions. Brooks found that high ratings and high EI were not significantly related at the 95% confidence level but were significantly related on three ECI competencies at the 90% confidence level. leader internal self-concept moderated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

study. only the five transformational leadership construct scores were used to assess varying levels of TLS. and (e) Individual Consideration (IC). 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. the five components of transformational leadership comprising the TLS model are (a) Idealized Attributes (IA). (d) Intellectual stimulation (IS). the demographic questionnaire requested that respondents indicate their gender and age. 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). 2002). In brief. (c) Adaptability. as well as their ethnicity and income level. These components will be discussed more fully in the Measures section. (b) Interpersonal. (b) Idealized Behaviors (IB). it also allowed the researcher to determine if other control variables such as income impinge on the relationship between these two constructs. These components and their corresponding subcomponents are discussed in more detail in the Measures section. (d) Stress Management. 62 . (c) Inspirational Motivation (IM). and (e) General Mood (Bar-On.

The leader shares risks with followers and behaves in consonance with her or his underlying ethics. this person is able to go beyond her/his own self-interest for the good of the group. Bass and Avolio also computed reliability 63 . Among the things the leader does to earn the respect of followers is to consider their needs over his or her own. act in ways that build others’ respect and trust of leadership. and values. 2004): 1. and Individual Consideration: defined as a leader’s ability to treat followers as individuals and provide coaching. and display a sense of power and confidence. Followers identify with and want to emulate them. mentoring and growth opportunities. 2004) and was based on data from 2. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (Bass & Avolio. Idealized Behaviors: defined as a leader’s ability to communicate her/his values and beliefs by specifying. respected and trusted. The testretest reliabilities ranged from . the importance of a collective sense of mission that takes into consideration the moral and ethical consequences of her/his decisions. Inspirational Motivation: defined as a leader’s ability to challenge followers and imbue meaning and a shared vision into the undertakings to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals. 2. with a strong sense of purpose.53 to .080 raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. 3.96.Measures Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x-Revised (MLQ) The five subcomponents of transformational leadership that define TLS measured by the MLQ are (Bass & Avolio.85. Intellectual Stimulation: defined as a leaders ability to help followers question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems.81 to . 4. Both IA and IB comprise Idealized Influence (Attributes and Behaviors). 5. Leaders possessing these qualities are admired. Idealized Attributes: defined as a leader’s ability to instill pride in others for being associated with her/him. Spearman-Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from . principles.

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

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

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

” and complete and submit the following online surveys which were automatically defaulted in the following order after submitting the Waiver of Signed Consent. Participants choosing not to participate by clicking on “Do not wish to participate in leadership research” located on the “Waiver of Signed Consent. Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix).” Final results of the study were available upon request to participants as aggregated data only. the MLQ assessment. Completed surveys were stored directly into researchers WebSurveyor site and were password protected with researcher having sole access until retrieved for analysis.” were automatically redirected to the neutral online site of the MSN homepage without penalty as stated in “Waiver of Signed Consent. 2.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). click on the option “Agree to Participate in Leadership Research. and the EQi assessment with a completion time of around 45 minutes or so. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant differences in TLS? 67 . The survey responses were summarized as an Excel file in a raw data research format to be used for data input into SPSS for statistical analysis. Research Questions The goal of this research was to answer the following questions: 1. individual data were not made available.

Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS? Research Hypotheses The purpose of data analysis for this study was designed to investigate the previous four research questions by quantitatively testing whether to accept or reject their following relational null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses: H01: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. H04: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA1: Scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. H02: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will not predict significant differences in TLS. 4. H03: There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA3: There will be significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. HA2: Scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi will predict significant differences in TLS. 68 .3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 4.2 55.5 45.2 12.1 22.8 1.3 8.7 20.4 3.9 6.4 24.1 25.4 19.1 39. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables __________________________________________________________ Demographic variables N % __________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Level of current management position* Midlevel Senior level Executive level Founder/Owner Industry Advertising/media/marketing Aerospace/defense/engineering Computers/software/IT/network/Internet Construction Education Financial services Food/beverage Government/military HR/recruiting Legal services Management consulting/business services Manufacturing MDS/Healthcare Nonprofit/charities/foundations/religious Retail/sales services Service provider Length of time at current position Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years Total years employed by current organization Less than 1 year Between 1–3 years Between 4–6 years Between 7–10 years More than 10 years 95 62 88 33 20 17 6 8 17 4 9 8 41 5 4 7 6 3 10 13 9 8 18 38 35 20 47 11 18 31 26 72 60.6 16.9 12.0 11.9 3.7 10.8 5.1 10.7 5.8 3.7 5.7 29.7 7.2 2.1 11.8 2.2 5.5 5.6 76 .Table 1.

Arabic or other.9 1.2 10. Minimum age 24.0 2. 77 .1 32. American Indian.5 4.3 12.5 1.8 More than $150. 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 32.7 34.000 17 10.25 85.7 16.7 2.3 20.Table 1. **Includes Pacific Islander.000 44 27.4 8.8 Between $70–100. Respondent mean age was (M = 48.6 Between $100–150.20).7 Current income Less than $40. N = 158.7 31. SD = 8.1 9. *Responses to “other” positions will be reviewed and hand-coded separately.5 __________________________________________________________ Note.9 12.9 65.70.000 23 14.8 Between $40–70.000 15 9.9 2. maximum age 67.9 10.000 55 34. East Asian.

32 subordinates. Once again this distribution is somewhat skewed left with a mode of 3–6 direct reports (subordinates).1%. n = 72). n = 95) between the ages of 43–58 (66%. However. n = 78). Most respondents possessed at least an AA degree (77%.000 per annum (49. the majority of respondents had between 3–6 direct reports (65.6%.6%. Notably.4%.9% (n = 41) of respondents worked in the food and beverage industry. from between 3–6 to more than 16. 25.4%.000–$100. the sample had a nearly bimodal distribution between High School and Technical/Trade School and Bachelor’s degree. n = 121) in a private. Most respondents earned from $40.7%.2%.Demographics of the sample indicate that the typical respondent was a White (85. In terms of supervision responsibilities. for-profit organization. n = 103). and a median of 5. or direct reports the mean of the sample says the atypical subject will have 7. The largest proportion of respondents had occupied their current position for more than 10 years (29. The actual mode was High School and Technical/Trade School category. n = 135) male (60. this suggests that the typical subject has a bachelor’s level of education. the participants were typically Caucasian (85%). The median level of education was a bachelor’s degree.15 direct reports. n = 99) who occupied a midlevel or senior-level management position (76. 78 . n = 106). Although the number of direct reports ranged widely. Addressing racial diversity. or mean of 3. The sample of the population in this study has an average. This bimodal tendency demonstrates a good mix of lifestyle educational patterns that make the result of this study more rigorous.95 years of college education. n = 47) and had been employed in their present organization for more than 10 years as well (45.

because a subject earning $5 million per year would drastically change these estimates. 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.02 (SD = 13. 107.02 (SD = 13.86 (SD = 13. 79 . This variable was created by summing across the 5 EQi components to obtain a summed score on the 5 EQi components.05).41).63 (SD = 12. and General Mood Components. Stress Management. EQi component scores were. 105.77 years. 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. As far as income. 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. 105. Also shown in Table 2 are descriptive statistics for a new variable. The mean age of the subjects is 48. 102.900 and the median was $54.00).97 (SD = 13. Descriptives of respondent scores on the EQi indicate that the average total score was 105. 103. in descending order.49). Interpersonal. Adaptability. The mode of age is the 43–50 category with over two thirds of the subjects falling in the ages 43–58. Total EQi Score. with a nearly identical median of 48.730. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.85). For the income this is going to be most apparent. Summed TLS Score.The age demographic was a little more normally distributed.01). the mean income was $68. Intrapersonal.65 years.49 (SD = 14. Also shown in Table 3 is the mean and standard deviation for a new variable.

17 104.54 103.62 13.19 13.46 102.4 ____________________________________________________ Note.74 13.41 106.52 103.86 12.28 103.64 107.49 13. This variable was created by summing across the 5 TLS components to obtain an overall summed score of the 5 components. 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 107.02 105.86 106.85 12.60 14.63 103.70 13.93 13.49 103.Table 2.05 14. 80 .66 14.41 12.97 13.21 105. This variable was used in the inferential statistical analyses described as follows.00 12. N = 157.44 13.66 101.04 12.67 13.45 13.73 12.61 102.02 102.36 Total EQi Score 105.61 105.01 13.63 103.31 103.

3.95 (SD = 0.08 (SD = 0.59). *Summed TLS score divided by number of components (5).57).96 (SD = 0. Individualized Consideration. Respondents in the present sample rated themselves higher than the U. 3.58).57 0. 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. 3.52.52).13 3. TLS component scores were. Idealized Influence (Behavior).26 3.59).63 0. norm sample for self-ratings on all TLS components shown in Table 4.18 SD 0.58 0.08 3. 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed). Idealized Influence (Behavior). 2.04 (SD = 0.59 0. Individualized Consideration. in descending order.18 (SD = 0. Idealized Influence (Attributed). and Intellectual Stimulation. 2004).09 3. Descriptives of respondent scores on five TLS components of the MLQ indicate that the average total score was 3.57). Inspirational Motivation. which are as follows.57 0. 2. Inspirational Motivation.35 (SD = 0.S. Intellectual Stimulation.63).59).13 (SD = 0. 2.35 3. Mind Garden.Table 3.53). 81 . N = 157.59). 3.09 (SD = 0.99 (SD = 0.59 Note. 3.16 (SD = 0. 3.26 (SD = 0.

Table 4. TLS Component Scores: U.99 3.52 M 3.0 indicate a non-normal distribution. Group Norms vs.52 0.53 0.e. including each individual MLQ item from which the TLS component scales were created.S.59 0.59 0. which generated Skew and Kurtosis statistics for these variables. Norm group** M 3. was evaluated using SPSS Procedure Descriptives.57 0.04 2.02 2.59 0.35 SD 0. or symmetry. Skew represents the even-ness. or scaled variables.18 3. This is an important diagnostic step prior to performing a multiple regression analysis.59 0.08 3. since using variables that are not normally distributed in a regression analysis may produce results that are difficult to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell. of a distribution (i. Group Sample Group sample* Transformational component Total TLS Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration *N = 157. A skew statistics greater than +/–2.58 0.13 3.375.96 3. **N = 3. Skew is obtained by dividing skew its standard error.55 0.63 0. 2001).26 3.57 Descriptive Statistics—Skew and Kurtosis The normality of the frequency distributions for the continuous.09 3. Kurtosis represents the height of a distribution.. Kurtosis is obtained by dividing kurtosis 82 . a normal curve approximately in the center of the distribution).16 SD 0.95 2.

(b) MLQ 23 = –2. Skew statistics for these TLS component scales were.83. respectively. (d) Adaptability = .70. 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. and (c) MLQ 35 = –2. (b) Interpersonal = . (c) Inspirational Motivation = . and (e) General Mood = . (c) Stress Management = .63. 83 . (a) MLQ 5 = 2. This decision was based on the fact that the distributions of the five TLS component scales that included these items were not skewed.76.06. but normally distributed. all of which were slightly negatively skewed but were all well below 2.09.16. (b) Idealized Influence (Behavior) = .61. and (c) 9.80. Idealized InfluenceBehavior = –. and not individual MLQ items.66. Inspirational Motivation = –. Reliabilities for the five TLS components are as follows: (a) Idealized Influence (Attributed) = . Idealized Influence-Attributed = –. Reliabilities (α) for the five EQi components are as follows: (a) Intrapersonal = . log-transformation of the items was not considered to be necessary. with skew > +/–2.67. and (e) Individualized Consideration = .64.18. (d) Intellectual Stimulation = .40.78. Kurtosis for each of these variables was (a) 5. An examination of the skew statistics produced revealed that three MLQ items were significantly skewed.0. Intellectual Stimulation = –.by its standard error (Tabachnick & Fidell.83. (b) 6. the decision was made to keep them in their original form. and Individualized Consideration = –1. Since the TLS component scales were used in all the inferential statistical analyses that follow.0. While log-transforming these items to normalize their distributions was considered.73.49.85. 2001).67.24.

52* .05). The significance level was set at (α = . This is the appropriate statistic to use when analyzing relationships between and/or among continuous variables.25* . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed). Stress Management 4. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior). and IC = Individualized Consideration.37* . a correlational analysis was conducted to identify significant relationships between the five EQi and the five TLS components.33* .19 a . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.31* . N = 158.23* .44* .44* .30* .37* IIB .36* .46* IM . 84 . General Mood IIA .35* .40* . *p < .59* IS .41* .40* .05. To address the first research question. a p < . IM = Inspirational Motivation.28* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components TLS component EQ component 1. Intrapersonal 2. Adaptability 5. SPSS Procedure Correlations/Bivariate was used. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.29* .32* IC . Pearson’s r was obtained.37* .37* .43* Note.01. Interpersonal 3.48* . representing the strength (importance) and direction (positive or negative) of the relationships between the five components of the independent (EQi) and dependent (TLS) variables.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. Table 5.

using the same Procedure Correlations. p < . p < . EQi component scores also increased. The highest correlations were found between each of (a) Optimism (r = . Results are shown in Table 6.23 or higher. 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.45. This demonstrates that the five EQi components do predict significant differences on the 5 TLS components.59. Most of the correlations ranged between . Only one significant correlation was found between Impulse Control and any of the TLS components. The weakest relationship was found between Stress Management and Idealized Influence-Attributed.05).05).59 between General Mood and Inspirational Motivation). at r = .23 between Adaptability and Idealized Influence-Attributed) to moderate (r = . Significant correlations were found between most of the EQi subcomponents and each TLS component. meaning that as scores on the TLS components increased. With one exception.51. representing correlations ranging from modest (r = .001) and Inspirational Motivation. 85 .001).19. Inspirational Motivation (r = .16. The second research question was investigated by analyzing relationships between the 15 EQi subcomponents and the five TLS components. (b) Happiness (r = . (c) Self-Actualization (r = .05. All correlations were in the positive direction. p < . all of the Pearson’s r’s were . with (α = .20 and . which was rather minimal and barely significant compared to the magnitude of other correlations identified.50. which was still significant at p < .Significant correlations were found between each TLS and EQi component.001). p < .

38* .34* .31* IIB .12 (ns) .39* .50* .43* .36* .30* .31* .05).30* .33* .44* .03 (ns) .28* .40* .24* .29* .31* . Problem Solving 14. N = 157.23* . Self-Actualization 6.43* .43* . IS = Intellectual Stimulation.11 (ns) . Reality Testing 12.40* . ap < .34* .28* .17 a . IIA = Idealized Influence (Attributed).30* . 86 .05 (ns = nonsignificant. *p < . Social Responsibility 8. Stress Tolerance 10. Interpersonal Relationships 9. Self-Regard 2.33* .25* IC .39* IM .13 (ns) .23* .38* . Flexibility 13.36* .27* .16 a .38* .16 (ns) .26* . Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents TLS components EQi subcomponent 1.40* .36* Note.33* . All correlations between Impulse Control and the remaining four TLS components were insignificant.Table 6.40* . IM = Inspirational Motivation.37* . and IC = Individualized Consideration.37* . Independence 5.33* . Impulse Control 11. IIB = Idealized Influence (Behavior).24* .44* . Optimism 15.37* .59* .51* IS .24* .46* . Empathy 7.37* .01.32* .32* .45* .33* .35* .24* .26* . Assertiveness 4. Happiness IIA .33* .36* .15 (ns) .21* .45* .37* .37* .25* .35* .15 (ns) . Self-Awareness 3. p ≥ .48* .19 a .32* .

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

82. this intercorrelation is to be expected. The highest intercorrelation among the EQi subcomponents was that between Empathy and Social Responsibility (r = .01) as were Interpersonal Relationships and Happiness (r = . p < . multicollinearity was not present and all of the subcomponents were kept for use in the multiple regression analysis. multicollinearity would not appear to be an issue.01). The same analysis was conducted and Pearson’s r’s obtained for the five TLS components of the MLQ. 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. The correlation matrix displaying the results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. Inferential analyses IIc—intercorrelations among the TLS components of the MLQ.90. Self-regard and Happiness were also fairly highly correlated (r = . The intercorrelation matrix displaying the results are shown in the Table 8. since no Pearson’s r for any of the subcomponents was greater than .72.01). However. Since these two variables are subcomponents of the Interpersonal component. p < .(Pearson’s r) were obtained for the 15 EQi subcomponents. None of the remaining intercorrelations was higher than . p < . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression. Therefore.71. 88 . Table 8 shows that the highest intercorrelation among TLS components was that between Idealized Influence-Behavior and Inspirational Motivation (r = 72.01).64. based on the .90 threshold recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). p < .

36* .53* 1.61* . Self-Regard 2.51* . Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 1 1.43* 1.38* . Empathy 89 7.60* .55* .52* .61* .26* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .52* . Impulse Control .40* .55* .36* .00 1.42* .55* .40* .45* 1.00 1.32* . Self-Actualization 6.00 1.00 1.39* . Independence 5.43* .40* .Table 7.42* .41* .39* .55* .55* . Stress Tolerance 13.61* .72* .43* .62* .00 1.58* .37* .42* .37* .52* .00 .54* .32* Subcomponent 1.25* .49* .41* .36* 9.66* .71* .42* .82* . Interpersonal Relationship .47* .65* .47* 1. Reality Testing 10.47* .38* .50* .60* .32* .59* .66* .53* 15 .30* . Social Responsibility 8.42* .60* .26* .50* .00 .33* .23* .56* .50* 1.60* .50* .56* .51* .40* . Self Awareness 3.00 1.00 .50* .47* . Assertiveness 4.15* .00 .43* .15* .51* 1.41* .51* .28* .16* .39* .00 . Problem Solving 12.37* .33* .59* .00 .60* .32* .50* .25* .40* .50* .24* .35* .00 .43* .74* .42* .27* .23* .58* . Flexibility 11.20* .64* .53* .61* .

05. 90 . Optimism 15.64* 1.00 Subcomponent 14.Table 7. a p < .00 15 . *p < .01. bns = nonsignificant. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. N = 157. Happiness Note.

57* 1. to a minimal extent. Overall. The EQi Intrapersonal component was the single most important predictor of TLS (R2change = . The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.287).54* . N = 157. Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.00 2 . Intellectual Stimulation 5.00 5 . about 32% of the variance explained in TLS was accounted for by a combination of the Intrapersonal. the Interpersonal component (R2change = .59* .58* 1. Intercorrelations Among the Five TLS Components of the MLQ TLS components 1. To assess the relative contribution of each EQi component (independent variables) to variance explained in TLS (summed score) a hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2.Table 8.64* 1.61* .00 4 . Stress Management at Step 3. and. followed by Interpersonal at Step 2. Results are shown in Table 9. General Mood and 91 . *p < .72* 1.015). Stress Management at Step 3. Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2. followed by General Mood (R2change = . Individualized Consideration Note.019).55* . Inferential analysis IId—multiple regression.00 3 . Inspirational Motivation 4. Results are shown in Table 9.60* .01.62* .00 The Intrapersonal EQi component was entered into the model at Step 1. 1 1. Adaptability at Step 4 and General Mood at Step 5.

66** .000 .000 . F change R2change .V.019 Note.87 . R2 = . Neither Stress Management. the EQi Intrapersonal. 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.04* 62. N = 157.000 . entered at Step 4.073 –. Table 9. R2 = . In summary.034 4.85 . **p < . and to some degree the Interpersonal and General Mood components appeared to be the best set of predictors of variance explained in TLS. R2 = . R2 = .32 .07 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at final step (Step 5). accounted for any significant increase in variance explained.320 at Step 5. entered at Step 3. nor Adaptability.287 at Step 1.301 at Steps 3 and 4.25 .66 3.24 .25 2.01.015 .Interpersonal components. 92 .033 –. Adaptability and Stress Management appeared to be the poorest predictors of differences in overall TLS. † TLS Summed = D.069 2.05. *p < .287 .008 .301 at Step 2.04 .162 .728 –0.316 –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

97 0.14 __________________________________________________________ a n = 95. 96 .50 2. An independent-samples t test was then conducted on the five TLS components in order to identify significant gender differences on these variables.16 0. Significant findings are shown in Table 13.21 14.48 104. bn = 62. *p < .19 higher on the Intellectual Stimulation TLS component than females. *p < . a difference which was significant at p < .44 2.05. bn = 62. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components __________________________________________________________ Malesa Femalesb EQi component M SD M SD t __________________________________________________________ Intrapersonal 108. Males scored a mean of 0.05. Table 13.75 12.01* __________________________________________________________________ a n = 95.05.67 2. 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. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four TLS components.Table 12.

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

34 102.43 11. *n = 95.74 15.99 107.84 11.07 14.52 (14) _________________________________________________________________________ Note.77 102. Self-Actualization (9 vs.21 105.37 14.93 13.57 13.77 (15) (1) (13) (3) (9) (4) (5) (7) (12) (8) (2) (10) (6) (11) Happiness 102.09 109. 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 104.01 103. **n = 62.06 102.34 12.53 12.89 103.64 109.27 11.62 103.16 103.56 102.14 15.80 106.41 11.19 12.72 101.37 105.74 11. Social Responsibility 98 .97 15. N = 157.23 13.61 104.92 102.67 103.50 12.76 106.92 13.17 103.80 102.63 13.50 109. 13).80 14.Table 14.24 104.48 13.33 105. As a group.47 104.28 (14) 100. females ranked higher than males on the following EQi subcomponents. 11).08 11. Empathy (4 vs.27 (8) (1) (2) (3) (11) (13) (15) (12) (4) (9) (5) (6) (10) (7) 99.75 13.26 103.55 13.68 14.70 13.18 14.37 12.40 14.78 13.

Significant findings of this analysis are shown in Table 15. Females.39 109.74 15.67 SD 11. *p < .05. a Marginally significant.21 105.01.74 t 2. An independent-samples t test was then conducted to determine whether males and females differed significantly on the 15 EQi subcomponents. Assertiveness.26 Females SD 13.99 M 99.91a 2.18 higher on the EQi Assertiveness subcomponent than females. Self-Regard (8 vs.01.11 107. among others. 15). 12).(5 vs.42* Note.86 11. Both males and females ranked equally on the EQi Independence subcomponent (3). 13).05. n = 62. 12). and Flexibility (6 vs. Males. They also ranked higher than males on Reality Testing (2 vs. a difference which was significant at p < . Stress Tolerance (4 vs. n = 95. p = . 10). Table 15. males ranked higher than females on the following EQi subcomponents.97 109. 15). (2 vs.80 102. As a group. 10).36** 1. and Interpersonal Relationships (7 vs. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Assertiveness Independence Stress Tolerance M 103. 5) and Problem Solving (6 vs. Males scored a mean of 7.07 14. **p < .07* 3.57 12.18 14. Independent-samples t test. They also scored higher on the 99 .01 102.80 11.

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

bFor males: R2 (adj) = .73 1.088 –. F change R2change .73 .176 at Step 1.379 at Step 4.on a subsample of males and females identified as strong users of transformational leadership styles (i.022 .268 7.263 at Step 4.248 at Step 3.011 Note.001 .. cFor females: R2 (adj) = .269 .e.167 1.63** .08 .255 at Step 2.097 .669 3. N = 157. Table 16.131 .45 . 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.85 .000 .12 2.02 .755 .99** . 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.989 34.001 .41 .67 –1.18 .010 . R2 (adj) = .55 –. R2 (adj) = .000 .002 . R2 (adj) = . It was thus decided that using 101 . a Beta (standardized coefficient) and t at Step 4.261 at Step 1.098 12. R2 (adj) = . **p < .253 at Step 2.01.19 .378 at Step 3.190 .04 2.21 –. R2 (adj) = .606 . R2 (adj) = .81 1.24 14.302 . who scored above the mean on the five TLS component scales).05 .

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

1 50.1 45.7%.7 51. This subsample was used in all analyses that follow.5 46. *n = 95.3 52.4 50. **n = 62.5 53.3 46. Females** High Low n 30 34 27 25 30 31 % 48.7 47.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. The highest percentage of males (52.4 54.6 49.3 n 51 51 45 48 51 51 % 53.3 48.8 43. n = 50) scored below the mean on the Inspirational Motivation component.0 n 44 44 50 47 44 44 % 46. the highest percentage of females (54.3 46. Table 17.2 56.7 53.8%.7 53. The highest percentage of females (59.7 The second step was to obtain the subsample of males and females who scored above the mean (n = 82). N = 157.4 50. and (c) Individualized Consideration TLS components.5 40.6%.0 n 32 28 35 37 32 31 High % 51. n = 34) scored below the mean on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component. The “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the 103 . n = 37) scored above the mean on the Intellectual Stimulation component. Comparison of Low.5 59.(Behavior).

The ranked EQi subcomponent means are shown in Table 18.92 111.15 10.88 11.64 112. again based on each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean. the three highest EQi subcomponent means were identified for each TLS component on which males or females had scored above the mean.12 110.76 110.66 11. The three highest means for males and females are displayed first.28 11.00 9. Secondly.55 114.29 SD 14. the three lowest EQi subcomponent means were chosen. First.45 112.93 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration 104 . Table 18.98 111.04 16.50 114. Once this subsample was selected.09 10.30 10.11 113.11 11. followed by the three lowest means for males and females.51 111. means and standard deviations for each EQi subcomponents were obtained and then ranked separately for males and females.66 114.83 111.mean on the TLS summed score (M = 15.91).68 12.00 112. 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 111.14 11.75 9.85 12.75 10.24 111.

92 105.07 14.17 9.28 107.53 109.21 11.23 106.28 108.38 14.68 10.9 Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation 105 .25 104.22 108.15 108.71 106.36 13.39 9.44 9.64 9. 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 104.51 7.55 12.55 12.56 SD 10.23 108.26 112.86 105.39 M 110.13 107.28 110.50 11.15 104.50 107.42 109.Table 18.62 107.51 107.22 13.13 111.40 12.18 109.20 9.50 11.12 10.90 103.73 9.84 11.03 7.55 11.41 8.

68 106.09 104.4 102.12 10.82 105.81 17.50 SD 10.Table 18.56 105.89 11.14 105. (b) Assertiveness.66 104.85 14.59 14.01 8.86 12. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components (continued) TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Males’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Social Responsibility Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Social Responsibility Impulse Control Happiness Females’ 3 lowest EQ subcomponents Idealized Influence (Attributed) Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Happiness Self-Regard Impulse Control Self-Regard Happiness Flexibility Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships Self-Regard Happiness Interpersonal Relationships 102.75 104. (c) Independence. 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.33 M 104.66 10.03 102.42 9.65 103.50 105.78 103.20 11.06 12.35 103.06 13.41 10.27 14.57 104.79 105.90 12.96 105.67 10.26 105.00 103.73 10.77 101.43 11.81 Individualized Consideration Idealized Influence (Behavior) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Descriptive statistics. and (d) Stress Tolerance 106 .47 12.63 12.

While males scored 5.33 higher than females on the Assertiveness subcomponent. and (e) Happiness across the five TLS components.28 higher on the Social Responsibility subcomponent than did males. In summary. Independent subsamples t test. however. and (d) Impulse Control across the five TLS components. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.05. (d) Problem Solving. Males scored a mean of 5. Social Responsibility and Stress Tolerance. three significant gender-based differences were identified on the EQi subcomponents. a difference which was significant at p < . this difference barely reached statistical significance at p = .05. 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. (b) Independence. (c) Social Responsibility. and (e) Problem Solving across the five TLS components.across the five TLS components. (d) Empathy. Males scored 107 . Females scored a mean of 4. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 19. Assertiveness. (b) Happiness. No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining EQi subcomponents. (b) Social Responsibility. which was also significant as shown in Table 19. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) also scored highest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Emotional Self-Awareness.64 higher than females on Stress Tolerance. Females scoring above the mean on the Summed TLS score (n = 32) scored lowest on the following EQi subcomponents: (a) Self-Regard. 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. (c) Interpersonal Relationships.

00 14.05. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility. Categorical variables.09 108.78 8.57 M 107. Males. categorical variables (low. Table 19. 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.04* Note.and high-scoring) 108 .43 104. To do this. 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.43 t 1. n = 31.significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance and nearly significantly higher than females on Assertiveness.e. Subsample N = 82.94a –2. p = . who scored above the mean on the 15 EQi subcomponents). n = 51.80 SD 10. a Marginally significant.16 Females SD 13.05 10.05.. and the 5 TLS Subcomponents— Part 2 This analysis parallels that described in Part 1.61 106. Using Subsample of High Scorers in EQi Above Summed Group Mean: A Further Examination of the Relationships Among Gender. EQi.33 111. Females.96 10. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance M 112.01* 2. *p < . however.

0%. However. The highest TLS component mean was identified for each EQi subcomponent on which males or females had scored above the mean. n = 59) each scored above the mean on Assertiveness and Happiness. means and standard deviations for the five TLS components were obtained and ranked separately for males and females.and high-scoring males and females are presented in Table 20. n = 38) scored above the mean on Self-Regard. the lowest TLS component mean was chosen.97). The highest percentage of females (61. The same method was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on Total EQi (M = 105. The highest percentage of females scored below the mean on Optimism (51.5%. The highest percentages of males (61. n = 48) scored below the mean on the Stress Tolerance. Descriptive data (N and %) for low. The second step was the same as that described in Part 1.1%. again based on each EQi subcomponent.3%. n = 51) scored above the mean across all of the EQi subcomponents. 55% (n = 34) of females scored above the mean on these measures. followed by 59. 109 . obtain a subsample of males and females (n = 87) who scored above the mean on Total EQi. The highest percentage of males (50.were created for each subcomponent by taking its mean and using it as a cutoff point for high or low scorers.5% (n = 35) of females did so. Those scoring above the mean were categorized as high scoring and those scoring at the mean or below were categorized as low scoring. n = 32). 57% of males (n = 55) also scored above the mean on Empathy while 56. More than one half of males (53. Then. Once the subsample was selected. Interestingly.6%.7% (n = 37) who did so on Impulse Control.

8 50.9 43.5 46.5 54.8 44.9 45.5 40.5 53. **n = 62.2 55.0 n 45 43 37 45 44 41 46 43 48 44 43 47 46 42 37 43 % 46.7 54. Female** High Low % 53.9 44.8 49.5 59.2 55.1 56.8 45.2 51.3 48.2 57.2 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 % 61.2 61.6 46.5 46.8 38.5 53.8 54.7 47.2 41. Comparison of Low.8 High % 38.3 52.5 43.8 38.0 54.2 45.3 55.0 51.7 51.9 43.5 45.0 110 .0 45.8 43.0 48.4 45.3 45.0 52.Table 20.0 47.4 53.8 58.1 56.5 56.1 55.2 56.1 54.2 50.7 44.6 54.1 55.2 50.2 61.and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15 EQi Subcomponents Male* Low EQ subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Total *n = 95.9 44.8 50.8 42.

51 0. Table 21.49 0.58 3.47 0.49 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi Males EQi subcomponent Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Highest TLS component Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Individualized Consideration Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation M 3.54 0.43 111 .53 0.55 3.52 3.37 0.55 3.60 0.49 0.57 0.49 3.61 3.5 3.54 0.55 3.47 0. The highest mean for males and females is displayed first. followed by the lowest mean.48 3.55 SD 0.52 0.47 0.47 3.48 0.The ranked TLS component means are shown in Table 21.52 3.51 3.37 3.

43 SD 0.40 0.55 3.38 3.35 112 .41 3.42 0.37 0.21 0.45 0.42 3.39 0.45 3.44 3.40 0.22 3.37 0.37 3.45 0.37 3.34 0.51 3.Table 21.44 0.39 0.51 3.36 0.36 3.6 M 3.46 3.35 3.30 0.49 0.37 0.42 3. 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.

5 0.59 0.43 0.25 3.6 0.08 3.57 0.22 3.58 0.61 0.61 0.57 0.53 0.2 3.51 0.53 M 3.24 3.28 3.45 113 .51 0.52 0.24 3.21 3.14 0.18 3.15 3.Table 21.57 0.2 3.22 3. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and Females Scoring Above the Mean on Total EQi (continued) Males EQi subcomponent Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationships Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Optimism Happiness Lowest TLS component Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Idealized Influence Attributed Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Females Lowest TLS component Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual Stimulation 3.19 3.24 SD 0.58 0.1 3.2 3.

where they scored highest on Inspirational 114 .13 3.58 0.14 3.05 3.59 0.11 3.16 3. with the exceptions of Independence.57 Descriptive statistics.62 0. Optimism and Happiness.6 0.68 0.06 2.Table 21. The same pattern was evident for females who scored above the mean on Total EQi.95 3.55 0. The subgroup of males scoring above the mean on Total EQi also scored highest on Individualized Consideration across several of the EQi subcomponents.67 0.08 SD 0.63 0.02 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 3.21 3. They scored highest on Individualized Consideration across every EQi subcomponent except Social Responsibility.49 0.63 0. where they scored highest on Inspirational Motivation. Empathy.11 3.

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. Table 22. a Marginally significant. only one significant gender-based difference was identified on the TLS component.22 higher on the Idealized Influence (Behavior) component than did females. Independent subsamples t test.04* M 111.57 M 106. n = 54. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components Males TLS subcomponent Idealized Influence (Behavior) Note.05.05.43 t 2. 115 . Males scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Idealized Influence (Behavior).80 Males scored 0. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 22. p = . n = 33. a difference which was significant at p < . Males scored significantly higher than females on this measure. Females SD 10. *p < .05.Motivation. Females also scored lowest on Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation. Females. Males.16 SD 14. In summary. 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.

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

workforce is growing in its diversity. Mandell & Pherwani. down from 16.Sosik & Megerian.S Department of Labor. 2003). women held 15.4% of corporate officer posts at the nation’s top 500 companies. 30% of women earned medical degrees. executive women identified corporate culture as the number one reason why they left their executive positions.4% in 2005. 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. 2000.S. in spite of the success and acceptance of women in many industries. 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. 2003). 47% law degrees. with women obtaining between 40% and 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and sciences in 2000. The number of women obtaining degrees is outpacing that of men. Over the next decade. The percentage of female officers in line jobs that lead to the corner office also fell by 6% to 27. However.S. Hay/McBer. The premise of this examination was based on literature indicating that the composition of the U. In 2007. research on whether and to what extent EI factors predict TLS has been limited (Goleman. When asked to provide a ranking of factors. 80% of the U. In fact. However. 2008). with women currently representing 50.6% of the 48 million employees in management. fastest growing jobs will require at least 2 years of college. the Wall Street Journal reported that the number of women rising to and attaining senior level positions is decreasing. and 41% MBAs (Wolfe.2% last year (Hymowitz. The women 117 . 1999). 2007). professional. and related occupations (U. In 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

numerous studies have also shown consistent gender differences with males rating themselves higher than females on self-estimates of emotional intelligence. Assertiveness (mean difference of 7. with males consistently scoring higher in the EQ Intrapersonal component than do their female counter parts. Self-Regard (mean difference of 4. all of which were significant at p < .17). The difference between males and females on Independence was only marginally significant at 4. and Stress Tolerance (mean difference of 7.05.18). thus rejecting the fourth and final null hypothesis considered in this study: “There will be no significant gender differences in the relationship between scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi and TLS. 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. The use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce the potential bias of this nature. 1995. Males scored higher than females on the following three EQi subcomponents. 2000). While this current study supports previous research findings. Petrides & Furnham.” 125 .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.41). suggesting there is a self-enhancing bias in men and a selfderogatory bias in women (Furnham & Rawles.10. which this current study used.

0%. It should be noted that three of the four subcomponents identified with males scoring higher than their female counterparts are three of the five subcomponents that make up the Intrapersonal component. Again the use of 360 assessments for both EQ and TLS may help reduce potential bias. and should not come as a great surprise. and have an enhanced self-regard compared to women. the publisher of the EQi test used in this study. More than one half of males (53. “men seem to have stronger self-regard and cope better with immediate problems of a stressful nature than women” (2002. are independent. To do this. According to Dr.The research findings of this current study are consistent with Goleman (1998) and Bar-On (2002) where research indicated men tend to be stronger in Intrapersonal capacity (Assertiveness subcomponent). Steven Stein. “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.18). President of MHS. and men’s and women’s use of EQi. where males were previously identified as scoring significantly higher in research question 3. Subsample Using High Scorers in TLS to Identify Significant Gender Differences in EQi Subcomponents Additional analysis to further delineate Research Question 4. n = 51) and exactly one half of females (50. the “Select Cases” option in SPSS was used to select only those cases scoring above the mean on the TLS summed score (M = 3. are better at handling stress.7%. ¶ 1). n = 31) scored above 126 .

These results could be a contributing factor in the identification 127 .64. Stress Tolerance.33. 2007). self-assuredness.05). In addition.28. Males scored significantly higher than females on Stress Tolerance (M = 5. Bar-On examined several other samples of diverse cultures around the world in which the EQi was administered. p < . and found that women did score significantly higher on Social Responsibility while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Stress Tolerance. and Social Responsibility. Females scored significantly higher than males on Social Responsibility (M = 4. Data analysis identified three significant gender-based differences on the EQi subcomponents.05) and marginally but not significantly higher than females on Assertiveness (M = 5. p < . 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. The analysis produced another significant finding not previously detected in the overall sample used to address this same research question. Assertiveness. who analyzed the scores on over 7. 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.700 administrations of the EQi. whereas men cope better with stress (Bar-On. and consistently found that women are more socially responsible than men. Thus. p < . self-confidence and feelings of self-adequacy.” was rejected.05).the mean across all of the TLS components. inner strength. and found to be consistent with the findings of Bar-On (2000). Once the subsample was identified an additional independent-samples t test was then conducted.

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

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

21 vs. It is possible that if these factors had been included as variables in the present study..8 vs.2). men scored a mean of 4. unlike findings of previous research. 1998. 130 . 63. unlike the present results. who found that women respondents scored higher than male respondents in both EQ (109. as well as higher on all five components than males.7 vs. Butler compared EQi scores of male and female construction project leaders and found that. in the present research. Schutte et al. The present findings also contradict those of Mandell and Pherwani (2003). No other significant gender differences were identified on the remaining four EQi components. Butler. 104. 2005. which found that females had significantly higher self-reported emotional intelligence than males (Atkins & Stough. 2000). However.58 vs. 101. 2005). similar to Butler’s finding that males scored 6 points higher than females on the Intrapersonal subscale (107.decoding (Byron.7) (p. 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. or that males Overall and Self motivation estimates of emotional intelligence were significantly higher than were female estimates (Petrides & Furnham. 92). which indicated that men tended to score higher in intrapersonal capacity. 2003) may be related to leadership ability. Van Rooy et al. a larger proportion of variance in TLS might have been identified.31) and TLS (65.62 higher on the Intrapersonal component than females (108. 2005. Gender Differences Relationship between scores on the five components of the EQi and TLS.31). 98.. women scored higher overall.

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

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

Driskell. the evidence suggests no differences in overall leadership performance.Research studies suggest that women encounter more dislike and rejection than men do for showing dominance. Bass et al. dominance lowers women’s but not men’s ability to influence others (Carli. This level of disagreement between direct reports and leaders emphasizes the importance of the 360° assessment in data collection as it may provide a more statistically accurate profile of the subject group. Rudman. 1989). whose gender role expectations may lead them to be more modest (Carli. 1995. in 133 . That is. male gender role expectations may lead men to rate themselves more highly in terms of self-esteem than women. 2001). The findings of this current study support previous research despite the significant difference found in Intellectual Stimulation with men scoring higher. which in the case of men and women may be affected by gender role expectations (Carli. In addition. In this current study self estimates were used in data collection in which Avolio and Bass (2004) suggested a common problem is that supervisors actually say and believe they are giving feedback to direct reports. Copeland. 2001). In addition. expressing disagreement. (1996) concluded that while the leadership style by which males and females may lead. & Salas. 1998). as no significant gender differences in participants overall construct scores were identified. or being highly assertive or self-promoting (Carli. 1989. Greater penalties against women than men for dominant and assertive behaviors reflect the constraints on women to avoid stereotypically masculine behavior. Generally. one of the most common biases is referred to as a socially desirable response. implying both are equally transformational in leadership style. yet their direct reports do not report the same frequency in which they have received it. 1989. 2001. Nevertheless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from http://redalyc. TX: Pro-Philes Press. (1985).84. Retrieved from http://www. B. Leadership Quarterly. Retrieved from ProQuest database. B. J. M. M. 52(2). M. 17(3/4). A seminal shift: The impact of James Burns’ leadership. B. Bass.).231. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.org/bar-on-model/essay. M. B. J.uaemex. (1999). R. M.. 13–25. & Avolio.pdf Bar-On. J. 18(3). B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Online). M. (1994). (1997).1016/0090-2616(90) 90061-S Bass. (2004).. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. 112–121. Retrieved from http://205. (1995). R. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. & Avolio. J. & Handley. B. CA: Mind Garden. Bass. 17(1).242/demo/intro/tformlead. Public Administration Quarterly. 541–554. 130–139. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics.. M. (2006). & Avolio.52. 143 . (1993). (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. (1990).net/tc3/TC019239. New Braunfels. Redwood City.reuvenbaron. 18(Suppl. 19–31.html Bass. M. B. & Avolio. doi: 10. B. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) diagnostic manual. 375–377. B. doi: 10. B.mx/redalyc/ pdf/727/72709501.. 4(3). B. Bass. (1999).1080/01900699408524907 Bass. Leadership development: Transformational leadership. J. B.. & Avolio.. Optimizing people: A practical guide for applying emotional intelligence to improve personal and organizational effectiveness. B.Bar-On.130 Bass.php?i=25 Bar-On. Menlo Park. J. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research manual. CA: Mind Garden. Abstract retrieved from http://ericae. International Journal of Public Administration. M. & Avolio. Gender differences in EQi and EQi:YV scores. R. R. Bass.htm Bass. B. Bass. B. (2007). doi: 10.1037/0003-066X. B. M.2. (1990). The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Psicothema.

S. Avolio. N. J.2224/ sbp. & Henninger.capella. Doctoral dissertation. 15(3).aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=14595137&site=ehost-live&scope=site Brooks. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 41–50.com/Downloads/uk/misc/ESCI_ Article. Testing the relationship between emotional intelligence and fullrange leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept [Abstract]. A. W.. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating. New York: Harper & Row.haygroup. (2007).88. Burton. E. (1978). (2004).Bass. Doctoral dissertation.haygroup.1037/0021-9010.. 27(5). K. The creation of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI).pdf Brody. M. 44–46. L.htm Bryant. 5–34. 9(4).1108/0953481 8910134040 Boyatzis. South Carolina State University. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. E.2. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. (2003).com/login.. D. A. J. (1996). sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. (2003). B. Retrieved from http://www. E. doi: 10.. B.pdf Boyatzis.htm Burns. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Leadership. Philosophy as the missing link between values and behavior. M. J.. (2003).1. E. R. & Atwater. B. & Berson. Social Behavior and Personality. 207–218. 35(1).eiconsortium. Jung. Avolio. Retrieved from http://www. Murphy. Y. doi: 10. (2000). I. Psychological Inquiry. R. doi: 10. Lincoln. M. J.1177/107179190300900403 Burbach. D. 88(2). Retrieved from http://ei.org/ dissertation_abstracts/brooks_J. (1990).. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Hafetz. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. doi: 10.35. 47–64.2007. J.. B. 32–44.ebscohost. L. Journal of Applied Psychology.eiconsortium. M. & Wheeler. Psychological Reports. Retrieved from http:// www. 234–238. Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. 45(1).library .org/dissertation_abstracts/burbach_m. (2004). Bass. University of Nebraska.com/resources/Library_articles/Philosophy%20as%20a% 20Missing%20Link..41 144 .. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level [Abstract]. 86(1). Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. (2007).207 Bennis. J.edu/login?url=http://search.

(1998.. D.org/-report. Wearing.eiconsortium . 213–237. (2000). C. doi: 10. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300302 Carless.Butcher.1111/0022-4537.org/dissertation_abstracts/byron_k. B. L.964 Carli..1037/0022-3514.htm Cannella. doi: 10. (1997). & Monroe. J. October). Are better managers better at “reading” others? Testing the claim that emotional intelligence predicts managerial performance [Abstract]. Doctoral dissertation. 887–902. Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. Retrieved from http://www. Byron. leader.00238 Cavallo.eiconsortium . & Goleman. Georgia State University.org/leadership/enewsletter/2008/MAYexecs. Dahlstrom.. & Brienza. from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. L. (2005). A.6. 23(3). 57(4). D. N. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. 14(3). W. May). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. L. Retrieved from http//www. 2008. A. L. 389–405. Tellegen.. S. Sex Roles. Retrieved from http://www.. K. doi: 10. G. Retrieved from http://www.. 565–76. doi: 10. Retrieved August 10. A.1023/A:1018880706172 Carless. Butler. 56(4). Women execs: Retaining leaders at the top. (2008. 725– 741.org/ Center for Creative Leadership. L. The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in construction industry leaders. No more glass ceiling: New thinking on women in leadership.57 . M.ccl. J. (2002)..aspx Cherniss. K. A. A. and subordinate perspectives. (2003). 39(11/12). & Kaemmer.1023/A :1022991115523 Carli. Journal of Social Issues. (2001). L. R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Fort Collins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace (Technical report issued by The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations). Journal of Business and Psychology. Gender and social influence.htm 145 . Graham. A short measure of transformational leadership. (1989). Journal of Management.. & Mann. S. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior. Colorado State University. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. J. Doctoral dissertation. C.. J. (1998).eiconsortium.

& Johnson. Retrieved from PsycINFO Database. J. B. Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management.. Eden. B. Mountain View. 31(4). H. & Johnson. J. Achieving results through transformational leadership. J. M. 45(4). Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. Dubinsky. 15(2). doi: 10. L. 29(12). (n. 467–480. (1967). Retrieved August 31.233 Eagly. A. from Answers.com Web site: http://www. (2002). (1999). (2000). (2002).1108/0268394 0010330993 Dvir. 233–256. A. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. (1995). Eagly.). 341–372. 10(6). Avolio. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. 53–68. (1990). A. M. J. E.2. Mayfield. Retrieved from ProQuest database. New York: HarperCollins. F. 5(2). H. 15(4). Karau... Dulewicz.Chief executive officer. 146 . 17–21. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurements. J. 523–530. & Higgs. E.. B. 135–159.answers. Driskell. Dixon. D. CA.. Drucker. 2008. Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. 55(6). Yammarino.1037/0033-2909. New York: Hill... Gender and reactions to dominance. Copeland. Management challenges for the 21st century. doi: 10. (1999).1016/1048-9843(94)90025-6 Elenkov. doi: 10. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. (2002).. P. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.com/topic/chief-executive-officer Cohen.108.d. Dearborn. A. K. & Swerdlik. D. 17–29. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. C. T. Journal of Nursing Administration.. Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Journal of Business Research. V.. R. W. 735–744. & Spangler. B. E (1999). (1995). Journal of Managerial Psychology. Public Personnel Management.1016/S01482963(00)00174-0 Fiedler. & Salas. D. Jolson. Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. 108(2). & Shamir. doi: 10. J. F. D. Miner. Academy of Management Journal.. Leadership Quarterly. M. A theory of leadership effectiveness... B. (1994). Psychological Bulletin.. S. J.

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

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

Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Educational Administration. (2004). R. N. (1996). Journal of Applied Psychology.1108/09578230010320064 Lopes.. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. 112–129.5.. Journal of Research and Technology Management... Transformational leaders make a difference. Z.. 385–425. Colbert. & Piccolo. K. (2005). B. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Rickers.. doi: 10. Furnham. & Jantzi. & Johnson.edu/login?url=http://search. doi: 10. L. & Song. 41–44. M. G. 615–626. 125(4). Current Psychology.89. doi: 10..113 Lowe. D. Emotional regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction.483 Leithwood. N. 7(3). Salovey.1016/S1048-9843(96) 90027-2 149 . R. F.1348/026151000165869 Kobe. Retrieved from http://basepath. L. 20(2).. Reiter-Palmon. (2000).com/cda/media/ 0. 89(3). C. June). Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences.3. E. & Ilies.15304.542 Judge..capella. B. 89(3).89. R. P. K. 89(5). (1995). 38(3)..ebsco host. J. Kroeck. 542–552. T. P. 755–768. (2004). & Beers..com/login. 173–180... A. A. (2005)..1037/0021-9010. J.library. (2001). J. doi: 10. A.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17488988&site=ehost-live& scope=site Keller.1037/15283542. doi: 10. L.1037/0021-9010. Wong. Leadership practices inventory: Psychometric properties. Côté. R. doi: 10. S. European Psychologist. G.. D. Journal of Applied Psychology. S..1007/s12144-001-1023-2 Kouzes. & Sivasubramaniam. 113–118. 483–496. Noack. Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.755 Kaufhold. M. K. Emotion. doi: 10. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. doi: 10. Leadership Quarterly. 154–163. B. Education.1. (2004). 12(3).5. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.Judge. J. A. K.89. P.3. & Siefen. (2000. Self-reported leadership experiences in relation to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. 5(1).00.. Kirkcaldy.1037/0021-9010.wiley. 38(2)..pdf Law. A. The analysis of emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. S. & Posner. T. R.. (2007). M.

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

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

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

(2001). E. E.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ663897&site=ehost-live &scope=site 153 .sciencedirect.. and Matthews (2001).org/ Salovey.htm Schutte.Rudman..pdf Sanders. 9(3).eiconsortium. (2003).. J.. doi: 10. (1990). 9(4). R.). 94– 110. & Geroy.EI%20Proper/EI1990%20Emotional%20 Intelligence. Emotion..org/dissertation_abstracts/schulte_m. from Answers. Malouff. (n. 21–31. E. J. Comment on Roberts. (1998). emotions. G..d. M. K. Retrieved from http://www. Hunt. Cognition.com. & Mayer. Schaie. Retrieved from http:// www. Gender & Class. & Osborn. J. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.unh. 629–645.edu/login?url=http://search .3. 693–703.com/topic/senior-management Smith. J. 9(4).. Hopkins. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter stereotypical impression management.capella... F. T. J. J. Schulte. Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work work? Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Emotional Intelligence Consortium. D. 25(2). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. J. L. D. Race. & Bass.answers.ebscohost. Retrieved from http:// www. Imagination. and Personality. W. et al.. Organizational behavior (7th ed. L. S. Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge? [Abstract]..629 Sala.edu/science/journal/01918869 Seltzer. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. J. 185–211. 243–248.1177/0149206390 01600403 Senior management. Doctoral dissertation.com/login. J. Zeidner. Hall.).eiconsortium.1037/0022-3514.library. 2008.. M. (1990). D. B. (2002). E. 74(3). Haggerty. From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership.library. Emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences.edu/emotional _intelligence/EI%20Assets/Reprints. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status and developmental characteristics.3. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.1.1037/1528-3542. M. P. 16(4). doi: 10. 167–177. J. 1(3). Our Lady of the Lake University. C.74.capella.243 Schermerhorn. W. (2003). Golden. J. (2000). doi: 10. (1998). Retrieved from http://ezproxy. Cooper. New York: Wiley.. Retrieved August 31. and socialization. N.com Web site: http://www. A. Race. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management.. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

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

Zhu.1177/014920638901500207 Yukl. Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. J. Retrieved from http://www .edu/ login?url=http://search. 28–32. 39–52. Journal of Management.06. Retrieved from ProQuest database. Yukl. 15(2). M. B. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. (1989). The Leadership Quarterly. M. L. 99–125. H. (1997). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.edu/login?url=http://search.capella. K. The perfect labor storm 2. R. F.aspx?direct=true &db=aph&AN=5865236&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vitello-Cicciu. 89–92. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 975–995. G. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library . 40(1). (1990). (2002). Upper Saddle River. J.. D. (2005). Yammarino.com/login. Dubinsky.0 e-book: Workforce trends that will change the way you do business. doi: 10. F. Journal of Information Systems. A. Nursing Management.eiconsortium.ebscohost. Retrieved from http://ezproxy . (2000).com/login. A. doi: 10. 16(1).Viator.ebscohost... Wolfe. 205–222. E. Comer.library. (2003). doi: 10.1016/j. 43(10). (2001). M.1177/0018726790043010 03 Yammarino. 15(2). Leadership in organizations (5th ed. Emotional intelligence at work.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=11021770&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkin. Human Relations. leaqua. S.. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management...aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 4519298&site=ehost-live&scope=site Weinberger.org/dissertation_abstracts/weinberger_l. W. H.001 155 . Chew. 251–289. G. I. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. C. Academy of Management Journal.ebscohost.2004. B.com/login. (2003). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. L. A. (1998).htm Weisinger. W. Doctoral dissertation.). 8(2). The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. 34(10). I. Lancaster. PA: Poised for the Future Company. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. (2007). Developing emotional intelligence.capella. NJ: Prentice Hall. leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness [Abstract].capella.library. University of Minnesota. An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence.edu/login?url=http://search. J. & Spangler. & Jolson. J. & Bass.

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

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 and $150.00 and $70.000.00 158 .00 Between $40.000.000.Your Age? 21-27 28-34 35-42 43-50 51-58 59-Over Current income? Less than $40.000.00 More than $150.00 Between $100.000.000.000.00 and $100.000.00 Between $70.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful