Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and ... - Springer Link

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring 2003 (2003)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE: A GENDER COMPARISON Barbara Mandell Springfield College

Shilpa Pherwani IBIS Consulting Group, Inc.

ABSTRACT: This study examined the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The researchers also wanted to determine gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style, as well as the gender differences in the emotional intelligence scores and transformational leadership style of managers. A significant predictive relationship (p < .05) was found between transformational leadership style and emotional intelligence. No significant interaction (p > .05) was found between gender and emotional intelligence while predicting transformational leadership style. A significant difference (p < .05) was found in the emotional intelligence of scores of male and female managers. Lastly, no significant difference (p > .05) was found in the transformational leadership scores of male and female managers. KEY WORDS: emotional intelligence; leadership style, gender.

During the first half of the 20th century Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests were considered adequate measures of intelligence. Society linked IQ scores to an individual’s potential for success in life (Wechsler, 1958). Reviews of early leadership studies by Bass (1990a) and by Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) found that intelligence did contribute to leadership success. These studies focused on the traditional IQ concept of Address correspondence to Barbara Mandell, Industrial/Organizational Psychology Graduate Program, Springfield College, Locklin Hall, Alden Avenue, Springfield, MA 01109; [email protected]. 387 0889-3268/03/0300-0387/0  2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

388

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

academic intelligence and consistently correlated positive perceptions of leadership and leaders’ IQ scores. Opponents of the IQ approach claimed an overemphasis on the role of general academic intelligence in predicting leadership success. This early approach has also been criticized because it did not consider situational factors in the assessment of leadership success (Riggio, Murphy & Pirozzolo, 2002). Current research has moved away from IQ scores as the only measure of intelligence. As early as 1920 Thorndike hypothesized that true intelligence was composed of not only an academic component, but also emotional and social components. In 1967 Guilford presented a view of intelligence as a multifaceted construct composed of one hundred and twenty different types of intelligence. Shanley, Walker, and Foley (1971) hypothesized that social intelligence was distinct from academic intelligence, but they found little empirical evidence to support social intelligence as a separate construct. Salovey and Mayer (1990) suggested social intelligence had been defined too broadly. They investigated emotional intelligence, as a specific aspect of social intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined emotional intelligence as the “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s own thinking and actions” (p. 189). They suggested that emotional intelligence would be easier to distinguish from academic intelligence. While society has traditionally placed a great deal of weight on academic intelligence, Bar-On (1997) argued that emotional and social intelligences were better predictors of success in life. The more recent writings and research of Gardner (1983, 1993, 1999), Sternberg (1985), Sternberg and Wagner (1986), and Wagner and Sternberg (1985) have added support to the concept of multiple intelligences. Gardner has proposed a model of at least 8 types of intelligence including spatial, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, bodily—kinesthetic, naturalistic, and the traditional academic intelligence: linguistic and logical-mathematical. Sternberg’s theory (1985) identifies three types of mental abilities: analytical intelligence, creative intelligence and practical intelligence. Riggio, Murphy and Pirozzolo (2002) propose these multiple forms of intelligence are possessed by effective leaders and allow these leaders to respond successfully to a range of situations. Most recently the interest in leadership and intelligence has been increased by the popular writings of Daniel Goleman (1995, 1998). Other authors (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Feldman, 1999; Ryback, 1997; Weisinger, 1998) have contributed to the construct of emotional intelligence and its importance in the workplace. Zaccaro (1996, 1999, 2001) emphasized the important role of social intelligence in organizational leadership by developing a model of organizational leadership that identified

BARBARA MANDELL AND SHILPA PHERWANI

389

the various performance requirements leaders needed to address at ascending levels in the organization. Such skills as flexibility, conflict management, persuasion and social reasoning became more important as leaders advanced in the hierarchy. Two models of emotional intelligence have emerged. The ability model, defines emotional intelligence as a set of abilities that involves perceiving and reasoning abstractly with information that emerges from feelings. This model has been supported by the research of Mayer, Caruso and Salovey (1999); Mayer, DiPaolo, and Salovey (1990); Mayer and Salovey (1993, 1997); and Salovey and Mayer (1990). The mixed model defines emotional intelligence as an ability with social behaviors, traits and competencies. This model has found support in the writings of Goleman (1995, 1998) and Bar-On (1997). Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) proposed that emotional intelligence should not be considered a unique human ability until there was an appropriate instrument for the construct’s measurement. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (1997) developed an ability based emotional intelligence test. The early version, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) (1997) and the more recent version, the Mayer-SaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (1999) both measure four ability areas of emotional intelligence: perception, facilitation of thought, understanding, and management. Reflecting the mixed model of emotional intelligence, Bar-On (1996) developed an instrument to measure a more comprehensive concept of emotional intelligence, which he labeled emotional quotient (EQ). BarOn (1997) defined emotional intelligence as “an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 14). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) divides emotional intelligence into five major components. Bar-On (1996) labeled the components ‘intrapersonal,’ ‘interpersonal,’ ‘adaptability,’ ‘stress management’ and ‘general mood.’ As emotional intelligence is a new construct, the MEIS, the MSCEIT and the EQ-i are undergoing considerable validation studies, and early research has been promising (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovy, 1999 & Bar-On 1997). Bar-On reviews a substantial amount of validation research in the EQ-i manual (1997). Results indicate that the scales have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analyses also provide support for the inventory’s structure and the convergent and discriminate validity of the EQ-I is generally supported. In a recent study (Dada & Hart, 2000) the reliability and validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory was investigated with a sample of 243 university students. The results also provided support for the reliability and validity of the EQ-i. Bass (1997) examined the profiles of successful individuals, but

390


within the context of leadership style. In the past, leadership studies focused on trait and situational approaches. Current developments in leadership have focused on transformational and transactional approaches (Hackman, Hills, Furniss, & Peterson, 1992). Burns (1978) proposed that leadership process occurs in one of two ways, either transactional or transformational. Bass and Avolio (1994) defined transformational leadership as leadership that occurs when the leader stimulates the interest among colleagues and followers to view their work from a new perspective. The transformational leader generates an awareness of the mission or vision of the organization, and develops colleagues and followers to higher levels of ability and potential. In addition, the transformational leader motivates colleagues and followers to look beyond their own interests towards interests that will benefit the group. Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed that transformational leadership comprises four dimensions—the “Four I’s.” The four dimensions were: Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration. In comparison to transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio (1994) described transactional leadership occurring when the leader rewards or disciplines the follower with regards to performance. Burns (1978) described transactional leaders as leaders that emphasize work standards, assignments, and task-oriented goals. In addition, transactional leaders tend to focus on task completion and employee compliance, and these leaders rely quite heavily on organizational rewards and punishments to influence employee performance (Burns, 1978). Bass (1997) suggested that transformational leaders (TF) achieved higher levels of success in the workplace than transactional leaders (TA). He noted that TF leaders were promoted more often and produced better financial results that TA leaders (Bass, 1997). Bass (1997) also observed that employees rated TF leaders more satisfying and effective than TA leaders. Bar-On (1997) would attribute transformational leaders’ superior work performance to high EQ-i scores. Several researchers have investigated the effects of transformational and transactional leadership. Hater and Bass (1988) found transformational leadership, when compared to transactional leadership, predicted higher employee ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction. In addition, Keller (1995) found that certain aspects of transformational leadership predicted higher group performance. Also, Seltzer and Bass (1990) found moderate correlations between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness, subordinate extra effort, and satisfaction of the subordinate with the leader. Lastly, top performing managers are seen as more transformational in their leadership style than ordinary managers (Hater & Bass, 1988). Researchers have focused their efforts on the behaviors and characteristics of effective leaders. According to Goleman (1998c), most effec-


391

tive leaders are alike in they all have a high degree of emotional intelligence. Goleman (1998c) claimed, “emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership. . . . Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive analytic mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great leader” (p. 93). Emotional Intelligence plays an increasingly important role at the highest levels of the company, where differences in technical skills are of negligible importance (Goleman, 1998c). Bass (1990b) proposes that transformational leaders must possess multiple types of intelligence and that social and emotional intelligence are critical because these are important to the leader’s ability to inspire employees and build relationships. Caruso, Mayer and Salovey (2002) support Bass’ thesis. According to these authors emotional intelligence underlies a leader’s relationship skills. They contend that organizations should consider emotional intelligence in the selection and development of leaders. A review (Avolio & Bass, 1997) of organizational research studies consistently found that transformational leaders as measured by the Management Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) were more effective and satisfying leaders than were transactional leaders. Transformational leaders appear to be more behavioral and less emotional when dealing with stress and conflict. They demonstrate internal locus of control, selfconfidence and self-acceptance. They appear to be better adjusted than transactional leaders with a strong sense of responsibility and clear goals. Focusing on a multiple model of intelligence, a review of studies (Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Gibbons, 1986; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Ross & Offerman, 1997; Southwick, 1998) that examined the relationship between leadership style and emotional intelligence found evidence of correlations between transformational leadership and traits of emotional intelligence, less for social intelligence and least for cognitive intelligence. Researchers in the past have also looked at the gender differences for both transformational leadership style and emotional intelligence. Although past research on leadership style differences between men and women has been inconclusive, a review of research on leadership and gender consistently demonstrates that women leaders are often negatively evaluated in comparison to their male counterparts, especially when they employ an autocratic leadership style (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Research on gender differences in emotional intelligence has been limited. Although Goleman (1995) considered males and females to have their own personal profiles of strengths and weaknesses for emotional intelligence capacities, studies conducted by Mayer, Caruso and Salovey in 1999 and Mayer and Geher in 1996 indicate that women score higher on measures of emotional intelligence than men.

392


METHOD Based on the previous research in the areas of leadership and emotional intelligence, the current investigation was designed to determine the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The researchers also investigated any gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style and the gender differences in the emotional intelligence scores and transformational leadership style of male and female managers. The researchers conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to determine if emotional intelligence is a predictor of transformational leadership style. The analysis was also used to investigate the gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. To investigate the gender differences in the relationship, the researchers used the hierarchical regression analysis to determine the interaction between gender and emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. Independent t-tests were performed to determine gender differences in the emotional intelligence scores and transformational leadership style of male and female managers. Participants The researchers sent a letter to the human resources representatives of volunteering organizations explaining the design and purpose of the study. A second letter was sent to exempt employees asking for their participation in the research. The volunteer sample consisted of 32 male and female managers or supervisors employed in mid-sized to large organizations in the northeastern section of the United States. Measurement Instruments The researchers used the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, 5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) to determine the leadership style of individuals. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1996) was used to obtain the emotional intelligence scores of leaders. A demographic questionnaire was also administered to collect participant personal data. The latest version of the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) is available in two forms: the self rating form, where supervisors rate themselves as leaders; and the rater form, where associates rate their leaders. For the current study, the leaders responded to the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) self-rating form. The MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) contains 45 items and assesses five components of transformational leadership, three compo-


393

nents of transactional leadership, one non-transactional leadership component, and three outcome components. The five components of transformational leadership are ‘Idealized Influence (Behavior),’ ‘Idealized Influence (Attributed),’ ‘Inspirational Motivation,’ ‘Intellectual Stimulation,’ ‘Individualized Consideration’ (Bass & Avolio, 1996). The three components of transactional leadership are categorized under constructive transactions or corrective transactions. The first category is based on ‘Contingent Reward,’ and the second on ‘Managementby-Exception (Active),’ and ‘Management-by-Exception (Passive)’ (Bass & Avolio, 1996). The non-transactional component is ‘Laissez-Faire,’ and the three outcome components are ‘Satisfaction with the Leader,’ ‘Individual, Group, and Organizational Effectiveness,’ and ‘Extra Effort by Associates’ (Bass & Avolio, 1996). The MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) was scored by adding all factors to get a transformational, transactional, and ‘Laissez-Faire’ score for each participant. For the purpose of this study, the researchers used the transformational leadership scores only. Bass and Avolio (1996) reported the alpha reliability coefficients for the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) rater form scales for 2080 cases. The Spearman Brown estimated reliabilities ranged from .81 to .96. The alpha reliabilities coefficients for the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996) self-rating form were slightly lower. The test-retest reliabilities ranged from .44 to .74 for the self-ratings and .53 to .85 for the ratings by others. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the construct validity of the MLQ (5x-Revised; Bass & Avolio, 1996). The analysis was based on data generated by raters who evaluated their leaders within a broad range of organizations and at varying levels within those organizations. Bass and Avolio (1996) also computed reliability coefficients for each leadership factor. The coefficients ranged from .73 to .94 (Bass & Avolio, 1996). The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996), originally designed in 1980 by Bar-On, was used to measure emotional intelligence. The instrument has 133 items that are categorized into five main components and 15 factorial components. The five main components are ‘Intrapersonal,’ ‘Interpersonal,’ ‘Adaptability,’ ‘Stress Management,’ and ‘General Mood.’ Bar-On (1996) described the first component, Intra-personal, as a scale that assesses the inner self. Individuals who score high on this scale are considered to be in touch with their feelings, they feel good about themselves, and they feel positive about the way things move in their lives (Bar-On, 1996). Bar-On (1996) identified the second component, Inter-personal, to be characteristic of responsible and dependable individuals who have good people skills. Individuals who score high on this scale understand, interact and relate well with others (Bar-On, 1996). The third compo-

394


nent, Adaptability, is a sign of how well individuals are able to cope with environmental demands and pressures (Bar-On, 1996). Bar-On (1996) stated that the fourth component, Stress Management, reflects how people handle stress. The fifth and final component, General Mood, is an indicator of an individual’s ability to enjoy life (Bar-On, 1996). For the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) high and low scores are identified by how distant they are from the mean score of 100. Scores exceeding the mean or falling below the mean by 1 SD (15 points) are considered to be within the normal range. The average time to complete the test is 20–50 min. Bar-On (1996) focused on two aspects of reliability, internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The test-retest reliability for the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) after 1 month was .85, and .75 after 4 months. The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) has been validated in many ways. As reported by Bar-On (1996) completed validity studies include the following: (a) correlation between the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) and various personality measures; (b) comparisons between successful and unsuccessful groups in terms of their EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores; (c) comparison between obtained EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores and what was theoretically expected from particular groups; (d) comparison between EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores and coping styles; (e) comparison between EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores and job performance and job satisfaction; (f) comparison between EQ-i scores and attributional styles; and (g) analysis of the sensitivity of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) to remedial interventions. Bar-On (1996) reported that the correlation with personality measures was high enough to firmly support that the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) subscales are measuring the constructs that they were intended to measure. Discriminant validity was established by Bar-On (1996) by comparing successful and unsuccessful groups in terms of their EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores. The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) can differentiate among various groups and can distinguish more successful respondents from less successful ones in various areas. Bar-On (1996) established criterion-group validity by comparing obtained EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scores with what was theoretically expected for particular groups. Bar-On (1996) reported that the criterion validity of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) was supported to the extent that the test produced high scores in the appropriate areas for groups known to be strong in those particular areas. Likewise, unsuccessful groups obtained low scores. Bar-On (1996) administered the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) and the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) (Endler & Parker, 1990) in an attempt to gauge the convergent validity of EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996). Bar-On (1996) reported that a number of EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) scales and subscales were significantly correlated with a measure of successful and efficient coping with stressful situations.


395

Bar-On (1996) determined a high correlation between EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) and satisfaction with work conditions and suggested a relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Bar-On (1996) performed another study in South Africa on alcoholics in a substance abuse center, to establish the predictive validity of the instrument. Bar-On (1996) reported significant differences in emotional intelligence between the onset of the treatment and its termination 3 weeks later. Bar-On (1996) concluded that this particular program succeeded in improving emotional skills as measured by the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) and thus supported the instrument’s sensitivity to picking up changes in emotional intelligence and demonstrated predictive validity. The validity studies for this instrument are still in process.

Procedures The researchers contacted executives or Human Resources managers of a varied sample of organizations. After receiving permission to test employees within their companies, the researchers sent a request form to Human Resources professionals explaining the design and purpose of the study in greater detail. A letter was sent to the managerial employees soliciting their participation in the study. Before the participants took the tests, the researchers explained the purpose of the study and obtained their informed consent. If the participants wanted to receive a copy of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996) results, the researchers asked them to provide their mailing address on the consent form. The researchers then distributed the demographic form, the MLQ and the Bar-On and data were collected.

Statistical Analyses Hierarchical Regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The analysis was also used to examine interaction of gender with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. The analysis also helped the researchers identify gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. Emotional intelligence, gender and interaction of gender and emotional intelligence were the predictor variables and transformational leadership style was the criterion variable in the study. Independent t-tests were conducted to determine gender differences in the emotional intelligence scores and leadership styles of male and female managers. The REGRESSION procedure from the SPSS for Windows Statistical Package was used to test the prediction models (SPSS, 1999).

396


RESULTS This research was designed to determine the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The researchers also determined gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers. Lastly, we determined if gender differences existed in the emotional intelligence scores, and transformational leadership style of male and female leaders. In the total investigation, 32 managers were tested of which 13 were males and 19 females. The mean age of the participants was 39 years. The leadership or supervisory experience of the participants ranged from 1 year to 40 years. 18 of the 32 participants had Masters level degree, 8 participants had a Bachelor’s degree and the rest had either a high school diploma or an associate’s degree. The industrial settings of the participants included business, medical, education, financial and hightech. 7 of the participants were team leaders, 1 was an organization president, 3 were senior executives and the rest of the participants were at different levels of management. The mean of transformational leadership score for all participants was 64.44, with a standard deviation of ±6.82. The mean of emotional intelligence was 105.00, with a standard deviation of ±11.75. The transformational leadership scores ranged from a low of 49 to a high of 75. The emotional intelligence scores ranged from a low of 78 to a high of 123. The mean transformational leadership score of females was slightly higher than the mean transformational leadership score of males (65.21 and 63.31 respectively). Similarly, the mean emotional intelligence score for females was higher than the mean emotional intelligence score for females (109.58 and 98.31 respectively). A summary of the descriptive statistics for males and females is presented in Table 1. A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. Emotional intelligence was used as the predictor variTable 1 Descriptive Statistics for Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Scores of Male and Female Managers Males Variable Transformational Leadership Style Emotional Intelligence

Females

M

SD

n

M

SD

n

63.31 98.31

7.89 8.30

13 13

65.21 109.58

6.08 11.72

19 19


397

able and transformational leadership as the criterion variable. A significant (R = .499, R2 = .249, p < .05) linear relationship was found between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The results of this procedure are presented in Table 2. The hierarchical regression analysis was also used to examine the interaction of gender with emotional intelligence while predicting transformational leadership style. To test this, gender was added as a predictor in step 2, the gender and emotional intelligence interaction was added in step 3. The difference in the R2 values between step 2 and step 3 was −.002. The results suggested that there is no difference in the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style of male and female managers. The results of this procedure are presented in Table 2. Independent groups t-tests were used to compare the mean totals of transformational and emotional intelligence scores of male and female managers. A significant (p < .05) difference was found in the emotional intelligence scores of male and female managers. The mean total emotional intelligence score of females was 109.56 and that of males was 98.31. No significant (p > .05) difference was found in the transformational leadership scores of male and female managers. The results of these tests are presented in Table 3.

DISCUSSION Based on the analyses, a significant relationship between transformational leadership style and emotional intelligence was found. The regression analysis suggested that transformational leadership style of Table 2 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Transformational Leadership Style (N = 32) Variable Step 1 Emotional Intelligence Step 2 Emotional Intelligence Gender Step 3 Emotional Intelligence Gender Interaction

B

SE B

β

.28

.09

.49

.32 −1.76

.10 2.49

.56 −.12

.37 .39 −2.29

.18 7.39 .07

.64 .02 −.21

Note. R2 = .249 for Step 1; R2 = .262 for Step 2 and R2 = .264 for Step 3.

398


Table 3 Independent Groups t-Ratios Comparing Mean Transformational Leadership Scores and Emotional Intelligence Scores for Males and Females

Variable Transformational Leadership Style Males Females Emotional Intelligence Males Females

Mean Diff.

SE Diff.

t

p

13 19

−1.90

2.19

−.771

>.05

13 19

−11.27

2.30

−2.98