Does Emotional Intelligence – as Measured 
by the EQI – Influence Transformational 
Leadership And/or Desirable Outcomes?
Authors: F. William Brown, Scott E. Brown, & Michael 
D. Reilly 
This is a postprint of an article that originally appeared in Leadership & Organization 
Development Journal in 2006.
F. William Brown, Scott E. Bryant, Michael D. Reilly, (2006) "Does emotional intelligence – as 
measured by the EQI – influence transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes?", 
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 Issue: 5, pp.330-351, 
doi: 10.1108/01437730610677954
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
Does emotional intelligence – as
measured by the EQI – influence
transformational leadership
and/or desirable outcomes?
F. William Brown, Scott E. Bryant and Michael D. Reilly
College of Business, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the possibility of relationships between and among emotional
intelligence (EI), leadership, and desirable outcomes in organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a sample of 2,411 manufacturing workers, engineers, and
professional staff, the study empirically examined the impact of EI, as measured by Bar-On’s
Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQI), on organizational outcomes; the well documented ability of
transformational leadership to predict those outcomes, and the relationship between EI and
transformational leadership.
Findings – The results confirm previous studies of the extraordinary effectiveness power of
transformational leadership in predicting organizational outcomes. However, in this study no support
was found for hypothesized relationships between EI and desirable outcomes or a significant
relationship between EI and transformational leadership.
Originality/value – EI may be a useful concept in understanding leadership and social influence;
however, unlike previous studies no indication was found that EI as operationalized and measured by
the EQI is of particular value in that exploration.
Keywords Emotional intelligence, Transformational leadership, Comparative tests,
Organizational performance
Paper type Research paper
Ultimately, the study of leadership is about understanding and improving how leaders
can help their followers to achieve desired outcomes. Emerging concepts of emotional
intelligence (EI) have shown some promise in regard to illuminating the relationship
between dispositional characteristics, leadership, and outcomes (Bono and Judge, 2004;
Cherniss, 2000). While the connection between transformational leadership (TL) and
desirable outcomes (DO) is well established (Lowe et al., 1996), how EI might best be
theoretically included in the relationship between leadership and outcomes is still under
investigation. This is an empirical study, using a large and robust sample that examines
a number of possible relationships between EI, as measured by a venerable and widely
used measure, Bar-On’s (1996) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQI), TL and DO.
Literature review and theoretical development
TL
Efforts to understand social influence and leadership have paralleled most of human
history; however, the application of scientific approaches to the development of
knowledge about leadership is largely a twentieth century phenomenon (Bass, 1990;
Bryman, 1996). The notion that an individual’s personal or physical traits might
explain or predict leadership capacity continued to have currency well into the
twentieth century (Zaccaro et al., 2004). Having misinterpreted the role of traits in
leadership and previously lacking the statistical tools to integrate independent
correlation coefficients, trait theory was largely cast aside in the mid-twentieth century
(Zaccaro et al., 2004; Bass, 1990) in favor of behavioral and contingency approaches. A
focus on what behaviors leaders actually engaged in dominated leadership research
and accounted for significant advances in the understanding of social influence and
leadership through the middle to late 1900s (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989, 1998). These
research-based advances slowed considerably by the 1970s with the field falling into a
protracted malaise (Hunt, 1999), only to be rescued and reinvigorated by the
charismatic and TL initially suggested by Burns (1978) and operationalized by Bass
and his colleagues (Bass, 1985a, b; Bass et al., 1987).
Guided by theory, the understanding of TL has been, like almost all leadership
research, focused on leader-follower interactions. Attention to TL has dominated the
scientific approaches to the understanding of leadership for almost two decades (Hunt,
1999). While studies of the leader-follower interaction utilizing the Multifactorial
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) have been enormously fruitful, substantial amounts
of variation in that interaction remain to be explained (Lowe et al., 1996; Bass and
Avolio, 1996).
As the interest in charismatic and TL approaches has developed and matured,
various calls have been heard for more holistic approaches to the consideration of
leadership capacity and the leadership process (Yukl, 1999; Conger, 1999; Mumford
et al., 2000; Rafferty and Griffith, 2004). One possibility is to look at leadership not just
as interaction, but rather as a function of a skill set possessed and deployed by the
individual leader. If we frame our understanding of leadership by concentrating on not
just what leaders do, but rather by a consideration as to what capabilities an individual
must have in order to perform effectively in a leadership role, perhaps understanding,
selection and development could be enhanced. An interest in the dispositional
characteristics of leaders and how that might impact TL has been speculated upon, and
occasionally investigated (e.g. Atwater and Yammarino, 1992, 1993; Bono and Judge,
2004; Ross and Offermann, 1997; Sosik and Mergerian, 1999):
H1. TL positively predicts DO.
Rationale. The first hypothesis serves as a base line from which to examine the impact
of adding the EI construct to the leadership model. The relationship between
transformation leadership and DO is well established and there should be no reason to
suspect that this sample will yield different results. In fact, should this relationship not
hold, it would be a good reason to suspect some problem with representativeness or
methodology.
Once the baseline relationship between TL and DO have been established, it is
appropriate to examine how EI might enhance our understanding. There are basically
three ways in which EI could enhance our understanding of the leadership process:
(1) EI could be an independent factor that explains additional variance;
(2) EI could be causally prior to TL; or
(3) could moderate the TL-DO relationship.
This study uses a large, real-world sample from a manufacturing plant to assess these
possibilities. To begin, we examine the construct of EI.
EI
Although the existence and importance of intelligences beyond memory and problem
solving had long been recognized, it was not until relatively recently that serious
efforts were made to define EI (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 1995), or that
considerable popular attention was paid to the concept (Goleman, 1995). Over the last
decade considerable attention has been paid to the issues of definition, independence,
measurement and impact on organizational outcomes (Goleman, 1995, 1998; Cherniss,
2000, Cooper and Sawaf, 1997; Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al., 2000; Ryback,
1997; Weisinger, 1998). With resolution of important definitional, psychometric and
causal inference issues in process, the objective of this study is to investigate the
possible relationship between EI, TL and DO, and to add to a small body of empirical
studies examining whether or not EI concepts might in some way contribute to the
understanding of social influence, as embodied in the concepts of TL.
The relationship between traditional measures of cognitive intelligence and
leadership has been the object of considerable examination. In a meta-analysis of all
studies of the intelligence-leadership relationship published from 1887-2002, Judge et al.
(2004) concluded that the correlation between intelligence and leadership was 0.27
(corrected for range restriction) with a standard deviation of 0.17. While of substantial
practical importance (Schmidt and Hunter, 1981), the relationship between intelligence
and leadership is nevertheless relatively modest (Judge et al., 2004, 2002). The
possibility of other forms of intelligence beyond memory and problem solving has been
the object of long-term speculation (Thorndike and Stein, 1937; Piaget, 1981; Wechsler,
1940). While Salovey and Mayer (1990) provided the first modern definition of EI, it
was the publication of the best-selling book, Emotional Intelligence (Goleman, 1995),
which coalesced previously nascent attention of management researchers regarding
the concept of an EI.
Over the last decade two distinctly different, but related, models of EI have been
suggested (Ciarrochi et al. 2001). The first of these models is an “ability” model, which
combines emotion with intelligence, and the second is a “mixed model”, which
combines traits with social behaviors and competencies. The ability model has largely
evolved from Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) original definition of EI, and has attracted
considerable research attention (Mayer et al., 1999, 1990; Mayer and Salovey, 1993,
1997; Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Salovey and Mayer originally defined EI as the ability
to deal with one’s own emotions and those of others to advantage in problem solving
and decision making. The mixed model arises largely from the work of Bar-On (1997),
an approach generally embraced and advocated by Goleman (1995, 1998). Bar-On
(2000) concludes that emotional and social intelligence is a “multifactorial array of
interrelated emotional, personal, and social abilities that influence our overall ability to
actively and effectively cope with daily demands and pressures”. This study utilizes
Bar-On’s EQI to measure EI, and is operationalized by that instrument, as is more
completely described in a following section.
A robust debate regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the two models has
been fully joined in the academic literature (e.g. Emmerling and Goleman, 2003).
Advocates of the ability model argue that their models and measurement instruments
are scientifically derived and psychometrically independent from other measures of
personality, (Mayer et al., 1999, 1990; Mayer and Salovey, 1993, 1997; Salovey and
Mayer, 1990). Advocates of the mixed model argue that their approach is highly
correlated with desired organizational outcomes and of great value to organizational
and leadership development (Emmerling and Goleman, 2003, Goleman, 1995, 1998;
Goleman et al., 2002). Advocacy for and well-done studies of both the ability and mixed
models appear equally persuasive; however, thus far the evidence for one approach
does not seem conclusively superior to the other.
Several studies have found relationships between EI and outcome variables of
interest to managers. In their seminal studies Wong and Law (2002) and Law et al.
(2004) derived their own theoretically based measures of EI and demonstrated that the
measures had favorable psychometric properties. They then used the measures to
predict managerial outcomes and found that they explained unique variance after
controlling for widely accepted personality variables. Wolf et al. (2002) used EI to
explore the emergence of leaders within self-managed teams and found that empathy
was related to selection for leadership positions.
Accordingly, it could be argued that EI might best be described as an independent
factor that would explain significant variance in DO. In this case, we would see results
where the EQI measure correlated directly with DO. Further, the strength of that
relationship would not be diminished by adding TL to the prediction equation.
Theoretically this means that EI is independent of TL, and explains some of the
variance in DO that cannot be explained by TL. This leads to H2:
H2. Leader EI is positively related to DO, either independently or after controlling
for the effects of TL.
Rationale. This hypothesis examines the direct effects of the EI construct as an
outcome predictor. More emotionally intelligent leaders might produce more DO, once
the variance explained by their choice of leadership styles is removed, because EI may
explain additional variance in an additive manner. The EQI is the oldest and most
widely used measure of EI. Previous studies have shown direct effects of EI, as
measured by the EQI, on outcome measures (Barling et al., 2000; Sivanathan and
Fekken, 2002; Mandell and Pherwani, 2003). EI might show direct relationships with
the outcome measures or explain residual variance in those measures after controlling
for the effects of TL.
EI and TL
More interesting than exploring just the direct effects of EI on the outcome variables is
the examination of how EI might interact with the well known and empirically reliable
TL model. Various claims, both theoretical and empirical, have been made regarding a
relationship between EI, leadership, and DO.
Theoretical perspectives
Goleman et al. (2002) have suggested that EI has an important impact on team
leadership. Prati et al. (2003) makes an even more comprehensive case for a positive
relationship between EI and leadership, a perspective which has attracted equal
amounts of attention and sharp criticism on theory development and interpretation of
previous research (Antonakis, 2003).
Sosik and Mergerian (1999) suggested four intersections between EI and TL:
(1) Adherence to professional standards of behavior and interaction which they
related to idealized influence or charisma.
(2) Motivation which is related to the inspirational motivation component of TL.
Sosik and Mergerian opine that emotionally intelligent leaders feel more secure
in their ability to control and influence life events.
(3) Intellectual stimulation.
(4) Individual focus on others which is related to individualized attention.
Sosik and Mergerian (1999) suggest that the above aspects are necessary to establish
and manage strong emotional relationships with followers. These ideas are very
similar to the descriptions of various aspects of TL, particularly idealized influence.
The notion that strong EI is associated with leadership performance is a recurring
theme in the work of Goleman (1995,1998). In fact, Goleman’s (1998) ambitious
contention that EI is at least twice as important to organizational outcomes as
cognitive intelligence or technical skill has attracted considerable, albeit empirically
unsupported, attention (Cherniss, 2000).
Lewis (2000) argues that positive affect and enthusiasm are necessary to elevate the
emotional state of followers. The notion of emotional contagion is often associated with
the idealized influence and inspirational motivation aspects of TL. Similarly, Riggio
(1986, 1987, 1998) defines charisma in terms of well-developed social and emotional
skills which are often associated with charisma (idealized influence is a key element of
TL, often explaining most of the variance). George (2000) identified management of
emotions, both those of the leader and those of followers, as being critical to leadership.
She points to the use of emotional appeals, as aspect of inspirational motivation, as
characteristic of both emotionally intelligent individuals and transformational leaders.
As previously noted the advocacy for EI is not without its detractors. Just as various
concepts of EI seem to be gaining momentum, significant cautions and objections have
been raised in regard to epistemological and theory developmental issues. Zaccaro and
Horn (2003) feel that an absence of a systematic and comprehensive conceptual
framework between EI leadership, along with a rush to judgment over an intuitively
appealing concept, threatens to give EI more of the characteristics of a “management
fad” than a grounded theory. Antonakis (2003) cites alternate explanations for results
and the quality of supporting empirical evidence of a relationship between EI and
leadership and describes the excitement regarding EI as “premature”. Having
conducted review of the basic assumptions of EI research Matthews et al. (2002)
conclude that the concept is currently more “myth than science,” while opining that
myths can often stimulate scientific research.
Empirical evidence
In addition to the above-mentioned theoretical discussions, there are several empirical
studies which have demonstrated that self awareness, an element of EI measured by
agreement between self and other ratings of TL behaviors, is positively related to
performance (Atwater and Yammarino, 1992, 1993; Sosik and Dworakivsky, 1998;
Moshavi et al., 2003). The basic theory underlying these efforts echos the above
arguments and suggests that a leader who is sensitive to emotional dimensions in
interactions, including both his/her own emotional state and/or the emotional state of
the followers, might be better able to function.
Further, direct investigations of the links between EI and TL are starting to appear
in the literature. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found a significant predictive
relationship between EI and TL behaviors, as well as a significant difference between
the EI scores of the men and women in their study. In an empirical study involving 49
managers, Barling et al. (2000) found a significant relationship between EI and three of
the four behavioral elements of TL. Sivanathan and Fekken (2002) found a significant
correlation between EI and TL among 12 university residence hall staff supervisors.
Duckett and Macfarlane (2003) examined EI and TL relationships in the managers
of 21 retail stores in the UK, and found a “strong” relationship. In a study of 43 former
students, most of whom held management positions, Palmer et al. (2001) found
significant correlations between a measure of EI and several components of TL.
Utilizing their own measure of EI, Gardner and Stough (2002) found correlations with
all elements of TL.
Thus, it might be argued that inspiration, charismatic leadership, motivation and to
a lesser extent, idealized influence are at least partially affective in origin, and that a
leader who was emotionally aware might be better able to understand and thus
influence their followers. The influence of EI on leadership performance might be
particularly marked in the case of TL, where several of the key leadership behaviors
make reference to the affective state of the followers.
While a positive relationship between TL and organizational outcomes is well
established (Lowe et al., 1996; Avolio and Bass, 1997), thus far support for a predictive
relationship between EI and organizational outcomes has been generally more intuitive
and rhetorical than empirical (Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002; Lam and Kirby, 2002;
Humphries et al., 2003). Several of the more active researchers in the field have
advanced the argument that rather than being a unique predictor of organizational
outcomes, EI is a building block for emotional competence, which combines or interacts
with other factors leading to performance (Goleman, 1998; Mayer et al., 2000; Gowing,
2001). Our study seeks to illuminate further, utilizing a relatively large group of
managers and followers, the possible relationships between and among EI, TL, and
performance.
Theoretically, there are two ways in which EI could contribute to our understanding
of the relationship between TL and DO. The first possibility is that EI could be
causally prior to TL. This would mean that a higher EI leader would be more likely to
use TL, as opposed to contingent reward and laissez-faire, because their greater EI
allows them superior understanding of what will motivate their followers.
Accordingly, this hypothesis would be stated as:
H3. EQI will be positively related to transformational and negatively related to
contingent reward and laissez-faire leadership styles.
Rationale
One effect of higher leader EI might be in the choice of the leadership style that a leader
uses. High EI leaders might be more likely to use styles that would effectively make
use of the leaders’ superior understanding of their emotional states and those of their
followers. TL is more affectively based than the other leadership styles, and high EI
leaders might be more likely to choose this style.
Alternatively, EI could moderate the TL-DO relationship. This would mean that the
effectiveness with which transactional leadership is used depends in part on the EI of
the leader. There are several ways in which this could happen. If EI explains unique
variance in outcome prediction equations, but the interaction term is not significant,
which would support H2, it would suggest that EI may be a factor independent of TL,
which can explain additional variance in the dependent outcome variables. Here we
would say that EI enhances our ability to predict.
A second possibility is that EI might moderate the relationship between
transactional leadership and desired outcomes. Here we would expect to see a
significant interaction term between TL and EQ when predicting DO in a hierarchical
regression analysis. A positive coefficient for the interaction term would suggest that
TL and EQ are synergistically effective, in that leaders who are above average in both
are superior producers of outcomes than we would expect on the basis of the additive
model. A negative coefficient for the interaction term would suggest that TL and EQ
are substitutable to some extent. Leaders who are high on either one, but not
necessarily on both, produce the desired outcomes. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H4. Adding EI to a predictive model where TL is used to predict DO will produce
a significant interaction effect.
Rationale
Leader EI might very well moderate the TL/DO relationship. In this case, the TL £ EI
interaction may be significant, indicating either a complementary (as indicated by a
negative coefficient) or synergistic (as indicated by a positive coefficient) effect for TL
and EI.
Methods
This study was conducted in a large US manufacturing facility, which is a part of an
international technology company. Anticipating a leadership development program,
management sought assistance from the first author to ascertain the current status of
leadership capacity and employee attitudes regarding leadership issues as an initial
step in that process.
Leadership measures
The MLQ was developed by Bass and Avolio (1996) and has been shown to be a
reliable instrument that has validity in the measurement of TL and other elements of a
full range of leadership model (Antonakis et al., 2003; Tepper and Percy, 1994). A few
of the 45 items in the rater and self versions of MLQ-Form 5x (Bass and Avolio, 1996)
were very slightly modified (e.g. “the person I am rating” was changed to read, “my
supervisor”) to make the verbiage appropriate for the particular situation and
terminology of the plant. The scales of interest in this study are the four subscales of
TL (individual attention, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and
idealized influence) each measured by four individual items. A single measure of TL
was computed by aggregating those four subscale measures. This provided an overall
assessment of TL for each of the managers and supervisors at the facility.
EI measure
Each of the focal leaders completed Bar-On’s (1996) EQI. The EQI contains 133
items, which produce an overall EQI score, five scales and 15 subscales. The five
scales are “Intrapersonal,” “Interpersonal,” “Adaptability,” “Stress management,”
and “General mood.” High scores on the Intrapersonal scale indicate an individual
who is in touch with his/her feelings and has positive feelings about him/herself and
his/her life (Bar-On, 1996). High scores on the Interpersonal scale indicate good
interpersonal skills (Bar-On, 1996). High scores on the Adaptability scale indicate an
ability to cope with environmental demands and pressures (Bar-On, 1996). High
scores on Stress management indicate an ability to handle stress, and General mood
indicates the ability to enjoy life (Bar-On, 1996). The EQI has been extensively
examined and shown to have reasonable levels of reliability, validity, and
psychometric independence (Bar-On, 1996; Dawda and Hart, 2000).
Outcome measures and dependent variables
Perceptions of unit effectiveness, satisfaction with supervision, and willingness to
expend extra effort were collected, utilizing items that are included in the MLQ. Job
satisfaction and supervisor satisfaction were measured utilizing scales developed by
Hackman and Oldham (1980), as was a measure of internal turnover intent, referred to
elsewhere in this study as the “non-MLQ” dependent variables. The latter was a
three-item measure of intention to request transfer to another work unit. Overall
turnover at the plant was very low, probably as a function of local economic conditions
and the relative wages paid at the plant, and any measure of turnover intent was likely
to be restricted in range and resistant to analysis. A measure of internal turnover,
expressed as a desire or intention to ask for a transfer to another work unit, was
considered a more meaningful measure of employee reaction to the work situation.
Sample and survey administration
All hourly employees present for work were required to appear at one of several
meetings conducted during work hours during each of the three shifts over a four-day
period. At the beginning of each meeting the general manager of the facility made a
short presentation representing the purpose of the survey to be an effort to better
understand how employees felt about the leadership they received, and encouraged
frank and honest responses to all questions. The first author followed with a short
presentation assuring respondents of anonymity prior to completing the survey.
Following these comments, all attendees completed the “Rater” version of the MLQ and
a short questionnaire soliciting their attitudes regarding the non-MLQ dependent
variables described in the previous section. During the same four day period similar
meetings were held for managers, supervisors and members of the professional staff.
During these meetings all attendees also completed the “Rater” version of the MLQ and
the questionnaire containing the items which constituted the non-MLQ dependent
variables. At the latter meetings all managers and supervisors with direct reports also
completed the EQI.
A total of 2,425 questionnaires were completed, of which 2,411 were usable for the
purposes of the study. Usable self- reports and a minimum of three usable follower
reports were available for 161 managers and supervisors who had also completed the
EQI. The follower assessments of leadership behaviors of managers and supervisors
represented the aggregated sentiment of 2,411 followers. Manager/supervisors in the
study had an average of 178.18 months of longevity in the company, 28 percent
identified themselves as female, 72 percent as male.
Results
Level of analysis
Since the TL data and the outcome measures were collected at the individual level,
while the EQI measure was collected at the group level (i.e. for each group leader), it is
impossible to perform a traditional WABA analysis (Dansereau et al., 1984). It is
important to examine the degree to which it is appropriate to consider the data for
group level analysis. Accordingly, the TL and desired outcome measures were
examined using the Interclass correlation coefficient approach (Bartko, 1976; Bliese,
2000; Castro, 2002; McGraw and Wong, 1996). In ICC, analysis estimates are made of
the amount of variance that is explainable at the group level, ICC(1) and the degree to
which the group members agree about their perceptions, ICC(2). In the current study,
these were estimated using the Bliese and Halverson (1996) formula because group
sizes were unequal (see Tables I and II). Based on the usual criteria ðICCð1Þ . 0:05,
indicating at least 5 percent of total variance explainable at the group level and
ICCð2Þ . 0:7, indicating substantial levels of within-group agreement about the
ratings, the decision was made to continue the analysis with all the leadership
measures, all the EQI scales and four dependent variables: extra effort, leader
effectiveness and two measures of leadership satisfaction. Job satisfaction, turnover
and transfer intent were eliminated from further analysis on the grounds that they had
inadequate group variance and lower-than-acceptable levels of agreement across group
members.
H1
H1 predicted that TL would be positively associated with DO. We tested H1 using a
series of multiple regressions that regressed the TL scale and subscales on each
dependent variable (see Table III). The overall TL variable predicted a significant
amount of variance in all of the outcome variables (extra effort, leader effectiveness,
satisfaction with leader, and supervisor satisfaction). The models all predicted a
significant amount of variance in the dependent variables, and R 2 ranged from 0.32 to
0.86, p , 0:001. Most of the TL subscales predicted a significant amount of variance in
the DO. All of the regression models predicted a significant amount of variance in the
dependent variables, and R 2 ranged from 0.37 to 0.87, p , 0:001. None of the other TL
subscale coefficients predicted significant variance in supervisor satisfaction.
Consistent with past research, our results provide substantial support for the
relationship between TL and DO.
H2
H2 predicted that higher levels of EI would be positively associated with DO. We
tested H2 using a series of multiple regressions that regressed each EI scale and
subscale on each dependent variable (see Table IV). Neither the overall EQI EI scale
nor the subscales predicted a significant amount of variance in any of the dependent
variables. Interestingly, only one of the coefficients (Adaptability, b ¼ 0:60, p , 0:10)
even approached predicting a significant amount of variance in a dependent variable
M
S
D
IC
C
(1
)
IC
C
(2
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.
E
Q
I
10
0.
75
13
.6
1
1
2.
In
tr
ap
er
so
n
al
10
0.
77
14
.4
3
0.
85
*
*
1
3.
In
te
rp
er
so
n
al
98
.0
2
13
.8
9
0.
72
*
*
0.
62
*
*
1
4.
A
d
ap
ta
b
il
it
y
10
2.
00
12
.6
5
0.
82
*
*
0.
71
*
*
0.
56
*
*
1
5.
S
tr
es
s
10
1.
95
12
.0
0
0.
69
*
*
0.
53
*
*
0.
39
*
*
0.
66
*
*
1
6.
M
oo
d
10
0.
30
12
.8
6
0.
82
*
*
0.
77
*
*
0.
68
*
*
0.
64
*
*
0.
55
*
*
1
7.
T
ra
n
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
2.
42
0.
58
0.
21
0.
79
0.
06
0.
06
0.
06
0.
08
2
0.
00
3
0.
04
1
8.
In
d
iv
id
u
al
co
n
si
d
er
at
io
n
2.
29
0.
65
0.
17
0.
74
0.
02
0.
02
0.
05
0.
04
2
0.
04
0.
01
0.
96
*
*
9.
In
te
ll
ec
tu
al
st
im
u
la
ti
on
2.
34
0.
60
0.
19
0.
78
0.
04
0.
06
0.
01
0.
07
2
0.
00
2
0.
02
0.
96
*
*
10
.
In
sp
ir
at
io
n
al
m
ot
iv
at
io
n
2.
58
0.
59
0.
20
0.
78
0.
09
0.
09
0.
08
0.
08
0.
01
0.
07
0.
94
*
*
11
.
Id
ea
li
ze
d
in
fl
u
en
ce
2.
46
0.
59
0.
18
0.
76
0.
09
0.
08
0.
08
0.
10
0.
03
0.
06
0.
98
*
*
12
.
C
on
ti
n
g
en
t
re
w
ar
d
2.
42
0.
63
0.
15
0.
73
0.
02
0.
02
0.
02
0.
04
2
0.
06
0.
03
0.
91
*
*
13
.
L
a
is
se
z-
fa
ir
e
0.
99
0.
54
0.
16
0.
74
0.
03
0.
00
0
2
0.
02
0.
03
0.
09
0.
03
2
0.
76
*
*
14
.
E
x
tr
a
ef
fo
rt
2.
39
0.
66
0.
17
0.
75
0.
03
0.
02
0.
07
0.
05
2
0.
01
0.
01
0.
93
*
*
15
.
L
ea
d
er
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
2.
71
0.
64
0.
19
0.
78
2
0.
02
2
0.
01
2
0.
02
0.
00
1
2
0.
07
2
0.
01
0.
93
*
*
16
.
L
ea
d
er
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
2.
62
0.
75
0.
20
0.
79
2
0.
03
2
0.
04
2
0.
01
2
0.
01
2
0.
04
2
0.
01
0.
91
*
*
17
.
S
u
p
er
v
is
or
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
4.
77
1.
08
0.
15
0.
69
2
0.
03
0.
02
0.
04
2
0.
11
2
0.
02
0.
03
0.
57
*
*
18
.
Jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
5.
46
0.
69
0.
05
0.
41
0.
03
0.
00
2
0.
10
2
0.
03
2
0.
01
0.
02
0.
19
19
.
T
u
rn
ov
er
2.
51
1.
00
0.
04
0.
36
2
0.
11
0.
03
2
0.
22
*
2
0.
04
2
0.
18
2
0.
10
0.
11
20
.
T
ra
n
sf
er
in
te
n
t
3.
40
0.
76
0.
06
0.
46
0.
06
0.
13
2
0.
04
0.
14
0.
01
2
0.
03
2
0.
02
N
o
te
s
:
n
ra
n
g
es
fr
om
95
to
52
9;
*
p
,
0:
00
1;
*
*
p
,
0:
00
1
Table I.
Descriptive statistics and
correlations for study
variables
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1.
E
Q
I
2.
In
tr
ap
er
so
n
al
3.
In
te
rp
er
so
n
al
4.
A
d
ap
ta
b
il
it
y
5.
S
tr
es
s
6.
M
oo
d
7.
T
ra
n
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
8.
In
d
iv
id
u
al
co
n
si
d
er
at
io
n
1
9.
In
te
ll
ec
tu
al
st
im
u
la
ti
on
0.
92
*
*
*
1
10
.
In
sp
ir
at
io
n
al
m
ot
iv
at
io
n
0.
83
*
*
*
0.
86
*
*
*
1
11
.
Id
ea
li
ze
d
in
fl
u
en
ce
0.
92
*
*
*
0.
91
*
*
*
0.
92
*
*
*
1
12
.
C
on
ti
n
g
en
t
re
w
ar
d
0.
88
*
*
*
0.
85
*
*
*
0.
86
*
*
*
0.
91
*
*
*
1
13
.
L
a
is
se
z-
fa
ir
e
2
0.
74
*
*
*
2
0.
73
*
*
*
2
0.
71
*
*
*
2
0.
75
*
*
*
2
0.
68
*
*
*
1
14
.
E
x
tr
a
ef
fo
rt
0.
88
*
*
*
0.
90
*
*
*
0.
86
*
*
*
0.
91
*
*
*
0.
85
*
*
*
2
0.
71
*
*
*
1
15
.
L
ea
d
er
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
0.
90
*
*
*
0.
09
*
*
*
0.
87
*
*
*
0.
92
*
*
*
0.
89
*
*
*
2
0.
81
*
*
*
0.
90
*
*
*
1
16
.
L
ea
d
er
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
0.
89
*
*
*
0.
88
*
*
*
0.
84
*
*
*
0.
89
*
*
*
0.
85
*
*
*
2
0.
79
*
*
*
0.
89
*
*
*
0.
93
*
*
*
1
17
.
S
u
p
er
v
is
or
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
0.
59
*
*
*
0.
59
*
*
*
0.
48
*
*
*
0.
53
*
*
*
0.
51
*
*
*
2
0.
51
*
*
*
0.
56
*
*
*
0.
55
*
*
*
0.
59
*
*
*
1
18
.
Jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
0.
24
*
0.
20
*
0.
11
0.
16
0.
13
2
0.
19
0.
13
0.
15
0.
15
0.
31
*
1
19
.
T
u
rn
ov
er
0.
10
0.
11
0.
12
0.
11
0.
11
2
0.
23
*
0.
14
0.
14
0.
15
0.
02
2
0.
56
*
*
*
1
20
.
T
ra
n
sf
er
in
te
n
t
2
0.
09
2
0.
03
0.
02
0.
03
2
0.
01
0.
10
0.
01
0.
01
2
0.
02
2
0.
31
*
*
2
0.
41
*
*
0.
28
*
*
N
o
te
s
:
n
ra
n
g
es
fr
om
95
to
52
9;
*
p
,
0:
05
;
*
*
p
,
0:
01
;
*
*
*
p
,
0:
00
1
Table II.
Descriptive statistics and
correlations for study
variables
(supervisor satisfaction). However, when we used hierarchical regression to test
whether EI predicted the DO when TL was included in the model, we found that EI
significantly predicted two DO – leader effectiveness and satisfaction with leader (see
Table V). Model 5 predicted a significant amount of variance in leader effectiveness
(R 2 ¼ 0:88, Fð2; 158Þ ¼ 557:20, p , :001), and EI significantly predicted leader
effectiveness (b ¼ 20:08, p , 0:01). Similarly, Model 8 predicted a significant amount
of variance in satisfaction with supervisor (R 2 ¼ 0:84, Fð2; 158Þ ¼ 421:15, p , 0.001),
and EI significantly predicted satisfaction with supervisor (b ¼ 20:08, p , 0:01). In
both models the DR 2 was significant (DR 2 ¼ 0:01, p , 0:01), indicating that EI adds
predictive strength to the model. This provides some limited support for a direct
relationship between EI and DO.
Extra effort Effectiveness
Leader
satisfaction
Supervisor
satisfaction
Transformational leadership 0.93 * * * 0.93 * * * 0.91 * * * 0.57 * * *
R 2 0.86 0.87 0.83 0.32
F 991.52 * * * * 1087.46 * * * 831.58 * * * * 44.32 * * *
df 1, 166 1, 166 1, 166 1, 93
Individual consideration 0.09 0.30 * * * 0.37 * * * 0.42
Intellectual stimulation 0.33 * * * 0.12 0.25 * * 0.38
Inspirational motivation 0.08 0.16 * 0.15 * 20.19
Idealized influence 0.46 * * * 0.38 * * * 0.20 * 20.04
R 2 0.86 0.87 0.83 0.37
F 254.94 * * * 267.58 * * * * 204.88 * * * 13.14 * * *
df 4, 163 4, 163 4, 163 4, 90
Notes: Standardized regression coefficients are reported; * p , 0:10; * * p , 0:05; * * * p , 0:001
Table III.
Regression of
transformational
leadership and subscales
on desirable outcomes
Extra effort Effectiveness
Leader
satisfaction
Supervisor
satisfaction
Emotional intelligence (EQI) 0.03 20.02 20.03 20.03
R 2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
F 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.07
df 1, 159 1, 159 1, 159 1, 103
Intrapersonal 20.01 20.01 20.07 0.08
Interpersonal 0.09 20.03 20.004 0.09
Adaptability 0.07 0.07 0.05 20.28 *
Stress 20.04 20.12 0.06 0.04
Mood 20.06 0.04 0.04 0.08
R 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04
F 0.28 0.29 0.14 0.73
df 5, 155 5, 155 5, 155 5, 99
Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported; * p , 0:10
Table IV.
Regression of emotional
intelligence (EQi) and
subscales on desirable
outcomes
M
od
el
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
E
xt
ra
ef
fo
rt
T
ra
n
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
0.
93
*
*
0.
93
*
*
0.
83
*
E
m
ot
io
n
al
in
te
ll
ig
en
ce
(E
Q
i)
2
0.
03
2
0.
07
T
L
£E
I
0.
11
R
2
0.
86
0.
86
0.
86
F
95
5.
56
*
*
47
7.
24
*
*
31
6.
47
*
*
d
f
1,
15
9
2,
15
8
3,
15
7
D
R
2
0.
00
1
0.
00
0
L
ea
d
er
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
T
ra
n
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
0.
93
*
*
0.
94
*
*
1.
10
*
*
E
m
ot
io
n
al
in
te
ll
ig
en
ce
(E
Q
i)
2
0.
08
*
*
2
0.
00
3
T
L
£E
I
2
0.
19
R
2
0.
87
0.
88
0.
88
F
10
56
.4
8
*
*
55
7.
20
*
*
37
0.
39
*
*
d
f
1,
15
9
2,
15
8
3,
15
7
D
R
2
0.
01
*
*
0.
00
0
L
ea
d
er
sa
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n
T
ra
n
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
0.
91
*
*
0.
92
*
*
1.
42
*
*
E
m
ot
io
n
al
in
te
ll
ig
en
ce
(E
Q
i)
2
0.
08
*
*
0.
15
T
L
£E
I
2
0.
58
R
2
0.
84
0.
84
0.
85
F
80
4.
39
*
*
42
1.
15
*
*
28
6.
36
*
*
d
f
1,
15
9
2,
15
8
3,
15
7
D
R
2
0.
01
*
*
0.
00
3
S
u
pe
rv
is
or
sa
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n
T
ra
n
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
0.
57
*
*
0.
57
*
*
0.
91
E
m
ot
io
n
al
in
te
ll
ig
en
ce
(E
Q
i)
2
0.
03
0.
15
T
L
£E
I
2
0.
34
R
2
0.
32
0.
32
0.
33
F
44
.3
2
*
*
21
.9
9
*
*
14
.6
0
*
*
d
f
1,
93
2,
92
3,
91
D
R
2
0.
00
1
0.
00
1
N
o
te
s
:
S
ta
n
d
ar
d
iz
ed
re
g
re
ss
io
n
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
ar
e
re
p
or
te
d
;
*
p
,
0:
01
;
*
*
p
,
0:
00
1
Table V.
Hierarchical regression of
transformational
leadership and emotional
intelligence on desirable
outcomes
H3
H3 predicted that EI would be positively related to TL and negatively related to
contingent reward and laissez-faire. We tested H3 using a series of multiple regressions
that regressed the EI scale and subscales on the leadership scales (see Tables VI and
VII). None of the EI scales or subscales predicted a significant amount of variance in
any of the TL scales or subscales. There was no support for H3.
H4
H4 predicted that an interaction between EI and TL would be a significant predictor of
DO when included with TL and EI. We conducted hierarchical regressions with TL, EI
and the interaction between the two on each dependent variable (see Table V). We also
Transformational
leadership Contingent reward Laissez-faire
Emotional intelligence (EQi) 0.06 0.02 0.03
R 2 0.004 0.000 0.001
F 0.62 0.05 0.1
df 1, 159 1, 159 1, 159
Intrapersonal 0.03 20.01 20.03
Interpersonal 0.03 20.02 20.06
Adaptability 0.10 0.10 0.004
Stress 20.07 20.14 0.10
Mood 20.02 0.06 0.03
R 2 0.01 0.01 0.01
F 0.33 0.44 0.34
df 5, 155 5, 155 5, 155
Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported
Table VII.
Regression of EQI and
subscales on leadership
Transformational
leadership
Idealized
influence
Inspirational
motivation
Intellectual
stimulation
Individualized
consideration
Emotional
intelligence (EQI)
0.06 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.02
R 2 0.004 0.01 0.01 0.002 0.000
F 0.62 1.32 1.4 0.29 0.06
df 1, 159 1, 159 1, 159 1, 159 1, 159
Intrapersonal 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 20.01
Interpersonal 0.03 0.05 0.03 20.04 0.05
Adaptability 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.08
Stress 20.07 20.05 20.07 20.06 20.09
Mood 20.02 0.04 0.01 20.04 20.01
R 2 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
F 0.33 0.46 0.39 0.33 0.26
df 5, 155 5, 155 5, 155 5, 155 5, 155
Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported
Table VI.
Regression of emotional
intelligence (EQI) and
subscales on
transformational
leadership
examined whether the number of followers reporting to a leader impacted the
regression analysis. We found that while there were significant bivariate correlations
between group size and the dependent variables, group size was not a significant
predictor of the dependent variables once TL or EQ were added to the model. All of the
other models explained a significant amount of variance in the dependent variables.
R 2s ranged from 0.32 to 0.88, p , 0:001. None of the interaction terms were significant
predictors of any of the dependent variables. There was no support for H4.
Discussion
As previously noted, the positive relationship between TL behaviors and
organizational outcomes is extremely well established in the academic literature (e.g.
Lowe et al., 1996; Avolio and Bass, 1997; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Data from this
study, involving over 2,400 followers assessing the leadership behaviors of 161 leaders,
is entirely consistent with those findings. Our results confirm previous studies of the
extraordinary effectiveness power (in this instance explaining over 80 percent of the
variance in three of the dependent variables) of TL in predicting organizational
outcomes. While relationship of this nature are exception in social science research,
given that they have been found across many other TL studies in a variety of settings,
the more significant contribution of the leadership results may lie in the reassurance
that the data were collected from an organizational setting in which the dynamics of
the leader-follower relationships seem to be similar to those found across a large
variety of organizational and cultural settings.
What is of particular interest in this study is the relationship between EI and DO,
and/or the relationship between EI and TL. Previous claims for a relationship between
EI and DO have been both speculative (e.g. Cooper, 1997; Goleman, 1998) and the object
of scientific investigation (e.g. Law et al., 2004; Schutte et al., 1998). Interpreting the
results of the empirical studies is substantially complicated by the previously
mentioned lack of agreement regarding a definition or measurement scheme for EI. In
this study EI was measured utilizing Bar-On’s (1996) EQI. Given the relatively short
history of EI, the EQI is one of the longer-lived and most widely-used instruments, and
one which has been the object of confirmatory validity studies (Bar-On, 1996; Dawda
and Hart, 2000). Unlike previous studies (Barling et al., 2000; Sivanathan and Fekken,
2002; Mandell and Pherwani, 2003) in which the EQI was utilized as a measure of EI,
this study finds no evidence of a relationship between EI and DO. The EQI was able to
add a small, but statistically significant increment to predictive power for some
dependent outcome variables when added to a regression model where the impacts of
TL had been parceled out. These findings are not consistent either with prior theory or
research results.
While it is impossible to divine the exact reasons why relatively similar studies
would result in such different outcomes, methodological differences are one possibility.
The importance of sample size to the robustness of analysis and the generalizability of
results is well established (Feldt and Ankenmann, 1998; Charter, 1999), with larger
samples generally offering more statistical power. Previous EQI/leadership studies
based their findings on 49 leaders (Barling et al., 2000), 70 leaders (Sivanathan and
Fekken, 2002), and 32 leaders (Mandell and Pherwani, 2003), respectively. The
numbers of followers providing input utilized as dependent variables would also be
expected to impact the analysis. In the Barling et al. (2000) study, data were collected
from 191 followers, in the Sivanathan and Fekken (2002) study, data were collected
from 232 followers, and no follower data were collected in the Mandell and Pherwani
(2003) study. In the current study, 2,411 followers provided input on the leadership
behaviors of 161 leaders, who also completed the EQI. Accordingly, we might expect
the large sample size in the current study to allow identification of much weaker effects
than previous studies, but this was not the case.
The possibility that the results might be bound to the cultural or organizational
circumstances cannot be completely discounted. As previously noted, the current
study was conducted in a manufacturing setting in the USA. The relatively large
sample size should in and of itself provide some elements of psychological and cultural
diversity. Respondents included hourly workers, professional managers, engineers
(both industrial and product development), and professional staff, which included
computer scientists, marketing and customer service personnel. In the Barling et al.
(2000) study, data were collected in a pulp and paper organization, in the Sivanathan
and Fekken (2002) study, data were collected in a university residence hall setting and
in the Mandell and Pherwani (2003), study data were collected on human resource
representatives from “volunteering” organizations. To the extent that the interactions
in these types of organizations are more affectively based, as opposed to a
manufacturing plant, which is largely performance based, we might hypothesize that
EI would be a more significant predictor.
The lack of support for hypothesized relationships between EI and DO and TL in
this study does not necessarily indicate that those relationships do not exist. Rather,
the more appropriate interpretation of the results is that this study does not support a
relationship between EI as measured by the EQI and either DO or TL. It is important to
note that Bar-On designed the EQI to be a measure of emotional and social functioning
(Bar-On, 2001). Not surprisingly, in validation studies (Bar-On, 1997), the overall EQI
scores are strongly correlated with high positive affect and low negative affect
personality measures. While the notion that the EQI might correlate with DO and/or
TL seemed logical and intuitively satisfying when designing this study, it is the
instrument was not designed or developed with that in mind. Much of the critical
commentary regarding the potential usefulness of the EQI in developing an
understanding of organizational dynamics has centered on the fact that it measures a
mixture of traits and abilities intending to predict psychological well being. This
combination is, unlike the ability models of EI, not consistent with traditional
formulations of intelligence, nor was the EQI specifically intended to be a specific
measure of competencies associated with workplace success (Emmerling and Goleman,
2003). Given the failure to find support for a relationship with organizational outcomes
or leadership it is important to recall the stated purposes of the instrument, and these
results should not be taken as a particular indictment of its psychometric properties or
utility in other settings.
Limitations
There are some limitations that need to be considered when assessing the results of
this study. The current sample is a large and varied one that comes from an actual
organizational context where there was serious managerial impetus to provide data
accurately and completely. Nevertheless, standard non-response bias and potential for
follower unwillingness to describe their opinions accurately, for fear that the data
might be revealed to their managers, are potentially at work.
The high levels of observed correlations between the MLQ measured independent
variables and the MLQ measured dependent variables suggests that these
relationships may be overstated because of common method variance, since both are
based on the ratings of the same subjects, using the same instrument. Our study shares
this limitation with much of the research on TL, which is also based on these same
MLQ measured independent and dependent variables. Fortunately, because the EQI
measure was completed by the leader rather than the followers, there is no possible
common method variance contaminating the findings that involve EQ.
Practical significance
The results of this study do not support the use of the EQI measure as a useful tool for
managerial selection, development or assessment. The very weak effects observed here
suggest that the TL variables explained the vast bulk of the variance in the outcome
measures. EI may eventually prove to be a useful concept for management practice;
however, the results of this study do not commend the use of the EQI for that purpose.
Future research directions
Despite the lack of support in this study for EI, as measured by the EQI, our sense is
that the concept of EI may still hold promise for improving our understanding of
organizational behavior generally, and TL specifically. Issues of definition,
psychometric independence, and valid measurement remain largely unresolved.
Informed by other studies, which may have had limited generalizability for
methodological reasons or common source variance, we sought to illuminate the extent
to which a venerable measure of mixed models of EI, the EQI, is related to either TL or
to desired outcomes. Utilizing a large sample directly engaged in manufacturing and
manufacturing support activities we did find the expected strong positive relationship
between TL and desired outcomes. However, we were only able to find very limited
support for using EI, as measured by the EQI, as an explanatory variable. In our
analysis, EQI measured EI added only a small, albeit statistically significant, amount
to our ability to predict desired outcomes. Because these findings are at variance with
the other studies, additional research, using a variety of samples and other measures of
EI is indicated. To do so would help to clarify whether our failure to find the expected
relationships is due to a conceptual problem inherent to the EQI, or the possibility that
that EI is not needed for leadership and that what positive benefits there are in EI are
already accounted for by other, well-established constructs.
Organizational and leadership researchers may choose to devote additional
attention to the possibilities of a relationship between the EQI and outcomes or
behaviors of interest, perhaps in different organizational settings or utilizing
alternative research designs. However, the more promising approach for revealing the
impact of EI on organizational behavior seems to lie in investigators utilizing other
measures of EI. Measurement instruments embracing the ability model of EI (e.g.
Schutte et al., 1998; Wong and Law, 2002) have been reported in the academic literature
and in some cases have been shown to have significant predictive relationships with
organizational outcomes (Law et al., 2004; Schutte et al., 1998).
Among other issues, one tends to be suspicious of completely self-reported,
self-awareness measures. It would be very useful to see how well EQI or other EI
measures, which are self-reported, correlate with follower or peer assessments of EI. At
least one 360-degree assessment instrument specifically oriented to the competencies
associated with success in the workplace (Sala, 2002) has also been formulated and
awaits validity testing. A final suggestion concerns the outcome measures used. While
the attitudinal variables predicted here are undoubtedly of interest to managers, it
would be arguably much more valuable to see how the EI and TL constructs would
perform in the prediction of hard, objectively measured productivity, efficiency or
profitability outcomes.
References
Antonakis, J. (2003), “Why ‘emotional intelligence’ does not predict leadership effectiveness”,
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 353-9.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership: an
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-96.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2002), “Emotion in the workplace: the new challenge for
managers”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16, pp. 76-87.
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1992), “Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions
moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 141-64.
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1993), “Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’ and
subordinates’ perceptions of military leadership”,Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 645-68.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1997), The Full Range of Leadership Development Manual,
Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.
Barling, J., Slater, F. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000), “Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: An exploratory study”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 157-61.
Bar-On, R. (1996), The Emotional Quotient Inventory: A Measure of Emotional Intelligence, Multi
Health Systems, Toronto.
Bar-On, R. (1997), Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical Manual, Multi Health
Systems, Toronto.
Bar-On, R. (2000), “Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the Emotional Quotient
Inventory”, in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J. (Eds), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, p. 385.
Bar-On, R. (2001), “Emotional intelligence and self-actualization”, in Ciarrochi, J., Forgas, J. and
Mayer, J.D. (Eds), Emotional Intelligence in Everyday Life: A Scientific Inquiry, Psychology
Press, New York, NY.
Bartko, J.J. (1976), “On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 762-5.
Bass, B.M. (1985a), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1985b), “Leadership: good, better, best”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 26-40.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1996), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J. and Bebb, M. (1987), “Transformational leadership and
the falling dominoes effect”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Bliese, P.D. (2000), “Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for
data aggregation and analysis”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W. (Eds), Multilevel Theory,
Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 349-81.
Bliese, P.D. and Halverson, R.R. (1996), “Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: an
examination of work hours, cohesion, and well-being”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 13, pp. 1171-89.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 901-11.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Bryman, A. (1996), “Leadership in organizations”, in Clagg, S.P., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds),
Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 276-92.
Castro, S.L. (2002), “Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: a comparison
of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg( j), hierarchical linear modeling, within- and
between-analysis, and random group resampling”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 69-93.
Charter, R.A. (1999), “Sample size requirements for precise estimates of reliability,
generalizability, and validity coefficients”, Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 559-66.
Cherniss, C. (2000), “Emotional intelligence: what is it and why it matters”, paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans,
LA.
Ciarrochi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C. and Caputi, P. (2001), “A critical evaluation of the emotional
intelligence construct”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 539-61.
Conger, J.A. (1999), “Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s
perspective on these developing streams of research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 145-79.
Cooper, R.K. (1997), “Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace”, Training &
Development, Vol. 51, pp. 31-8.
Cooper, R.K. and Sawaf, A. (1997), Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and
Organizations, Berkeley, New York, NY.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J.A. and Yammarino, F.J. (1984), Theory Testing in Organizational
Behavior: The Variant Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dawda, D. and Hart, S.D. (2000), “Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of the
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 28, pp. 797-812.
Duckett, H. and Macfarlane, E. (2003), “Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership in
retailing”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 309-17.
Emmerling, R. and Goleman, D. (2003), “Emotional intelligence: issues and common
misunderstandings”, Issues in Emotional Intelligence, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Feldt, L.S. and Ankenmann, R.D. (1998), “Appropriate sample size for comparing alpha
reliabilities”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 22, pp. 170-8.
Gardner, L. and Stough, C. (2002), “Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional
intelligence in senior level managers”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 68-78.
George, J. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence”, Human Relations,
Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-44.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Goleman, D. (1998), “What makes a leader”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76,
November-December, pp. 93-102.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of
Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gowing, M. (2001), “Measurement of individual emotional competence”, in Cherniss, C. and
Goleman, D. (Eds), Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure, and
Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Humphries, J.H., Weyant, L.E. and Sprague, R.D. (2003), “Organizational commitment: the roles
of emotional and practical intellect within the leader/follower dyad”, Journal of Business
and Management, Vol. 9, pp. 189-209.
Hunt, J.G. (1999), “Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: an
historical essay”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-44.
Judge, T.A., Ilies, R. and Colbert, A.E. (2004), “Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review
and test of theoretical propositions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3,
pp. 542-52.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002), “Personality and leadership: a
qualitative and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4,
pp. 765-80.
Lam, L.T. and Kirby, S.L. (2002), “Is emotional intelligence an advantage? An exploration of the
impact of emotional and general intelligence on individual performance”, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 1, pp. 133-43.
Law, K., Wong, C. and Song, L. (2004), “The construct and criterion validity of emotional
intelligence and its potential utility for management studies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-97.
Lewis, K.M. (2000), “When leaders display emotions: how followers respond to negative
emotional expression of male and female leaders”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 21, pp. 221-34.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
McGraw, K.O. and Wong, S.P. (1996), “Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation
coefficients”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1, pp. 30-46.
Mandell, B. and Pherwani, S. (2003), “Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: a gender comparison”, Journal of Business &
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 387-402.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D. (2002), Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1993), “The intelligence of emotional intelligence”, Intelligence,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 433-42.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D.
(Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, Basic
Books, New York, NY.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999), “Emotional intelligence meets standards for
traditional intelligence”, Intelligence, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 267-98.
Mayer, J.D., DiPaolo, M.T. and Salovey, P. (1990), “Perceiving affective content in ambiguous
visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence”, Journal of Personality Assessment,
Vol. 54 Nos 3-4, pp. 772-81.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2000), “Competing models of emotional intelligence”, in
Stenberg, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY, pp. 396-420.
Moshavi, D., Brown, F.W. and Dodd, N.G. (2003), “Leader self-awareness and its relationship to
subordinate attitudes and performance”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 407-18.
Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Connelly, M. and Marks, M. (2000), “Leadership skills: conclusions and
future directions”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 155-71.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. and Stough, C. (2001), “Emotional intelligence and effective
leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-10.
Piaget, J. (1981), Intelligence and Affectivity: Their Relationship during Child Development, Brown,
T.A., and Kaegi, C.E. (trans.), Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, (originally published in
1954).
Prati, L.M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G.R., Ammeter, A.P. and Buckley, M.R. (2003), “Emotional
intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes”, The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffith, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual
and empirical extensions”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-55.
Riggio, R.E. (1986), “Assessment of basic social skills”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 649-60.
Riggio, R.E. (1987), The Charisma Quotient, Dodd, Mead, New York, NY.
Riggio, R.E. (1998) in Friedman, H.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mental Health, Academic Press,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 397-8.
Ross, S.M. and Offermann, L.R. (1997), “Transformational leaders: measurement of personality
attributes and work group performance”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 1078-86.
Ryback, D. (1997), Putting Emotional Intelligence to Work: Successful Leadership Is More than IQ,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Sala, F. (2002), Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI): Technical Manual, Hay/Mcber Group,
Boston, MA.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.B. (1981), “Employment testing: old theories and new research
findings”, American Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1128-37.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J. and Dornheim, L.
(1998), “Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence”, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 167-77.
Sivanathan, N. and Fekken, G. (2002), “Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and
transformational leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 198-204.
Sosik, J. and Dworakivsky, A. (1998), “Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic leader: more
than meets the eye”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 503-27.
Sosik, J.J. and Mergerian, L.E. (1999), “Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance: the role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions”,
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-90.
Tepper, B.J. and Percy, P.M. (1994), “Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 734-44.
Thorndike, R.L. and Stein, S. (1937), “An evaluation of the attempts to measure social
intelligence”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 34, pp. 275-84.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986), The Transformational Leader, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Wechsler, D. (1940), “Nonintellective factors in general intelligence”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 37, pp. 444-5.
Weisinger, H. (1998), Emotional Intelligence at Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Wolf, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. and Druskat, V.U. (2002), “Emotional intelligence as the basis of
leadership emergence in self-managing teams”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 505-22.
Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002), “The effect of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: an exploratory study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 243-74.
Yukl, G. (1989), “Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 251-89.
Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
Zaccaro, S.J. and Horn, Z.N. (2003), “Leadership theory and practice: fostering an effective
symbiosis”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 769-805.
Zaccaro, S.J., Kemp, C. and Bader, P. (2004), “Leader traits and attributes”, in Antonakis, J.,
Cianciolo, A.T. and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 101-23.
Further reading
Antonakis, J. (2004), “On why ‘emotional intelligence’ will not predict leadership effectiveness
beyond IQ or the ‘big five’: an extension and rejoinder”, Organizational Analysis, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 171-82.
Corresponding author
F. William Brown can be contacted at: billbrown@montana.edu