Shilpa Pherwani
IBIS Consulting Group, Inc.
During the first half of the 20th century Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
tests were considered adequate measures of intelligence. Society linked
IQ scores to an individuals 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; bmandell@spfldcol.edu.
387
0889-3268/03/0300-0387/0 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
388
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 constructs 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 ones 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 inventorys 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
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 wont 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 leaders ability to inspire
employees and build relationships. Caruso, Mayer and Salovey (2002)
support Bass thesis. According to these authors emotional intelligence
underlies a leaders 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 individuals 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 2050
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
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 Bachelors degree and the rest had either a high
school diploma or an associates 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
SD
SD
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
SE B
.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.
13
19
1.90
2.19
.771
>.05
13
19
11.27
2.30
2.98
<.05
Means
63.31
65.21
98.31
109.58
399
400
401
402
REFERENCES
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F.J. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors
and subordinates perceptions of military leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645668.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1997). The full range of leadership development: Manual,
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bar-On, R. (1996). The Emotional Quotient Inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence.
Toronto, ON: Multi Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto, ON:
Multi Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (1997, August). Development of the Bar-On EQ-i: A measurement of emotional
and social intelligence. Paper presented at the 105th annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 1931.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130139.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1996). Transformational leadership development: Manual for
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination
of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,
39, 887897.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and emotional
leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 5574). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cooper, R. K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in workplace. Training & Development, 51, 3138.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations. New York: Berkeley.
Dada, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of
the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personality
And Individual Differences, 28, 797812.
Davis, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an
elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 9891015.
Dodge, D., & L. Wong (eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the twenty-first-Century Army and other top-performing organizations. Stamford, CT: Jai Press.
Eagley, A. H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685710.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of
leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 322.
Feldman, D. A. (1999). The handbook of emotionally intelligent leadership: Inspiring others
to achieve results. New York: Leadership Performance Solutions.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Intelligence and intelligences: Universal principles and individual differences. Archives de Psychologie, 61, 169172.
Gardner, H. (1999). Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist, spiritual,
and existential intelligences. In J. Kane (ed.), Education, information, and transformation (pp. 111131). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gibbons, T. C. (1986). Revisiting: The question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of devel-
403
404
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real world pursuits: The
role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 436458.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Weisinger, H. (1998). Emotional Intelligence at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1996). Models and theories of executive leadership: A conceptual / empirical
review and integration. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1999). Social Complexity and the competencies required for effective military
leadership. In J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership:
Transforming the twenty-first-Century Army and other top-performing organizations.
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.