The Role of EI and Transformational Leadership

7/31/2019 The Role of EI and Transformational Leadership

1/169

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


2/169

3320725

3320725

2008

Copyright 2008 by

Syndell, Michael A.

All rights reserved


3/169

Michael A. Syndell, 2008


4/169

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 20022012 employment

projections, predicts that by 2010, there will be approximately 10,033,000 more jobs

available than there are qualified people in the labor force. The greatest concentration of

jobs will be found in the engineering sciences, education, and healthcare professions,

along with other business providing goods and services that are the backbone of the

United States Gross Domestic Product totaling over $12,000 billion annually. Leadership

research suggests that the leadership style identified as Transformational is considered

critical by many in the field in developing the type of social architecture capable of

retaining and generating the intellectual capital necessary to meet 21st-century

challenges. The purpose of this cross-sectional, 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. Individuals in

leadership management positions with three or more subordinates under their supervision

were selected for participation in this study. In addition, this research compared and

contrasted how males and females use Emotional Competencies in Transformational

Leadership Style. Correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regression analyses were

used to examine these questions.


5/169

iii

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 . . . and to my Grandparents, who laid the cornerstone of

my being.


6/169

iv

Acknowledgments

I would first like to thank the corporations and organizations, and your respected

members who participated, for making this research possible. 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 . . . thank

you sincerely.

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 . . . to Mary Ann and Ethel who have guided

me in understanding this road less traveled . . . 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.

To my original mentor, Dr. Joseph Damiani, who helped me start this journey, to

Dr. Karen Yasgoor who introduced me to my mentor Dr. Lori La Civita, who has helped

me down the wildest backstretch in completing this project (smile!), and to Dr. Bruce

Gillies, the voice of reasoning (smile!) . . . a sincere and heart felt thank you to all.

And to my family and friends who have . . . for the most part (smile!) . . .

understood and supported my absence throughout this process . . . and to my girlfriend

who has sacrificed more than any woman should have too . . . I love you all!


7/169

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 3

Purpose of the Study 3

Rationale 3

Research Questions 4

Significance of the Study 4

Definition of Terms 5

Assumptions and Limitations 8

Nature of the Study 9

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 10

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11

Introduction 11

Theoretical Orientation of the Study 12

History of Leadership: An Overview 13

Origins of Transformational Leadership 19

Current State of Transformational Leadership 20

Transformational Leadership Defined 22

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 33


8/169

vi

Gender and Leadership Style 35

Emotional Intelligence 37

Defining EI 38

EI Controversies 39

The Development of EI 40

Characteristics of EI 41

Gender and EI 42

Race/Ethnicity and EI 45

Measuring EI 45

EI and Leadership 49

Theoretical Connection Between EI and Leadership Skills 51

Criticism of the LeadershipEI Connection 53

EI, Leadership, and Gender 55

Conclusion 58

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 60

Research Design 60

Target Population 60

Selection of Participants 61

Variables 61

Measures 63

Procedures 66

Research Questions 67

Research Hypotheses 68


9/169

vii

Data Collection and Storage 69

Data Analysis 71

Expected Findings 72

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 73

Introduction 73

Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses 73

Expected Findings 74

Data Analytic Strategic and Organization of Results 75

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 116

Introduction 116

Summary of the Study 116

Summary of the Results 119

Discussion of the Results 120

Discussion of the Conclusions 129

Limitations 136

Recommendations for Future Research 138

Conclusions 140

REFERENCES 142

APPENDIX. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 156


10/169

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables 76

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Components and Subcomponents of

the EQi 80

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for 5 TLS Components 81

Table 4. TLS Component Scores: U.S. Group Norms vs. Group Sample 82

Table 5. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 5 Bar-On EQi Components 84

Table 6. Correlations Between the 5 TLS and 15 Bar-On EQi Subcomponents 86

Table 7. Intercorrelations Among the 15 EQi Subcomponents 88

Table 8. Intercorrelations Among the 5 TLS Components of the MLQ 91

Table 9. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of EQi ComponentsPredicting TLS 92

Table 10. EQi Component Scores Ranked by Gender 93

Table 11. Five TLS Component Scores Ranked by Gender 95

Table 12. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 EQi Components 96

Table 13. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Componentsof the MLQ 96

Table 14. EQi Subcomponent Scores Ranked by Gender 98

Table 15. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the Bar-On EQiSubcomponents 99

Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis of EQi Subcomponents PredictingTLS in Males and Females 101

Table 17. Comparison of Low- and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 5TLS Components 103

Table 18. Three Highest and 3 Lowest EQi Subcomponent Scores for Males andFemales Scoring Above the Mean on the 5 TLS Components 104


11/169

ix

Table 19. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 15 EQiSubcomponents 108

Table 20. Comparison of Low- and High-Scoring Males and Females on the 15EQi Subcomponents 110

Table 21. Highest and Lowest TLS Component Scores for Males and FemalesScoring Above the Mean on Total EQi 111

Table 22. Gender-Based Significant Mean Differences on the 5 TLS Components 115


12/169

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

In todays global economy where outsourcing, downsizing and acquisitions are

commonplace, companies must compete to find, attract, develop, and retain the best

talent. Since personnel turnover can directly impact a corporations bottom line, it has

now become an important concern of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003) employment projections for

20022012 predict that by 2010 there will be approximately 10,033,000 more jobs

available than there are qualified people in the labor force. The greatest concentration of

jobs will be found in the engineering sciences, education, and healthcare professions that

are the backbone of the United States Gross Domestic Product totaling $12.373 billion

(Herman, Gioia, & Olivo, 2003; U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).

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 21st-

century organizational challenges (Bass, 1997; Drucker, 1999; Herman, 1997; Hitt, 2000;

Ireland & Hitt, 1999). Transformational Leadership Style has consistently achieved

higher ratings of effectiveness and satisfaction than other leadership styles according to

research evaluating its effectiveness (Hater & Bass, 1988). Specifically, the enhancement

of subordinates satisfaction and trust in leadership has resulted in lower employee

turnover rates (Herman, 1998), higher group performance levels (Keller, 1995), and

greater efforts by subordinates (Seltzer & Bass, 1990).


13/169

2

Leadership researchers have also posited that effective transformational leaders

must possess social and emotional intelligence, as these factors are considered critical in

inspiring employees and building strong relationships (Bass, 1997; Goleman, 1998).

Studies conducted in several business fields have shown a positive relationship between

emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style (Sosik & Megerian, 1999), conflict

resolution styles (Malek, 2000), and interpersonal relations (Schutte et al., 1998).

Furthermore, research suggests that EI competencies can be learned (Cherniss &

Goleman, 1998; Goleman; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003; Mayer,

Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Ogilvie & Carsky, 2002; Sala, 2001). Therefore, more

investigation into the relationship between the uses of emotional intelligence by leaders

identified as utilizing transformational leadership style thus needs to be undertaken, given

the well-documented personnel shortage in the U.S. and the need to effectively identify,

select and retain such personnel.

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. Previous research

investigating transformational leadership and emotional intelligence has shown that

individuals scoring high on either of these two constructs exhibit superior performance in

organizational outputs (Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). This study

intends to identify and profile the Emotional Intelligence (EI) components that

characterize Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) in general, and to identify gender

differences in the relationship between the use of EI and TLS.


14/169

3

Statement of the Problem

To remain competitive in their operating environments, organizations need to

focus on those leadership styles found to be associated with the ability to develop,

organize and utilize their employees capabilities. Appropriate assessments of individuals

to be placed in leadership positions requiring Transformational style are a necessary

component of achieving this goal.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this exploratory research study is to examine the relationship, if

any, between the utilization of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership

Style. In addition, this study will investigate gender differences in the relationship

between Emotional Competencies utilized in Transformational Leadership Style, while

profiling the specific emotional competencies by which such leadership is characterized.

Rationale

Existing research on whether, and the extent to which, EI factors predict TLS has

been limited (Goleman, 1998; Hay/McBer, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). The

identification of EI factors and the strength of their relationship to TLS in this research

may facilitate the development of human resource planning, job profiling, recruitment

interviewing, selection and management development. The results of this research may

shed new light on understanding and assessing peoples attitudes, interpersonal skills and

potential as they relate to transformational leadership so that the potential for such

leadership may be assessed.


15/169

4

Research Questions

Several research questions will be examined in this study. The overall question: Is

there a significant predictive relationship between Emotional Intelligence and

Transformational Leadership Style? And, if a relationship is found to exist, what

elements characterize the Emotional Intelligence profile of a transformational leader? The

specific research questions are as follows:

1. Do scores on the five components of the Bar-On EQi predict significantdifferences in TLS?

2. Do scores on the 15 subcomponents of the Bar-On EQi predict significant

differences in TLS?

3. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scoreson the five componentsof the Bar-On EQi and TLS?

4. Are there significant gender differences in the relationship between scoreson 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. 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. In addition, 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.


16/169

5

Definition of Terms

Emotional Competence (EC). A learned capability based on emotional

intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman, 1998).

Emotional Intelligence (EI). A form of intelligence that involves the ability to

monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions that focuses on an array of

emotional and social abilities, including the ability to be aware of, understand, and

express oneself, the ability to be aware of, understand, and relate to others, the ability to

deal with strong emotions, and the ability to adapt to change and solve problems of a

social or personal nature (Bar-On, 2002).

Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi). A diagnostic questionnaire that measures

Emotional Intelligence for emotionally and socially competent behavior. It is composed

of 5 composite scales and 15 subscales. The five composite scales are Intrapersonal,

Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and Mood. Intrapersonal subscale

includes emotional self-awareness, self-actualization, self-regard, independence and

assertiveness. The Interpersonal subscale includes empathy, social responsibility and

interpersonal relations. The Adaptability subscale includes flexibility, reality testing and

problem solving. The Stress Management subscale includes impulse control and stress

tolerance, and the Mood subscale includes optimism and happiness (Bar-On, 2002).

Executive Management. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highest-

ranking executive in a company or organization, whose main responsibilities include

developing and implementing high-level strategies, making major corporate decisions,

managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main

point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. In


17/169

6

carrying out these responsibilities on a day-to-day basis, typically a CEO has a core

group of subordinate executives, each of which has specific functional responsibilities.

These direct reporting relationships most often include Chief Financial Officer, Chief

Operating Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Information Officer, and the Director

of Human Resources. The focus of these executives is on managing their senior

management instead of the day-to-day activities of the business (Chief executive officer,

n.d.).

Intellectual Capital (IC). The sum total of knowledge, expertise, and energy

available within organizations members, whose contributions advance the organizations

purpose, mission, and strategies (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2000).

Leadership. The process of influencing others to understand and agree about what

needs to be done, how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual

and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (Yukl, 2002).

Leadership Style. The characteristic manner in which a leader exercises influence

over the followers (Yukl, 2002).

Middle Management. This level of management ensures that the decisions and

plans made by executive and senior management are carried out. Midlevel managers have

a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks; 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, which are generally short-

term ones, which may enhance organizational outputs; and generate the required reports

for upper-managements organizational review (Middle management, n.d.).


18/169

7

Multiple Intelligences. Individuals possess aptitudes in several areas, including

verbal, mathematical, musical, spatial, movement oriented, environmental, intrapersonal

(the examination and knowledge of ones own feelings) and interpersonal (the ability to

read the moods, intentions, and desires of others) spheres (Goleman, 1998).

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). A diagnostic questionnaire that

assesses five constructs of transformational leadership, three constructs of transactional

leadership, one nontransactional leadership construct, and three outcome constructs. The

five components of transformational leadership are (a) Idealized Influence (Behavior), (b)

Idealized Influence (Attributed), (c) Inspirational Motivation, (d) Intellectual Stimulation,

and (e) Individualized Consideration. The three components of transactional leadership

are (a) Contingent Reward, (b) Management-by-Exception (Active), and (c)

Management-by-Exception (Passive). The nontransactional component is Laissez-Faire,

and the three outcome components are (a) Satisfaction with the Leader, (b) Individual,

Group, and Organizational Effectiveness, and (c) Extra Effort by Associates (Bass &

Avolio, 2004).

Retention. 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., 2000).

Senior Management. Senior management positions require an extensive

knowledge of management roles and skills; have to be very aware of external factors such

as markets, as they generally work as a team in conjunction with executive management

in which strategic decisions are reviewed or drafted and implemented into organizational


19/169

8

operations that are generally of a long-term nature; and oversee that the day-to-day

activities of the business are carried out accordingly (Senior management, n.d.).

Social Intelligence. The human capacity to understand what is happening in the

world and responding to this understanding in a personally and socially effective manner

(Goleman, 1998).

Social Skills. The ability to induce desirable responses in others by using effective

diplomacy to persuade (influence), listen openly and send convincing messages

(communicate), inspire and guide groups and individuals (leadership), nurture

instrumental relationships (building bonds), work with others toward a shared goal

(collaboration, cooperation), and create group synergy in pursuing collective goals

(Goleman, 1998).

Transformational Leadership Style (TLS). The ability to get people to want to

change, to improve, and to be led, which involves motivating individual/organizational

change, and resulting in performances that exceed organizational expectations. There are

four factors to transformational leadership: (a) Idealized Influence, (b) Inspirational

Motivation, (c) Intellectual Stimulation, and (d) Individual Consideration (Bass, 1997).

Assumptions and Limitations

The researcher assumes that (a) he will be permitted access to employees at the

organizational level targeted for this study; (b) a sufficient number of employees will

agree to participate; (c) participants will understand the questions and concepts involved

in the completion of the MLQ, EQi, and the Demographic Questionnaire; (d) participants


20/169

9

will respond truthfully and to the best of their ability; and (e) the results will provide

valuable insights in the area of organizational psychology focused on leadership research.

The generalizability of this studys findings may be affected by the following

factors. First, a self-selection bias may enter into the sample selection and participation

process. That is, the sample may be limited to those individuals with the time, interest or

motivation to respond, while other potential participants may not have the time or

inclination to do so, thus skewing the pattern of responses. Secondly, this study relies on

participants self-report data. Even though the confidentiality of their responses will be

assured to encourage honest answers to the survey questions, participants may still

respond in a socially desirable manner.

The cross-sectional nature of the study may also limit the usefulness of its results.

Since data will be collected at one time point, results may be influenced by participant

variables such as business travel, health or their emotional state when they completed the

instruments. Finally, since sample participants were drawn primarily from one

geographic area, 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.

Nature of the Study

A cross-sectional, nonexperimental research design based on data obtained from

self-report questionnaires will be used to investigate the relationship between Emotional

Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style. Univariate statistical techniques,

such as correlational analyses, and multivariate procedures, such as linear regression will


21/169

10

be used. This research will also investigate gender differences in the relationship between

these two constructs. The dependent, or outcome, variable, Transformational Leadership,

will be used with the 15 subfactors that compose Emotional Intelligence as measured by

the EQi.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 will include a literature review of Emotional Intelligence and the

components of Transformational Leadership Style. Chapter 3 will describe the

methodology used in this study, including the psychometric properties of the assessment

instruments, selection of participants and procedures used in data collection and storage,

statistical analysis, and conclude with expected findings hypothesized in this research.

Chapter 4 will discuss the data analytic strategy and results, and chapter 5 will conclude

the study with a discussion of the results and their implications.


22/169

11

CHAPTER 2. 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), (b) whether there is a significant relationship between these two

constructs, and (c) whether there are any significant differences in EI attributes that are

gender-specific in the relationship between mens and womens use of EI and TLS.

This chapter reviews the research literature focusing on EI, transformational

leadership style (TLS), and the theorized relationship between EI and TLS, as well as

evidence for the possible effects of gender on this relationship. The first section in the

review is the theoretical orientation for the study, followed by a review and critique of

research literature specific to leadership, EI, their relationship, and a synthesis of research

findings. A summary concludes the chapter.

The literature review was conducted using Capella Universitys library of

electronic databases, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier,

PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global, Dissertations and Theses:

Full Text, and psychology journals. The two main areas the review focused on were

psychology and leadership, using numerous multiple key word searches, including (a)

leadership and Emotional Intelligence; (b) leadership, Emotional Intelligence, and

gender; (c) Transformational Leadership Style, EQi, and gender; (d) gender attributes and

leadership style; and (e) gender and EQI, and Transformational Leadership Style and


23/169

12

gender, to mention a few of the multiple key word searches used producing upwards of

200 journal articles, books, and dissertations.

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. Thirty-eight

additional journal articles and several dissertations were found and reviewed for their

relevancy to this research. In total, along with several books and dissertations, 22 articles

were relevant to this study.

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, 1988), higher group performance (Keller, 1995), and greater

effort on the part of subordinates (Seltzer & Bass, 1990) compared to other leadership

styles. In addition, 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. The theoretical orientation of this study is based on the Emotional

Intelligence (EI) theory (Bar-On, 2006; Goleman, 1998) and the transformational

leadership theory (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995, 1999). Specifically, this studys

theoretical orientation hypothesizes a relationship between EI and transformational

leadership such that EI is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for transformational

leadership.


24/169

13

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. The following is a brief historical overview of these multiple

leadership theories that came to define Transformational Leadership.

Trait Theory (1930s and 1940s)

Most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait

research (Bass, 1990). Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership

emphasized specific attributes, or traits, of leaders such as personality, motives, values,

and skills (Yukl, 2002). The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was

that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. However, 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).

These early leadership theories were content theories, focusing on what an

effective leader is, not on how to effectively lead. The trait approach to understanding

leadership assumes that certain physical, social, and personal characteristics are inherent

in leaders. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged, energetic, tall, and

handsome. Social background traits include being educated at the right schools and

being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. Social characteristics include being

charismatic, charming, tactful, popular, cooperative, and diplomatic. Personality traits

include being self-confident, adaptable, assertive, and emotionally stable. Task-related


25/169

14

characteristics include being driven to excel, accepting of responsibility, having initiative,

and being results-oriented.

Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently

distinguish leaders from followers. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership

(drive, desire to lead, integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, 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. No two leaders are alike.

Furthermore, no leader possesses all of the traits. Comparing leaders in different

situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. Thus, traits were de-

emphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective).

Situational Theory

Trait investigations were followed by examinations of the situation

as the determinant of leadership abilities, leading to the concept of situational leadership.

The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of

leadership. Yukl (1989, 2002) identified the following contextual factors of the leaders

authority and discretion, the nature of the work performed by the leaders unit, the

characteristics of the followers, the type of organization, and the nature of the external

environment. 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,

levels of management, and cultures; or (b) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation

that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl, 2002).


26/169

15

The situation approach maintains that leadership is determined not so much by the

characteristics of the individuals as by the requirements of social situation. As a result,

the situation approach was found to be insufficient because the theory could not predict

which leadership skills would be more effective in certain situation.

Behavioral Theory (1940s and 1950s)

During the late 1940s and the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted away

from leader traits/situational approaches to leader behaviors. The premise of this research

was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical,

mental, or emotional traits. 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.

Studies conducted at the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan

identified two leadership styles and two types of leader behaviors (two-factor theory).

The Ohio State study identified two leadership styles, considerate and initiating structure.

The University of Michigan study classified leaders behaviors as being production or

employee-centered (Yukl, 2002).

The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ), administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing

companies, college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire

were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples.

The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how

leaders carry out their role. Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure,

consistently appeared. Initiating structure, sometimes called task-oriented behavior,


27/169

16

involves planning, organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration

involves showing concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates

accomplishments, and providing for subordinates welfare.

The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at

Ohio State. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and

methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in

two general leadership behaviors or orientations, an employee orientation and a

production orientation. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern

for interpersonal relations. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or

technical aspects of the job.

Unfortunately, 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. Like trait research, leader behavior research did

not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader

behaviors and leader effectiveness. As a result, leadership theory in the 1960s began to

focus on leadership contingencies.

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. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Two of

the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedlers contingency theory and Hersey


28/169

17

and Blanchards situational leadership theory (Yukl, 2002). Each of these approaches to

leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow.

Contingency Theory

Introduced in 1967, Fiedlers contingency theory was the first to specify how

situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership

effectiveness. The theory suggests that the favorability of the situation determines the

effectiveness of task and person-oriented leader behavior. It is called contingency

because it suggests that a leaders effectiveness depends on how well the leaders style

fits the context. The performance of leaders cannot be properly understood outside of the

situations in which they lead. Whereas situational leadership theory suggests that a leader

must adapt to the development level of followers, contingency theory emphasizes that a

leaders style must match specific situational variables (Fiedler, 1967).

Fiedler offers two leadership styles, those that are motivated by task, and those

that are motivated by relationship. Task-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with

reaching a goal, whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing

close interpersonal relationships. Fiedler characterizes situations in terms of three factors,

leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Leader-member relations

consist of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence, loyalty and attraction

followers feel for their leader. Task structure is the degree to which the requirements of a

task are clear and spelled out. Position power is the amount of authority a leader has to

reward or punish his followers.

Together, these three situational factors determine the favorableness of various

situations. The most favorable situations are those with good leader-follower relations,


29/169

18

defined tasks, and strong leader position power. The least favorable situations have poor

leader-follower relations, unstructured tasks, and weak leader position power. Moderately

favorable situations fall between these two extremes on a continuum. Fiedler concludes

that leaders motivated by relationship do best in moderate situations where things are

stable, while task-motivated leaders do best in extreme situations (favorable or

unfavorable). Fiedlers contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and

methodological grounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific

propositions of the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding

of leadership effectiveness.

Situational Theory

The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in

1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. The premise of the theory is that different situations

demand different kinds of leadership (Yukl, 2002). An effective leader adapts his style to

the demands of different situations. By rightly assessing the degree of competence and

commitment followers have, leaders can determine the appropriate style of leadership for

a specific situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Furthermore, the theory suggests that

the key contingency factor affecting a leaders choice of leadership style is the task-

related maturity of the subordinates. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the

ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior.

Four leadership styles (S1, S2, S3, and S4) correlate with four levels of

development for followers (D1, D2, D3, and D4). Employees low in competence and

high in commitment (D1) require a leadership style high in directivity but low in support

(S1). Generally competent and committed followers (D2) require a style high in support


30/169

19

and directivity (S2). Subordinates with moderate competence yet who are uncertain about

their commitment (D3) require a high support, low-directive style (S3). Finally,

employees with high levels of competence and commitment require lower levels of

support and directivity (S4; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Situational leadership theory has

been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. However, it remains one

of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into

the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style.

The Integrative Approach (1970s Through Present)

Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include

more than one type of leadership variable, such as trait, behavior, influence processes,

and situational variables (Yukl, 2002).

Origins of Transformational Leadership

Rooted in the behavioral theory of leadership, Burns (1978) was one of the first to

define transformational leadership. He proposed that the leadership process occurs in one

of two ways, either transactional or transformational. Transactional leadership is based on

bureaucratic authority and legitimacy associated with ones position within the

organization. Transactional leaders emphasize the clarification of tasks, work standards,

and outcomes. Whereas transformational leadership involves taking into consideration

the follower as a whole by showing concern, being supportive, recognizing followers

accomplishments, and providing for their welfare.

Specifically, Burns argued that a transactional leader tends to focus on task

completion and employee compliance, and these leaders rely quite heavily on


31/169

20

organization rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. Transactional

leadership involves contingent reinforcement. Followers are motivated by the leaders

promises, praise, and reward. Or they are corrected by negative feedback, reproof,

threats, or disciplinary actions. The leader reacts to whether the followers carry out what

the leaders and followers have transacted to do. In contingent rewarding behavior, 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. When

leaders engage in active management-by-exception, they monitor follower performance

and correct followers mistakes. When leaders engage in passive management-by-

exception, they wait passively for followers mistakes to be called to their attention

before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands.

In contrast, Burns characterized transformational leadership as a process that

motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. Transformational

leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations, and their

leadership style can influence or transform individual-level variables such as increasing

motivation, and organizational-level variables such as mediating conflicts among groups

or teams. Transformational leadership contains four components, charisma or idealized

influence (attributed or behavioral), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration (Bass, 1985, 1990, 1997; Bass & Avolio, 2004).

Current State of Transformational Leadership

Bernard Bass (1985, 1990), who built on Burnss (1978) original concept of

transformational leaders embraced this two-factor theory of leadership (Avolio & Bass,


32/169

21

1988) and saw these constructs as splitting into two dimensions scales (e.g., the Initiating

Structure construct from the Ohio State studies). 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. The transformational leader on the other hand

may provide a new strategy or vision to structure the way to tackle a problem, endowing

the subordinates sovereignty in problem solving.

However, unlike Burns, Bass argued that transformational and transactional

leadership, while at opposite ends of the leadership continuum, maintained that the two

can be complementary and that all leaders display both leadership styles though to

different degrees, thus bringing into his theoretical framework, the integrative theory of

leadership research. Furthermore, in Basss view, the transformational leadership style is

likely to be ineffective in the total absence of a transactional relationship between leaders

and subordinates (Bryant, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Sanders, Hopkins & Geroy,

2003; Yukl, 1989). In addition, 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, cognitive, behavioral, and

interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower

relations and outcomes from them (1990, p. 52). He further stated that leadership must

be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux (p. 76).

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,

behavior, and situational/contingency variables, as these multiple leadership theories


33/169

22

previously discussed are subsumed under the umbrella of Transformational Leadership

theory.

Another departure Bass takes from Burnss 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. However, using a less drastic

example of Basss example in modern-day corporate America could be the President and

CFO of Enron. Other researchers have described transformational leadership as going

beyond individual needs, focusing on a common purpose, addressing intrinsic rewards

and higher psychological needs such as self actualization, and developing commitment

with and in the followers (Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1990; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).

Transformational Leadership Defined

Transformational Leaders exploit potential needs or demands of followers based

on shared common goals and objectives. This is accomplished by the leader articulating

their vision of what they see as the opportunities and threats facing their organization, the

organizations strengths, weaknesses, and comparative advantages, and generates

awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. This is done by

appealing to followers potential motives that seek to satisfy higher needs and engages

the full person in order to draw a true consensus in aligning individual and organizational

interests. Followers accept leadership decisions as the best under the circumstances even

if it means some individual members interests may have to be sacrificed to meet common

objectives.


34/169

23

Leadership Styles

Leadership has been defined as the ability to get work done with and through

others, while at the same time winning their respect, confidence, loyalty, and willing

cooperation (Plunkett, 1992). It has also been defined as the ability to influence

employees to perform at their highest level (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1993). Over time,

consensus has arisen that there are three basic approaches or styles of leadership,

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire (Ivancevich & Matteson), in which

people express their leadership behaviors on a continuum of these three domains (Bass &

Avolio, 1993). Each is discussed in separate subsections to follow.

Transformational leadership. The transformational leadership style is

characterized by manager efforts to motivate subordinates to perform beyond

expectations to achieve a shared vision (Dixon, 1999). As well as accomplishing tasks

through others, transformational leaders inspire the confidence, respect, cooperation, and

loyalty of subordinates (Stordeur, Vandenberghe, & Dhoore, 2000). The

transformational leadership domain is comprised of five factors, idealized influence

(attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration. Leaders with Idealized Influence

(attributed and behavior) display conviction, emphasize trust, take stands on difficult

issues, present their most important values, and emphasize the importance of purpose,

commitment, and the ethical consequences of decisions. 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 (behavior) refers to leader

behavior that results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate them


35/169

24

(Bass & Avolio, 2004). Leaders with Inspirational Motivation articulate an appealing

vision of the future, challenge followers with high standards, talk optimistically and with

enthusiasm, and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. Leaders

with Intellectual Stimulation question old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs, stimulate

in others new perspectives and ways of doing things, and encourage the expression of

ideas and reasons. Leaders with Individualized Consideration deal with others as

individuals, consider their individual needs, abilities and aspirations, listen attentively,

further their development, and advise and coach.

It has been argued that effective leadership in a dynamic environment requires the

use of the transformational leadership style (Dixon, 1999). Dixons case study showed

how these concepts are used and balanced in response to an increasingly challenging

work environment. The first strategy described is the leaders ability to learn the

organization and build relationships with staff. Second, the leader attempts to establish

and agree on common ground with the staff, followed by action planning. Dixon reported

five core values that are needed to implement a shared vision, expert resources,

meticulousness, will-do attitude, awareness of internal and external customer needs, and

creativity (Dixon).

Cannella and Monroe (1997) cited a six-factor version of a transformational

leadership assessment proposed and measured via the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ). 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. Further, Cannella and Monroe


36/169

25

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).

Transactional leadership. Transactional leaders focus on day-to-day transactions

as they accomplish goals with and through others. The transactional leadership domain is

comprised of three factors, contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), and

management-by-exception (passive). Contingent Reward leaders are leaders who engage

in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance, clarify expectations,

exchange promises and resources, arrange mutually satisfactory agreements, negotiate for

resources, exchange assistance for effort, and provide commendations for successful

follower performance. Management-by-Exception (active) leaders are leaders who

monitor followers performance and take corrective action if deviations from standards

occur, and enforce rules to avoid mistakes. Management-by-Exception (passive) leaders

are leaders who fail to intervene until problems become serious and wait to take action

until mistakes are brought to their attention.

Laissez-faire leadership. The nonleadership domain is comprised of one factor,

laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leaders are leaders who avoid accepting responsibility, are

absent when needed, fail to follow up requests for assistance, and resist expressing views

on important issues (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Laissez-faire leaders tend to be physically

and emotionally removed from subordinates and tend to treat them as individuals as

opposed to team members. Although they may not be close by, laissez-faire leaders

maintain communication through a strong open door policy, conferences, reports, and


37/169

26

productivity records. Although the laissez-faire approach is sometimes criticized for

leaving subordinates too much to themselves, it does have its place under the right

circumstances. Necessary to the success of the laissez-faire leader are highly skilled and

independent subordinates who show initiative and persistence in their work. In addition,

management controls other than frequency of contact must be established to monitor

subordinate performance. A disadvantage of this leadership style is that subordinates may

become insecure without continual reassurance and contact with their leader (Plunkett,

1992).

Measuring Transformational LeadershipMultifactor 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, educational, health care, and commercial

organizations, and used in multiple countries in which the validity has been challenged

and subsequently demonstrated (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Bass &

Avolio, 2004; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bryant, 2003; Gellis, 2001;

Snodgrass, Douthitt, Ellis, Wade, & Plemons, 2008).

A research study by Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, and Spangler (1995) profiled

the entire sales division of a multinational medical products firm to survey, using the

MLQ-360 assessment, proposed that sales managers who demonstrated transformational

versus transactional leadership behaviors would demonstrate higher sales performance.

The MLQ was distributed to the sales staff and its 47 sales managers. A total of 174

usable matched reports (i.e., subordinates reported about their managers, and managers

reported about each of their subordinates) were obtained for a response rate of 87%. The


38/169

27

MLQ assessments of leader/follower self perception, leader/unit perception,

organizational perception, and job satisfaction, along with sales/quota ratios and

performance appraisals, 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.

Lowe, Kroeck, 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. Five criteria were used for inclusion of studies

in the meta-analysis. First, the study must have used the MLQ to measure leadership style

from the perspective of the subordinate. Second, the study must have reported a measure

of leader effectiveness. Third, the sample size must have been reported. Fourth, 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. Fifth,

the leader rated must have been a direct leader of the subordinate (not an idealized or

hypothetical leader). 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 results of a study by Morrison, Jones, and Fuller (1997) to determine the

relationship between leadership style and empowerment, and its effect on job satisfaction,

using a sample of 275 nurses, suggests the impact of transformational leadership


39/169

28

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


40/169

29

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 Avolios 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


41/169

30

Avolio as the model was configurally and partially metrically invariantsuggesting 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


42/169

31

subordinate empowerment and team effectiveness. A total of 152 employees from various

industries rated their superiors transformational leadership behaviors and also how much

they felt empowered. They also evaluated their teams effectiveness in terms of

innovativeness, communication and team performance. Findings suggest that

transformational leadership contributes to the prediction of subordinates self-reported

empowerment and that the more a teams members experience team empowerment, the

more effective the team will be.

Another meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) provided a comprehensive

examination of the full range of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

leadership. Using the PsycINFO database for studies (articles, book chapters,

dissertations, 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, charismatic leadership, and vision. Similarly, studies that

referenced transactional leadership as well as the three specific transactional dimensions

were also included. In total, 87 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the database (68

journal articles, 18 dissertations, and 1 unpublished data set). These studies reported a

total of 626 correlations. Results revealed an overall validity of transformational

leadership, and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs.

Several studies (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Carless,

1998; Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997) have been conducted that

investigated the universal applicability of transformational leadership across cultures.

Although there were some differences at the individual level due to cultural differences,

transformational leadership was found to have strong correlations with organizational


43/169

32

effectiveness supporting the findings of Bass (1997) that transformational leadership is

applicable across cultures.

A study by Elenkov (2002) investigated the main effects of the transformational

and transactional leadership styles on organizational performance of Russian companies.

The sample used consisted of 253 senior managers and 498 immediate subordinates

representing companies doing business in a wide range of industries (information

services, automotive parts, food, textile and clothing, financial services, pulp and paper,

home appliances, chemical, pharmaceutical, computer services, electrical equipment, and

electronics industries). The results demonstrated that transformational leadership directly

and positively predicted organizational performance of Russian companies over and

beyond the impact of transactional leadership.

A survey study by Zhu, Chew, and Spangler (2005) used company data of 170

firms in Singapore, administered a total of 1,050 questionnaires to senior HR executives

and CEOs tested an integrated theoretical model relating CEO transformational

leadership (TL), human capital-enhancing human resource management (HRM), and

organizational outcomes, including subjective assessment of organizational performance,

absenteeism, and average sales using the MLQ 5X version. Results found that

transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational outcomes.

A study by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) aimed at empirically clarifying the

similarities and differences between transformational, transactional, and charismatic

leadership used participants employed at a large public transportation company in

Germany. More specifically, the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of two

instruments, the MLQ and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS), was explored. These


44/169

33

employees (N= 220) assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i.e.,

supervisor) who led one of the companys 45 branches. At least 2 employees reported to

their respective leader. Results indicated that transformational and charismatic leadership

showed a high convergent validity. Moreover, these leadership styles were divergent

from transactional leadership. With regard to criterion validity, subjective (e.g.,

satisfaction) as well as objective (e.g., 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.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

The MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2004) is based on the concepts of transformational

leadership, transactional leadership and nonleadership. It represents an effort to capture

the broadest range of leadership behaviors that differentiate ineffective from effective

leaders. The latest version of the MLQ, Form 5X, has been used in more than 200

research programs, doctoral dissertations and masters theses around the globe over the

last 10 years. The current version of the MLQ has also been translated into several

languages for use in various research projects. Leadership types, as measured on the

MLQ, are defined as follows:

1. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders display behaviorsassociated with five transformational leadership measured styles asfollows:

a. Idealized Influence (Attributes): Respect, trust, and faith


45/169

34

b. Idealized Influence (Behaviors): living your ideals

c. Inspirational Motivation: inspiring others

d. Intellectual Stimulation: stimulating others

e. Individualized Consideration: coaching and development

2. Transactional Leadership: Transactional leaders display behaviorsassociated with the following measured leadership scale scores:

a. Contingent Reward

b. Management-by-Exception (Active)

c. Management-by-Exception (Passive)

3. Nonleadership (Laissez-Faire): Laissez-faire leadership is the scale used tomeasure this behavior.

Transformational and Transactional leadership are related to the success ofthe group. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the ratersperceive their leaders to be motivating, how effective raters perceive theirleaders to be at different levels of the organization, and how satisfiedraters are with their leaders methods of working with others. MLQ scalesused to measure these areas are as follows:

a. Extra Effort

b. Effectiveness

c. Satisfaction

The MLQ 5X was primarily developed to address substantive criticisms of the

MLQ 5R survey. Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale

ranged from .74 to .94. All of the scales reliabilities were generally high, exceeding

standard cut-offs for internal consistency recommended in the literature (Bass & Avolio,

2004).


46/169

35

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was based on the concepts of

transformational leadership, transactional leadership and nonleadership. (The researcher

only used the self-rating form, where the participant rated his or her perception of their

own leadership style.) The MLQ has individual subtests, which are added together and

combined into a score for each of the leadership styles and quality of leadership areas.

Transformational leadership has five individual scales, with four questions for each scale,

which could lead to a possible total score of 20. Transactional leadership has three scales,

which could lead to a possible total score of 12 (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

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, 1990, 1995). These results suggest

that women are no more or less transformational than men, a finding consistent with

those of Eagly and Johnson (1990). However, it is possible that both of these findings

were artifacts of the study design, as will be made more apparent in the ensuing

discussion of Carlesss (1998) work.

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; Bass &

Avolio, 1995), the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes & Posner, 2000) and the

Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL; Carless, Wearing, & Mann, 2000).

Level in the organizational hierarchy was controlled for by limiting the selection of men


47/169

36

managers in proportion to the distribution of women in each level of the organization.

Whereas subordinates reported observing no differences between women and men

leaders use of transformational leadership, superiors and the managers themselves rated

women managers as more transformational than men managers. The gender differences

in self-assessed leadership were limited to the more interpersonally oriented behaviors,

such as participatory decision making, praising individual and team contributions, and

attention to individual needs.

Carless (1998) concluded that findings of this study regarding gender differences

were equivocal. Results provided support for the hypothesis that female and male

managers, 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. This hypothesis was also supported by the results of manager self-

assessment 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. However, results also support the hypothesis that there

are gender differences in leadership style, as women managers higher self-assessed

interpersonal and feminine leadership behaviors (e.g., involvement of staff in decision

making) suggests that women managers may need to see themselves as using gender role-

congruent behaviors. 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. On the other

hand, it is possible that women managers are better leaders than men, which is what


48/169

37

accounts for their advancement into the ranks of management in a male dominated

industry (Carless).

Carless (1998) also noted that the divergence in findings for subordinates and

managers and superiors may be explained by gender differences in the rater, since most

of the superiors were men and most of the subordinates were women, it is possible that if

male superiors are more aware of transformational leadership than female subordinates,

results could have been skewed by the preponderance of male raters. On the other hand,

Carless reasoned, 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.

Emotional Intelligence

Salovey and Mayer (1990) first used the term emotional intelligence in 1990

(Vitello-Cicciu, 2003). Vitello-Cicciu noted that in the view of Salovey and Mayer, EI

refers to an ability to understand the meaning of emotions and their relationships and to

think and engage in problem solving on the basis of emotions. It is also the ability to

understand and govern ones emotions, and to read and direct them in other people.

However, this definition conceals the controversy surrounding the definition of EI.

Indeed, numerous definitions, some of which are contradictory, exist, and some theorists

argue that EI escapes definition and therefore reject definitions that currently exist

(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004a).


49/169

38

Defining EI

Mayer and Saloveys discussion (as cited in Tucker, Sojka, Barone, & McCarthy,

2000), argues that EI is a kind of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor

the emotions of oneself and others, to distinguish among them, and to use emotional

information as a guide for thought and actions. Weisingers (1998) definition of EI,

which is compatible with that of Mayer and Salovey, sees EI as the intelligent use of

feelings, or making ones emotions work to the individuals advantage by using them to

help guide behavior and thinking in beneficial ways. These two definitions, like that of

Dulewicz and Higgs (2000), view EI as the ability to competently gauge and harness

emotions for implicitly or explicitly articulated purposes.

Mayer and Salovey (1997) maintained that EI is a cognitive process consisting of

three distinct, but interrelated, mental processes:

1. Recognizing the nature of the emotions and the ability to detect them inothers

2. Controlling emotions in others and oneself

3. Using emotions for the attainment of specific ends.

From these characteristics, the defining components of EI can be expressed as (a)

emotional awareness, (b) sensitivity to emotions expressed by, or repressed within others,

(c) innate or acquired knowledge of the range and use of emotions, and (d) managing

emotions for a variety of adaptive purposes (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Mayer & Salovey,

1997; Mayer et al., 2004a; Tucker et al., 2000; Vitello-Cicciu, 2003).


50/169

39

Although this is a clear definition, controversy exists about the validity of the

construct of EI as well as the abundance of numerous definitions, none of which are seen

by critics as comprehensive. These issues are explored next.

EI Controversies

Mathews, Roberts, and Zeidner (2004) contended that the term, emotional

intelligence, is problematic. Though they conceded that EI has become a popular

psychological construct, popularity does not confer legitimacy and cannot conceal the

fact that the term escapes definition due to its contradictory nature. These criticisms have

been adduced by other writers as well (Brody, 2004; Gohm, 2004; Mayer et al., 2004a,

2004b).

Mathews et al. (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. For this reason, they hold that

EI escapes definition. In particular, Mathews et al. noted the inability of EI proponents

and theorists to agree on a single definition, which they argued is a direct result of EI

theorists tendency to blur distinctions between fact and theory on the one hand, and the

multiple social science fields on the other. Thus, they claimed, EI definitions have tended

to extend beyond the boundaries of academic psychology and venture into cultural and

literary studies, culminating in the formation, not of empirically validated, conceptually

coherent, and psychologically based definitions of EI, but rather in a collection of

assumptions disguised as conceptually coherent, cohesive, and empirically valid

definitions.


51/169

40

Reflecting on Mathews et al.s (2004) argument, Oatley (2004) noted that the

problem with defining EI has had to do with the difficulty of defining emotions. Oatley,

based on Mandlers argument that there is no commonly accepted definition of the

psychology of emotions, concluded that the inherent difficulty of defining unquantifiable,

immaterial, and often difficult to articulate feelings leads skeptics to insist that EI is also

impossible to define.

Oatley (2004) noted that Van Brakel listed 22 different definitions for the concept

as a way of showing the inherent difficulties involved in the task of defining emotions.

However, others (Gohm, 2004; Mayer et al., 2004b) have adduced biological evidence

that the experience of different types of emotions produces measurable physiological

reactions in the brain, arguing that the concept of emotions does escape definition.

Rather, in these writers view, emotion is a scientifically valid, physiologically evidenced,

and measurable construct. The denial of emotions, in Gohms view, is merely the denial

of physiological processes revealed by scientific experimentation and testing.

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). During the 6

million years of human evolution, Massey argued, the size of social groups has increased

steadily to ensure the cohesiveness of the group, and human beings developed a complex

social intelligence based on being able to distinguish among and experience increasingly

subtle emotional responses. In this view, the evolution of increasingly complex social and


52/169

41

economic structures generated a new set of needs which drove the development of the

human capacity for emotional intelligence. 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. 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, 1986; Massey).

While EI arose from the study of human and social evolution (Lutz & White,

1986; Massey, 2002), its emergence as an area of academic investigation and as the

center of scholarly research and theorization is much more recent. Indeed, the academic

and theoretical evolution of EI outside of anthropology was driven by the persistent

failure of the IQ construct to predict either success or leadership qualities (Dulewicz &

Higgs, 2000). In this view, interest in EI arose in response to the need to understand this

gap and to define the psychological differences between leaders and followers.

Characteristics of EI

As Mayer et al. (2004a, 2004b) reported, there is some consensus that general

intelligence is an inherent capacity. Academic and experiential learning may hone

existing cognitive abilities, but they do not expand or increase them. In contrast, Mayer et

al. noted, the dominant theoretical assumption about EI is that, though an inherent

capacity, it a learnable skill. For example, Kaufhold and Johnson (2005) maintained that

EI is an ability that can be developed by persons in high-stress occupations. 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


53/169

42

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 ones 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

Documents

The Role of EI and Transformational Leadership