EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE AND EXTRAVERSION WITH
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
July, 2009
MENG JIANG
Student number: 1840894
tel.: +31 (0)64-7362290
E-mail: mengeurope@gmail.com
Supervisor:
F. Walter
Co-assessor:
ABSTRACT
This study explored the relationship of emotional intelligence and extraversion with transformational leadership. Extraversion was found to predict transformational
leadership. I assessed the effects of emotional intelligence on transformational leadership utilizing both self-report (WLEIS) judgments and performance-based test (DANVA). Emotional intelligence was positively related to transformational leadership when it was measured by WLEIS. However, there was no significant relationship between EI
measured by DANVA and transformational leadership. In addition, no moderation effect of extraversion on the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership was found. I discuss the implication of the result and make comparisons of different measurements of emotional intelligence.
INTRODUCTION
Transformational leadership is regarded as the most effective and widely accepted leadership paradigm when compared to traditional transactional leadership and
laissez-faire leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Tejeda, 2001). Transformational leaders are able to motivate followers to perform beyond excellence while being actively
engaged with followers, for instance, articulating a vision, acting as appropriate models, setting high performance goals, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and providing individual consideration and intellectual stimulation (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). Research shows consistent results that transformational leadership is significantly and positively related to followers’ trust (Podsakoff et al., 1990), satisfaction (Hater & Bass, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 1990), and work performance (Howell & Frost, 1989; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002; Lim & Ployhart, 2001). Given the effective outcomes of transformational leadership, attention has turned to its antecedents.
Previous research identifies that personality is an important determinant of transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000). The Big Five personality consists of five dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Not all these five dimensions contribute to transformational leadership equally. Findings show that extraversion (Judge & Bono, 2000; Rubin et al., 2005) and agreeableness (Judge & Bono, 2000, Rubin et. al, 2005) predict
transformational leadership. Openness to experience is positively related to
transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2004) and conscientiousness is unrelated to transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000). Due to the robust effect of
extraversion on transformational leadership, this study narrows the personality to extraversion.
Apart from personality, accumulated research has emerged in Emotional Intelligence (EI), a relatively new and interesting antecedent of transformational leadership (e.g., Middleton, 2005; Rubin, Munz & Bommer, 2005). EI is a set of interrelated abilities which include perceiving emotions in themselves and others
accurately, using emotions to facilitate thinking, understanding emotions, and managing emotions (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2008). Since the concept of EI was developed in the 1990s (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Roberts, Zeidner, & Mattews, 2001), the past two decades have witnessed several studies on the relationship between EI and transformational leadership (Barling, Slater &
Kelloway, 2000; Middleton, 2005; Rubin et al., 2005; Walter & Bruch, 2007).
Although there is plenty of research concerning antecedents of transformational leadership, there are also some weaknesses to consider. First, EI is often measured by self evaluation. For example, Barling et al. (2000) employed Bar-On’s (1999) self-report EI Inventory to assess the association of EI and the use of transformational leadership in managers. Another study (Palmer, Walls, Burgess, & Stough, 2001) used the Trait Meta Mood Scale by Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai (1995), a self-report measurement, to evaluate EI. However, self-report EI is so subjective that it may not reflect real emotional abilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Instead, scholars have recommended that performance-based measurement should be used (e.g., Côte, Christopher & Miners, 2006). A second weakness of prior research is that there are frequently no control variables besides EI (Palmer et al., 2001; Gardner & Stough, 2002). Other individual differences and possible interaction effects that may contribute to transformational leadership are often neglected (see Rubin et al., 2005, for an exception). As indicated earlier, several dimensions of the Big Five personality (extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism) have been shown to be related to transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000, 2004). Cognitive intelligence is also a possible determinant of transformational leadership due to the fact that it may help leaders to make better decisions and use better judgments. Therefore, in order to fill in the gap of antecedents of transformational leadership, studies should utilize performance-based measurements of EI and at the same time add personality and cognitive intelligence as control variables (Antonakis, 2003; Antonakis, Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2009).
current knowledge about EI, an area which is still in its early stage of development (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005) and the antecedents of transformational leadership. First, by
employing both performance-based test (DANVA; Nowicki & Duke, 1994) and
self-report (WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002) judgment to capture EI, this study describes a more complete picture of the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. To my knowledge, this study is the first to use both self-report EI and performance-based EI test to explore the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. The
comparison of these two measurements of EI will lead to more theoretical consideration about the essentials of EI and EI measurements. This comparison can also inform
interpretations of previous research using either type of measurement. Second, this study attempts to explore whether EI can explain variability in transformational leadership over and above control variables like personality and cognitive ability, providing for a more strict and conservative test of the predictive validity of EI (cf. Antonakis, 2003). In addition, testing the moderation effect of extraversion and EI on transformational leadership takes a further step of previous research on EI, trying to constructively replicate previous findings (Rubin et al., 2005) in a different context and with a different set of theoretically relevant control variables. From practical perspective, the effect of extraversion and EI on transformational leadership may provide implications for the selection, training, and development of transformational leaders in organizations.
--- Insert Figure 1
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Self-report Versus Performance-based EI Measurements
In this study, I will follow the ability-based EI concept which means a set of interrelated abilities about emotions: the ability to accurately perceive emotions in one and others, to understand these emotions, to utilize these emotions to facilitate thinking, and to regulate emotions effectively (Mayer et. al, 2008).
In accord with ability-based EI construct, I employ ability-based measurements, in the form of self-report and performance-based test respectively to evaluate EI. Wong and Law EI Scale (WLEIS) (Wong & Law, 2002) is a self-report EI scale, which contains descriptions about self-emotions appraisal, others-emotions appraisal, use of emotion and regulation of emotion. Participants rate emotional skills of themselves like “I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me”. Besides WLEIS, I also used Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA) (Nowicki & Duke, 1994) to assess emotion recognitions. DANVA is a performance-based measure that aims to evaluate how well one person recognizes the emotional expressions of others by
diagnosing the nonverbal accuracy of facial and posture expressions. Rubin et al. (2005) demonstrated that leaders’ emotion recognition ability influenced performance of transformational leadership behavior. Therefore, it is reasonable for DANVA to focus only on emotion recognition when it comes to EI.
similar, and I will not develop specific hypotheses for both type of measures but examine potential differences in a more exploratory manner.
Leaders’ EI and Transformational Leadership
Leaders’ EI is crucial for creating and articulating a vision shared by followers, which reflects to what extent that leader inspirationally motivates followers as a transformational leader. According to the theory of affect match between leaders and followers (Damen, Knippenberg & Knippenberg, 2008), followers are more open to experience and more acceptable to the vision from the top if the affective states of leaders and followers are similar, for instance, both in a positive affect, or both in a negative affect. The interesting theory is supported by their empirical study. Therefore, when a leader wants to build a vision or collective goals for employees, he/she has to make sure their vision is shared and accepted by getting access to followers’ emotions, accurately perceiving the emotions of followers, understanding followers’ and their own emotions, and using this knowledge to influence followers emotions and behaviors.
Second, EI of leaders is helpful in building high quality leader-follower
Emotionally intelligent leaders are considerate and sensitive to followers’ emotional status, which is a starting point of supporting followers’ individual needs. The leaders can accurately perceive emotions in themselves and followers and then use this knowledge to understand these emotions. Recognizing, appropriately responding to, and influencing followers’ emotions are necessary for leaders to develop high quality leader-follower relationship (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
In sum, emotionally intelligent leaders should be able to engage with followers closely so that followers’ individual needs are supported, visions are shared by followers, high quality leader-follower relationships are built, and leaders act better as role models. Empirical research supports this reasoning, demonstrating positive linkages between EI and transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 1a. EI measured by WLEIS is positively associated with transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 1b. EI measured by DANVA is positively associated with transformational leadership.
Moderation Effect of Extraversion
leadership (Groves, 2006). Indeed, transformational leaders are required to communicate values and ideas to engage followers in social interactions (Rubin et al., 2005).
Transformational leaders are those who can motivate followers to fulfill their
responsibilities because followers are willing to adopt the vision of the organization as their own goals. If leaders are introverts who are not willing to express their ideas, followers will not understand and agree with the vision. Therefore, transformational leaders need effective communication skills to create and articulate a vision of the organization. Extroverted leaders are more likely to communicate a vision that inspires follower because they have strong tendencies to be articulate and expressive (Goldberg, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1997).
In addition to theoretical considerations, several empirical studies have supported that extraversion can explain variances in transformational leadership. Rubin et al. (2005) demonstrated that extraversion is positively linked with transformational leadership by examining managers in a company. Similarly, Judge & Bono (2000) suggested that extraversion predict transformational leadership. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of
transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2004) show that extraversion is an important trait to predict and understand transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 2. Extraversion is positively associated with transformational leadership.
Extraversion is likely to become a moderating factor between EI and
transformational leadership. Rubin et al. (2005) displayed that extraversion moderate the relationship between emotional recognition and transformational leadership in a
utilize emotions to facilitate thinking and manage emotions effectively. It is one thing that leaders own these emotional abilities, it is another thing that they are willing to express their feelings and what they perceive about followers. Riggio (2002) argued that emotion expressivity helps to establish connections with others on an emotional level and transmit emotional messages that can affect the moods and emotional states of others. That means extraversion helps leaders to utilize their EI through communication which includes verbal expression and nonverbal expression. For example, a leader recognizes that a follower is not satisfied with a decision about compensation during a meeting. After the meeting the extrovert leader may go directly to the follower and say “I know you are not happy with the decision about compensation, would you like to talk to me in details about how this new plan affects you?” Alternatively, the introvert leader may just ignore what the follower feelings by saying nothing to him although he knows that the follower is very angry at the decision. Therefore, leaders who possess strong emotion recognition ability or EI but lack extraversion may not profit from their emotion
recognition ability in terms of transformational leadership behaviors (Rubin et al., 2005). As Dasborough and Ashkanasy (2002) suggested, leaders who can more effectively direct both abilities of recognition of others’ emotions and expressiveness toward
transformational leadership behavior should be effective in influencing employees. Based on above argumentation I offer the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3a. Extraversion will strengthen the relationship between EI (WLEIS) and transformational leadership.
METHOD
Data Collection and Sample
Targeted participants were 132 first-year undergraduate students majoring in Business Administration in University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Among all these students, 113 provided the information of transformational leadership survey. Due to missing data, the final usable sample size was N=85 for the hypothesis tests involving the WLEIS, and N=57 for the hypothesis tests involving the DANVA. The average age was 21 years old. Most of them are Dutch and do not have work experience. Students were required to complete several tests and surveys in a leadership lecture over one semester. For each test or survey, students received feedbacks from the teacher which include their own score and the average score of all students. Therefore, they knew their level by comparing with other students, which motivates them to take these measures seriously not just for the final exam. During the first lecture, the teacher and his student assistant (me) distributed IQ test to students, the teacher controlled the response timing, and afterwards, I collected it and put the data into SPSS. The WLEIS and the Big Five personality were home assignments for students. They filled in WLEIS, did the Big Five personality online and then sent the results to me. DANVA was operated in another lecture. The perceptions of transformational leadership survey were distributed to students. They were required to invite 2-3 close friends or people to evaluate the respective student’s transformational leadership behaviors (see Middleton, 2005, for a similar approach).
Measures
Self-report EI (WLEIS). Students are required to rate each of 16 statements about
describe me at all” and 5 for “describes me precisely.” I calculated the mean score of 16 items to get an overall EI score for each participant. The internal consistency estimate for WLEIS is .84.
EI test (DANVA). The test (Nowicki & Marshall, 1994) consists of recognizing
24 faces and 24 postures whether theses faces and postures are representative of happy, sad, angry or fearful. Participants are asked to indicate the correct emotion expressed in the respective pictures. DANVA test was conducted under instructions of the teacher. I summed the score for these 48 questions. The internal consistency of DANVA is .63.
Big Five personality. The measurement of the Big Five personality traits
(including extraversion) is based on the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) - Five-Factor Model measurement (Goldberg, 1999). The students are asked to complete an online test. The test consists of 50 items which assess five dimensions of personality: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness to experience. Students rated these on a 5 point scale questions from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). After students have submitted their answers to each question, the online system automatically generates the overall scores for the 5 dimensions of Big Five personality. Since the single item scores are unavailable to me the internal consistencies are unknown. However, based on previous research on IPIP (Donnelan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006) the estimated internal consistency of extraversion is .891.
Transformational Leadership. The transformational leadership behavior
inventory (Padsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) reflects the respondents’ perceptions of the students’ key transformational leadership behaviors, specifically,
1
articulating a vision, acting as a model, fostering the group goals, setting high
performance expectations, providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation. Students are required to indicate the relationship between them and people who they are rating. Respondents involve parents, housemates, study partners, girl/boyfriends and teachers. Sample questions include “Is always seeking new opportunities” and “Gets others to work together for the same goal.” Respondents evaluate student’s potential leadership behavior using a scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently, if not always). A mean score was calculated for each respondent and afterwards the mean score referring to one specific student was aggregated. The internal consistency is .76.
Control variables. In order to rule out other alternative explanations that could
affect the dependent variable transformational leadership, I utilized agreeableness, neuroticism and IQ as control variables. Gender differences may also influent the
relationship between EI and transformational leadership (Backer, 2005), however, in this study around one third people declined to report their gender. Research shows that
agreeableness is positively related to transformational leadership behavior (Judge & Bono, 2000; Rubin et al., 2005). Besides, neuroticism is argued to be negatively associated with transformational leadership because it involves tendency to be anxious, angry or
4 subtests that involve different perception tasks to assess various skills of students. The questions are administered under strict time controls. The internal consistency is .53. However, Côte et al. (2006) also report Cronbach's α=.74 which exhibit adequate internal reliability2.
Data Analysis.
To test the hypotheses, moderated hierarchical multiple regression was conducted (Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken, 2003). First, hypotheses were assessed using the WLEIS,
self-report measurement of EI. I entered agreeableness, neuroticism and IQ in step 1 as control variables. In step 2, I added extraversion and EI measured by WLEIS. Finally, I entered the EI by extraversion interaction in step 3. If the change in R square in step 3 is significant, the interaction effect between EI and extraversion can predict
transformational intelligence (Cohen et al., 2003). Afterwards, the above procedures are replicated but employing DANVA as the measurement of EI.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among all study variables. As expected, self-report EI (WLEIS) and extraversion are both positively and significantly related to transformational leadership respectively (r=.32, p<.01; r=.30, p<.01). However, there are no significant correlations between EI (DANVA) and
transformational leadership.
--- Insert Table 1
---
Results of moderated hierarchical regression using WLEIS are shown in Table 2. Hypothesis 1a predicts that EI measured by WLEIS is positively associated with
transformational leadership. Step 2 reveals a marginally positive association between EI and transformational leadership (β=.24, p<.10) after taking into account effects of control variables. In combination with the significant bivariate correlation between EI (WLEIS) and transformational leadership, hypothesis 1a is therefore marginally supported.
Reexamination of this relationship in further study is necessary, however. Further, step 2 shows that extraversion is marginally significantly positively related to transformational leadership (β=.24, p<.10) when including control variables. In combination with the significant bivariate correlation between extraversion and transformational leadership, this result marginally supports hypothesis 2 which states that extraversion is positively related to transformational leadership. EI (WLEIS) together with extraversion contribute 13% to the prediction of transformational leadership, over and above control variables. Hypothesis 3a suggested that increased level of extraversion would strengthen the relationship between self-report EI and transformational leadership. However, step 3 of the moderation regression analysis shows that there is no moderation effect of
extraversion on the relationship of EI and transformational leadership. Thus, hypothesis 3a is rejected.
--- Insert Table 2
In the regression analysis in Table 3, the three steps are the same as what are outlined in Table 2. The only difference is the measurement of EI is performance-based DANVA rather than self-report WLEIS. As predicted in hypothesis 2, step 2 shows that extraversion is marginally positive related to transformational leadership (β=.30, p<.10). However, EI measured by DANVA doest not display any relation with transformational leadership shown in step 2. According to step 3, neither is there moderation effect of extraversion on the relationship between EI and transformational leadership. Therefore, hypothesis 1b and hypothesis 3b are not supported.
--- Insert Table 3
---
DISCUSSION
The goal of this study is to examine to what extent EI and extraversion (including the interaction effect of these constructs) can predict transformational leadership. Overall, extraversion is positively related to transformational leadership. Nonetheless, the
moderation effect of extraversion on the relationship between EI and transformational leadership were not supported by the results. EI is positively related to transformational leadership when EI is measured by WLEIS. However, there is no significant relationship between EI measured by DANVA and transformational leadership. Some of these findings strengthen prior research while others direct the research to new areas.
Judge (2004) demonstrating that extraversion is the strongest factor that correlates to transformational leadership among all facets of Big Five personality. Extraversion correlated .32 (p<0.001) with transformational leadership in current study when
excluding controlling variables, while it correlated .24 with transformational leadership in Bono and Judge’s study (2004). In this sense, this finding reinforces previous research. Therefore, more research on the elements of extraversion: dominance (House, 1977) and sociability (Kalma, Visser & peters, 1993) is worthwhile (Judge & Bono, 2000, 2004). Rubin et al. (2005) are also very confident in the predictability of extraversion and suggest consider some construct that are more directly than extraversion, emotional expressivity may be this kind of construct.
Perhaps the most interesting contribution is that the comparison of WLEIS and DANVA. A surprising finding is that using WLEIS and DANVA to measure EI exhibited very different relations with transformational leadership although these two
emotional abilities (Goldenberg et al., 2006). Indeed, the correlation between these two measures is r=.10 (p=n.s., see Table 1) suggesting that these two measurements are weakly related. It is one thing how actual emotional abilities are, it is another thing that how people appraise their own emotional abilities. People tend to bias when they evaluate their own EI. Some people who are actually low EI are likely to make self-enhancing bias assuming that they themselves can perceive emotions accurately (Goldnberg et al., 2006), which is actually not true. On the contrary, there are also some who make self-derogatory judgments about their actual emotional abilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Therefore, although these two measurements employed in this study are based on the same ability construct, still self-report is subjective and may not reflect the real emotional abilities. It has been argued that the measurement method instead of the theoretical basis, might ultimately determine the nature of the EI model being assessd (Matthews, Roberts & Zeidner, 2004; Petrides & Furnham, 2000). The lack of convergence between scores on self-report and performance-based EI scales raise questions regarding the meaning of EI scores being assessed by these two kinds of instruments (Goldnberg et al., 2006). Then what self-report scales reflect? Petrides & Furnham (2000, 2001, 2003) labeled
self-report tests as emotional self-efficacy. Emotional self-efficacy is how people
perceive their own emotional abilities. Therefore, some people who are actually low in EI may incorrectly believe that they possess high EI because they lack the skills to recognize emotions (Petrides & Furnham, 2000).
Previous studies utilized self-report approaches such as Bar-On’s (1997) EI Inventory and Trait Meta Mood Scale (Salovey et al., 1995) and concluded that EI does matter for transformational intelligence. However, we should be very careful when deciding to use self-report scales to measure emotional abilities. It has been suggested that self-report EI is overlapped largely with other concepts especially personality (Barchard & Hakstian, 2004; Brackett & Mayer, 2003). This is true according to correlations between EI measured by WLEIS and the Big Five personality dimensions in this study. The EI (WLEIS) correlated .32 (p<.01) with extraversion, .32 (p<.01) with conscientiousness, and -.30 (p<.01) with neuroticism (see Table 1). Besides, self-report EI’s predictive validity is reduced if personality and IQ are controlled for, which indicate that self-report EI overlap with personality or IQ. In this case it is probably personality. Therefore, I hold a skeptical attitude towards the conclusions that EI can predict transformational
leadership because the validity of self-report measurements of EI needs to be evaluated in further research.
management. Emotion management probably is the most important one among dimensions of EI (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Therefore, although
performance-based EI test is objective, DANVA is not a complete approach to measure EI. That can also lead to insignificant relations between EI and transformational
leadership. Therefore, although performance-based EI tests are argued to be more valid if EI is conceptualized as a type of ability (Ciarriochi et al., 2001; Mayer, 2001), still measurements emerge slowly. The most prominent performance-based EI test is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). However, performance-based EI tests are used much less often than self-report EI scales in previous research. Therefore, performance-based EI tests should be encouraged to be used more often in research because of the advantage of directly assessing an individual’s performance level on a task (Goldnberg et al., 2006).
Taken together, if one is interested in self-efficacy, self-report EI can be used in studies; if one is interested in emotional abilities, a performance-based test should be employed.
The moderation effect of extraversion between EI and transformational leadership is unexpectedly insignificant. This may be caused by small sample size. To test
Therefore, it does not mean there is no moderation effect. The moderation effect may show when increasing the sample size and using more complete performance-based measurement of EI.
Limitations
organizational factors and follower characteristics (Judge & Bono, 2000). Finally, the sample size is not big enough to conduct a robust moderation effect analysis, which I have mentioned in the discussion part. One second limitation is that the Cronbach’s alpha of DANVA is surprising low (.63). This indicates high measurement error, which may attenuate relationship between EI and transformational leadership. Similarly, the
Cronbach’s alpha of IQ is even lower (.53). This may attenuate relationships as a control variable.
Further Direction
The most interesting findings in previous research on EI and leadership (e.g., Rubin et al., 2005; Gardner & Stough, 2002) were dealing with branches of EI instead of overall EI scores (Antonakis et al., 2009). Rubin et al. (2005) examined only the emotion recognition aspect and found that it positively predicted transformational leadership behavior of managers. Gardner & Stough (2002) reported that the components of understanding emotions and managing emotions were the best predictors of
transformational leadership in senior level managers. Therefore, focusing on different branches such as emotion recognition, emotion understanding, emotions to facilitate thinking and emotion management may generate encouraging results because this may reduce the chances that overall EI is overlapped with personality or cognitive abilities. Another benefit from examining different elements of EI is that it helps to explore the mechanism of EI that contributes to transformational leadership. Several scholars have already called for the attempts to find explanations of the mechanism for how the
can engage in impression management. Those who can manage impressions very well are able to develop high quality leader-follower relationships, which is essential for
transformational leadership. Emotion recognition of others is an important path for leaders to get access to followers’ individual needs, and accurately perceiving their needs leaders is one of characteristics of transformational leadership. The full process also means further inquiry into interactions between EI and personality at the individual level (Rubin et al., 2005).
In addition, more research on measurements of EI and the effects of different methods on transformational leadership is needed. Measurements are important for operationalization of EI (Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Issues of definition, psychometric independence, and valid measurement of EI remain largely unresolved (Brown, Bryant & Reilly, 2006). Currently, the problem is not too few but too many measurements which do not provide a common structure. This is one main source of criticism of emotion intelligence construct. Lack of agreement in measurements makes integrating and comparing findings unfeasible and difficult, leading to confusing results in various studies. This will inhibit the development of research on antecedents of transformational leadership, and on the effects of EI more generally. Measurement should reflect theories for the different measurements attempts to capture different constructs. If researchers intend to capture the ability-based model of EI, in particular, performance-based tests are most appropriate (Mayer et al., 2008). However, existing performance-based tests are far from perfect. Roberts, Schulze, O’Brien, MacCann, Reid, & Maul (2006) showed that the Mayer Salovey Caruso EI Test (MSCEIT) has serious problems with its construct,
entirely predicted by IQ, the Big Five personality, and gender. Indeed, one of the biggest problems is to determine objectively correct responses to test items. It is particularly difficult to apply truly veridical criteria in scoring EI tasks (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Roberts, Zeidner & Mattews, 2002). Therefore, further studies are needed to improve performance-based EI tests.
Practical Implications
The effectiveness of transformational leadership is supported by many empirical studies. Therefore, it is necessary for organizations to select, develop, and assess
transformational leader on the basis of empirical research and sound psychometric instruments (Gardner & Stough, 2002). Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) have called for more research on the selection of transformational leaders. This study responds to this call and indicates some selection criteria that should be considered and some that should not. By examining extraversion, organizations can choose people who can arouse positive emotions in followers. However, although there is much research showing that EI can predict transformational leadership (Middleton, 2005); it is still early to use EI as a selection criterion. The disappointing results in this study about EI and transformational leadership may indicate that previous studies may have used the self-report
REFERENCES
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Dasborough, M.T. 2009. Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20: 247-261.
Antonakis, J. 2003. Why “emotional intelligence” does not predict leadership effectiveness. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11: 355-361. Ashkanasy, N.M. 2005. Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 441-452. Ashkanasy, N.M., & Tse, B. 2000. Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N.M. Ashkansy, C.E.J. Hartel, & W.J.Zerbe (Eds.),
Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice: 221-235. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Backer, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in
organizational research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational
Research Methods, 8(3): 274-289.
Barchard, K.A., & Hakstian, A.R., 2004. The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 64(3):
437-462.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E.K. 1996. Effects of transformational training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827-832
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6):1173-1182.
Bar-On,R. 1997. The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i): technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bass, Avolio, Berson & Jung. 2003. Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing
Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 207–218.
Brackett. M.A., & Mayer, J.D. 2003. Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 1147-1158.
Brown, F.W., Bryant, S.E., & Reilly, M.D. 2006. Does emotional intelligence – as measured by the EQI – influence transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes?
Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 27(5):330-351.
Cattell, R.B. 1973. Manual for the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West S.G., Aiken, L.S. 2003. Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Cooper, R., & Sawaf, A. 1997. Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Business. London: Orion Business Books.
Côte, S., & Miners, C.T.H.. 2006. Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51:1-28.
Damen, F., Knippenberg., & B.V. Knippenberg, D.V. 2008. Affective match in
leadership: leader emotional displays, follower positive affect, and follower performance.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(4): 868-902.
Dasborough, M.T., & Ashkanasy, N.M. 2002. Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 615-634.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. 1998. Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 989-1015.
Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. 2006. The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-Yet-Effective Measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological
Assessment. 18(2):192-203.
Dvir, T. Eden, D. Avolio, B.,J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4): 735-744.
Gardner, W.L., & Avolio, B.J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: a dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review. 23(1): 32-58.
Gardner, L., & Stough, C. 2002. Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization
Development Journa . 23/2: 68-78.
George. J.M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations. 53(8): 1027-1055.
Gibson, F.W., Fiedler, F.E., & Barrett. K.M. 1993. Stress, babble, and the utilization of the leader’s intellectual abilities. Leadership Quarterly, 4(2): 189-208.
Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., Mantler, J. 2006. The assessment of emotional intelligence: a comparison of performance-based and self-report methodologies. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 86 (1): 33-45.
Goldberg, L.R. 1990. An alternative "description of personality": the Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6): 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L.R. 1999. A broad-bandwith, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, 7: 7-28. Tilburg, The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can MatterMore than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
Groves, K.S. 2006. Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(7): 566-583.
Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. 1988. Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 73 (4): 695-702.
House, R.J. 1977. A theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.). Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Howell, J.M., & Frost, P.J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 43: 243-269.
Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6): 891-902.
Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 751-765.
Kalma, A.P., Visser, L., & Peeters, A. 1993. Sociable and aggressive dominance: Personality differences in leadership style? Leadership Quarterly, 4: 45-64
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., Côte, S., & Beers, M. 2005. Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion. 5(1): 113-118
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. 2004. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15: 179–196.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R.D. 2002. Emotional intelligence: science and
myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D. (2001). A field guide to emotional intelligence. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life, Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 3–24.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso. D.R. 2008. Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist. 63(6):503-517.
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey.P. & Sluyter, D.J.(Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: 3-31. New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. 2004. Emotional intelligence: theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3): 197-215.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. 2002. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user’s manual. Toronto, ON: MHS.
Middleton, K.L. 2005. The service-learning project as a supportive context for Charismatic leadership emergence in nascent leaders. Academy of Management
Neal M. Ashkanasy, Wilfred J. Zerbe. (Eds.), Functionality, Intentionality and Morality:
Research on Emotion in Organizations, 3: 55-85. Emerald Group Publishing.
Nowicki, S., & Marshall, P.D. 1994. Individual differences in the nonverbal
communication of affect: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 18(1): 9-35.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. 2001. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22/1:5-10. Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. 2000. Gender difference in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 42 (5/6): 449-461
Pennebacker, J.W. (Ed.), Emotion, Disclosure and Health, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. 54-125
Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. 2001. Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality. 15: 425-448.
Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. 2003. Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European
Journal of Personality. 17: 39-57.
Ployhart, B.C., Lim, K.Y., & Chan. 2001. Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel
Psychology, 54: 809-843.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
Riggio, H.R., & Riggio, R.E. 2002. Emotional expressiveness, extraversion, and neuroticism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26(4): 195-218. Roberts, R.D., Schulze, R., O’Brien, K., MacCann, C., Reid, J., & Maul, A. 2006.
Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Emotion, 6: 663-669.
Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M. & Matthews, G. 2001. Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1: 196-231.
Robert, S. R., Lynn K.B., & William H.B. 2002. Are leaders smarter or do they just seem that way? Exploring perceived intellectual competence and leadership emergence, Socal
behavior and personality, 30(2): 105-118.
Robert J.S., Elena L.G., & Donald A.B. 2001. The Predictive Value of IQ,
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, January, 47(1): 1–41.
Rubin, S.R., Munz. D.C., & Bommer. W.H. 2005. Leading from within: the effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior, Academy
of Management Journal, 48, No.5: 845-858.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. 1995. Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale, in Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9: 185-211. New York: Harper.
Tejeda, M.J. 2001. The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. 2007. Investigating the emotional basis of charismatic leadership: the role of leaders’ positive moon and emotional intelligence. Functionality,
Intentionality and Morality Research on Emotion in Organizations, 3: 55-85.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., 1997. Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J.A., Briggs, S.R. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. 767-793.
Wolff, A.T., Pescosolidob, V.U., & Druskat. 2002. Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 505–522. Wong, C.S., & Law, K.S. 2002. The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 243-274.
Yukl, G. 1999. An evaluation of the conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 285-305.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D.D. 1992. Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M.D.Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 147-197
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1 Model of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables
Varibales N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Extraversion 99 32.77 5.16 (.89) 2 Agreeableness 99 27.02 3.72 -.11 (.80) 3 Conscientiousness 99 36.07 5.49 .18 .05 (.81) 4 Neuroticism 99 17.82 5.13 -.23* -.18 -.25* (.87) 5 Openness 99 24.87 5.17 .19 .22* .12 .07 (.79) 6 Transformational Leadership 113 3.56 .33 .30** .08 .16 -.16 .16 (.76) 7 IQ 92 31.62 3.70 .13 .03 .05 -.12 -.07 -.01 (.53) 8 EI (DANVA) 74 31.95 5.11 .11 .01 -.01 -.21 -.03 -.15 .29* (.63) 9 EI (WLEIS) 107 3.68 .49 .30** .16 .32** -.30** -.07 .32** .07 .10 **p<.01 * p<.05
*Values in brackets are alpha coefficients.
Emotional Intelligence Transformational
Leadership
Table 2. Moderated hierarchical regression using WLEIS
Table 3. Moderation hierarchical regression using DANVA
