DIMENSIONS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A
CORRELATION ANALYSIS
John N. N. Ugoani
College of Management and Social Sciences, Nigeria
E-mail: drjohnugoani@yahoo.com
Christain U. Amu
Federal University of Technology Owerri, Nigeria
E-mail: chrisuamu@yahoo.com
Emenike O. Kalu
Rhema University Aba, Nigeria
E-mail: emenikekaluonwukwe@yahoo.com
Submission: 29/01/2015
Revision: 12/02/2015
Accept: 25/02/2015
ABSTRACT
The major objective of this
study was to explore the nature of relationship between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership style using Pearson correlation method. Goleman
who popularized the concept of the science of emotional intelligence and
brought it to its academic zenith drew on a wealth of research to argue that
successful leaders need emotional intelligence, or the attributes of
self-awareness, impulse control, persistence, confidence, self-motivation
empathy, social deftness, trust worthiness, adaptability, and a talent of
collaboration. Data were generated through 5 – point Likert-type questionnaire
based on Schutte, Self-Report questionnaire. The Pearson correlation
coefficient shows a strong positive relationship between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership style. The study therefore concludes that
leadership success is to a greater extent, due to emotional intelligence.
Keywords:
Leadership, transformational leadership, emotional intelligence,
correlation.
1. INTRODUCTION
Despite the comparatively recent phenomenon of the
science of emotional intelligence (EI), pioneering academic studies find
significant positive relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership. This suggests that effective leaders possess
emotional intelligence, which is the ability to recognize and manage emotion in
one’s self and in others. Goleman (1995) posits that emotional intelligence is
made up of several competencies including self – awareness, motivation,
self-regulation, and empathy and relationship management. He proposes a mixed
model of emotional intelligence in terms of performance, integrating an
individual’s ability and personality and applying their corresponding effects
on performance in the workplace. Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) conceptualization
of emotional intelligence is based within the context of intelligence theory.
The pure theory of emotional intelligence integrates
key ideas from the fields of intelligence and emotion. From intelligence theory
comes the idea that intelligence involves the ability to carry out abstract
reasoning. They propose that emotional intelligence is comprised of the ability
to perceive, respond, manipulate, understand and manage emotional information
without experiencing them. Bar – On (1997) put forth a model of emotional
intelligence based within the context of personality theory, emphasizing the
codependence of the ability aspects of the construct with personality traits
and their application to personal wellbeing. (PAYNE, 1983; PETRIDES; FURNHAM,
2003, 2009; BASS, 1998, 2002; GOLEMAN, et al, 2002).
In a previous research, Mandel and Pherwani (2003)
find significant relationship (R = .50) between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership. According to Harms and Crede (2010) an information
package by Multi–Health systems claims that emotional intelligence is
synonymous with good leadership. Goleman (1998) who popularized the concept and
science of emotional intelligence and brought it to its academic zenith posits
that emotional intelligence is highly positively correlated with effective
leadership.
Cherniss and Goleman (2001) also assert that about 90
percent of leadership success is accounted for by emotional intelligence. A
foremost advocate of the relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership, Bass, (2002) in a classic study finds reasonable
positive correlation between the two variables. Other studies on the
relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership
include Antonakis, (2004), Ashkanasy and Daus (2005), Barling et al (2000).
While many studies into the relationship between
emotional and transformational leadership find high levels of positive
correlation others have come out with marginal or low levels of association.
For example, Harms and Crede (2010) in their meta – analysis find the
relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership to
be “quite low”.
They state that “Overall, our results linking EI and
transformational leadership variables were not as strong or as compelling as
advocates of EI testing predicted” Also, in a related research, Modassir and
Singh (2008) only find a “moderate relationship” between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership. Some scholars take the positive results as a
proof of the predictive validity of EI while some others are completely
undecided (LOCKE, 2005). In a situation where the results of empirical research
including a Meta–analysis are completely in a state of confusion, it becomes
clear that such results are due to some errors of study. To arrive at accurate
results researchers must use appropriate instruments like self – reports or
performance data in assessing the relationship between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership (HARMS; CREDE, 2010).
In an attempt to address part of the confusion raised
in previous studies and in particular the work of Harms and Crede (2010), this
study used a simple correlation analysis to evaluate the degree of relationship
between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, This is
imperative because the reason why some studies find small increases in
predictive validity is in fact a methodological fallacy (SEE; BARBUTO; BURBACH,
2006; HAYASHI; EWERT, 2006; HOFFMAN; FROST 2006; LANDY, 2005; KREITNER;
KINICKI, 2004; CARMELI, 2003; BENNIS, 1976).
The findings
of this study will be useful to leaders and aspiring leaders of industries and
even governments in Africa and other developing countries, since one of the key
problems of all developing countries is bad leadership. The
remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the
conceptual framework of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership.
Section 3 embodies methodology and data. Section 4 presents the results and
discussions, and section 5 concludes
the paper with policy implications.
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.
Emotional
Intelligence
Intelligence quotients (I.Q’s) were developed and used
during the initial part of the 20th century as measures of
intelligence. Psychologists later pioneered other modern intelligence testing
movement and the validity of I.Q was soon challenged on the grounds that it did
not consider situational factors such as environment or socio – cultural
setting while predicting achievement. Theorists began to hypothesize that
perhaps cognitive intelligence as measured by I. Q tests did not encompass
intelligence in its entirety, but that perhaps several types of intelligence
could coincide within one person.
Gardner (1983) again raised the issue of the theory of
multiple intelligences which dictated that individuals possess aptitudes in
several areas. These intelligences were thought by Gardner to be as important
as the type of intelligence typically measured by IQ tests. As is the case with
all related constructs such as leadership and personality several schools of
thought exist which aim to most accurately describe and measure the notion of
emotional intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) who originally used the term
“emotional intelligence” define it as “A form of intelligence that involves the
ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions to discriminate
among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions.
At the most general level however, emotional
intelligence refers to the ability to recognize and regulate emotions in
ourselves and others. Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Intelligence theory includes
both non – intellective and intellective elements of intelligence. The non –
intellective elements include: affective personal and social factors.
Regardless of the differences between definitions of emotional intelligence, it
is very clear that what is being referred to is distinct from standard
intelligence, or IQ.
Although the concept of emotional intelligence has
different definitions it describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case
of the trait emotional intelligence model, a self – perceived ability to
identify, assess and manage emotions of one’s self, of others, and of groups.
The idea of emotional intelligence lies in a handful of basic principles
identified by Salovey and Mayer (1990) that they used to test how well people
could identify emotions in faces, abstract designs and colors from which they
wrote articles about something called “emotional intelligence”.
According to Goleman (1995) emotionally intelligent
people have the ability to control their emotional impulses at least more so
than those who are not emotionally intelligent, they have the self – awareness
to know what they are feeling, and are able to think about and express those
things, they have empathy for the feelings of others and insight into how
others think, they can do things like delay gratification, they are optimistic
and generally positive; they understand easily the dynamics of a given group
and, most importantly, where they fit inside that group.
Because of differences in definitions, different
models of emotional intelligence have led to the development of various
instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures
may over-lap most researchers agree that they tap slightly different
constructs, such as leadership. The current measure of Mayer and Salovey’s
model of emotional intelligence, the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso’ Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of
emotion-based-problem-solving items.
The model introduced by Goleman (1995) focuses on
emotional intelligence as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive
leadership performance. The model outlines four main emotional intelligence
constructs: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship
management. He includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct
of emotional intelligence, and suggests that emotional competencies are not
innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be developed to
achieve outstanding performance. He posits that individuals are born with a
general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning
emotional competencies.
Bar–On (1997) defines emotional intelligence as being
concerned with effectively understanding one’s self and others, relating well
to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be
more successful in dealing with environmental demands. Bar–On (1997) posits
that emotional intelligence develops over time and that it can be improved
through training, programming, and therapy. He hypothesizes that those
individuals with higher than average emotional intelligence are in general more
successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures.
He also notes that a deficiency in emotional
intelligence can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional
problems. Problems in coping with one’s environment are thought by Bar–On, to
be especially common among those individuals lacking in emotional intelligence
competencies like reality testing, problem–solving, stress tolerance; and
impulse control and general mood.
In general, he considers emotional intelligence to
contribute equally to a person’s general intelligence which then offers an
indication of one’s potential to succeed in positions of importance. On the
other hand Petrides (2009) Trait Emotional Intelligence Model is general and
subsumes the Goleman (1995) and Bar–On (1997) models. The conceptualization of
emotional intelligence as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies
outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability.
This is an important distinction in as much as it
bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and
hypothesizes that is formulated about it (MATTHEW et al, 2007; PETRIDE et al,
2007; BRODY, 2004; COTE; MINER 2006; ROBERT et al, 2001; VERNON et al, 2008).
One of the major benefits of the conceptualization of emotional intelligence is
the potential for establishing casual relationships among the various levels of
a person’s psyche. Boyatzis (1994) followed an often described causal link
between the unconscious motive and trait level of personality to the social
role and self-image level to the behavioural levels.
Need for power and leadership predicts frequency of
demonstration of influence behaviours such as those evident in the competencies
of the social skills cluster. According to Goleman (1995) emotional
intelligence is a convenient phrase with which to focus attention on human
talent and that it incorporates the complexity of a person’s capability and
posits that emotional intelligence is highly predictive of success. Despite
differences in measurement methods all 3 major researchers on emotional
intelligence agree that it provides the bedrock for competencies necessary for
superior outcomes. Goleman (1995) represents this idea by making a distinction
between emotional intelligence and emotional competencies.
Emotional competence refers to the personal and social
skills that lead to superior performance in work and other challenging
situations like leadership. The emotional competencies are linked to and based
on emotional intelligence. A certain level of emotional intelligence is
necessary to learn the emotional competencies. For instance, the ability to
recognize accurately what another person is feeling enables one to develop a
specific competency such as influence, which provides the platform for
transformational leadership (CHERNISS, 2000).
2.2.
Emotional Intelligence Models
According to Goleman (2001) early theorists such as
Gardner (1983) paved the way for the current experts in the field of emotional
intelligence. Each theoretical paradigm conceptualizes emotional intelligence
from one of two perspectives: ability or mixed model. Ability models regard
emotional intelligence as a pure form of mental ability and thus as a pure
intelligence.
In contrast, mixed models of emotional intelligence
combine mental ability with personality characteristics such as optimism and
well-being. Currently the only ability model of emotional intelligence is the
Mayer and Salovey (1997) four branch model. Two mixed models of emotional
intelligence have been postulated, each within a somewhat different conception.
Bar–On (1997) has put forth a model based within the context of personality
theory, emphasizing the co-dependence of the ability aspects of emotional
intelligence with personality traits and their application to personal well –
being.
In contrast Goleman (2001) propounded a mixed model in
terms of performance, integrating an individual’s abilities and personality and
applying their corresponding effects on performance in the workplace. Petrides and Furnham (2007), proposed the
trait emotional intelligence model which is a constellation of emotion related
self – perceptions located at the lower levels of personality. Despite
differences in models all the models other than none, suggest that emotional
intelligence represents an ability to validly reason with emotions and to use
emotions to enhance thought. Intelligence theorists posit that each of the
models has a relationship with other related constructs like leadership and
personality (LOCK, 2005; ROBERT et al, 2001; SMITH et al, 2008).
2.3.
Emotional Intelligence Measures
Due to differences in models different measures of
emotional intelligence exist. The current measure of Mayer and Salovey’s (1997)
model is the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (2002). The
MSCEIT is designed for individuals 17 years of age or older and aims to measure
the four abilities of perception, facilitation of thought, understanding and
regulation outlined by the ability model of emotional intelligence.
The MSCEIT is comprised of 141 items. The scale yields
six scores = an overall emotional intelligence score, expressed as an emotional
intelligence quotient, or EIQ. The Bar – On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ – i),
is a self – report measure of emotional intelligence for individuals 16years of
age and over. Developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior
that provides an estimate of one’s emotional and social intelligence.
The Emotional Quotient Inventory is not meant to
measure personality traits or cognitive capacity but rather to measure one’s
ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures
133 items are used to obtain a Total Emotional Quotient and to produce five
composite scales corresponding to the 5 main components of the Bar–On (1997)
Model of Emotional Intelligence such as Interpersonal EQ, Adaptability EQ,
Stress management EQ, Impulse Control EQ, and General mood EQ. The items are
measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5. Total raw scores are converted
into standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.
Goleman (2001) developed the Emotional Competency
Inventory (ECI) as a measure of emotional intelligence based on his emotional
intelligence competencies. The Emotional Competency Inventory is a multi –
rater (360 degree) instrument that provides self – report, direct report, and
peer ratings on seizes of behavioral indicators of emotional intelligence. It
measures 20 competencies organized into the four main constructs outlined by
his Mixed Model of emotional intelligence: self–awareness, social awareness,
self–management, and social skills. Each respondent is asked to describe
themselves or other person on a scale ranging from 1 to 7.
Petrides, et al, (2007) developed the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). The TEIQue is an open – access measure of
emotional intelligence that was specifically designed to measure the construct
comprehensively. The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides’, et
al, (2007) Model that conceptualizes emotional intelligence in terms of
personality. The Test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors. Well-being,
Self–control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The TEIQue scores are positively
related to some of the Big Five personality traits. (BRODY 2004; PETRIDES;
FURNHAM, 2009, BAR-ON,1996)
2.4.
Emotional Competence
An emotional competence is a learned capacity based on
emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work. It
involves emotional capacities and such critical elements as effective
communication and being superb at influence, getting others to respond in a
desired way. At the heart of this competence are two abilities: empathy, which
involves reading the feelings of others, and social skills which allow handling
those feelings artfully.
Emotional intelligence determines the potential for
learning the practical skills that are based on its five domains: self –
awareness, motivation, self – regulation, empathy, and managing relationships.
Emotional competence shows how much of EI potential that have been translated into
on – the – jobs capabilities, for example, being good at serving customers is
an emotional competence based on empathy; likewise, trustworthiness is a
competence based on self – regulation or handling impulses and emotions well.
Both customer service and trustworthiness are competencies that can make people
outstanding in their work.
Emotional competencies cluster into groups each based
on a common underlying emotional intelligence capacity. The underlying
emotional intelligence capacity is vital if people are to successfully learn
the competencies necessary to succeed in the workplace (ABRAHAM, 2004).
If they are deficient in social skills, for instance,
they will be inept at persuading or inspiring others, at leading teams or
catalyzing change. If they have little self – awareness, they will be oblivious
to their own weakness and lack the self – confidence that comes from certainty
about their strengths. A classic study by Boyatzis (1994), suggests that in
general emotional competencies play a far larger role in superior job
performance than do cognitive abilities and technical expertise. (GOLEMAN,
1998; BELLAMY; BELLAMY, 2003; BESHEARS, 2004; BROWN, et al, 2006, PETRIDES;
KOKKINAKI, 2007)
2.5.
Five Dimensions of Emotional
Intelligence
Goleman (1998) posits that the five dimensions of
emotional intelligence are self–awareness, self–regulation, motivation,
empathy, and relationship management subsumed in his four major EI scales . (BARZII; SLASKI, 2003).
- Self–awareness:
Self–awareness occurs when the individual knows what he is feeling in the
moment, and using those preferences to guide decision-making, having a
realistic assessment of his own abilities and a well-grounded sense of
self-confidence.
- Self-regulation:
This involves handling our emotions so that they facilitate rather than
interfere with the task at hand; having conscientious and delaying
gratification, to pursue goals; recovering well from emotional distress.
- Motivation:
This dimension of emotional intelligence involves using available deepest
preferences to move and guide the individual toward desired goals, to help
in taking initiative and striving. To improve, and to persevere in the
face of setbacks and frustration.
- Empathy:
This is related to sensing what other people are feeling, being able to
take their perspective, and cultivating rapport and attunement with a
broad diversity of people.
- Relationship
management: Relationship management manifests in handling
emotions in relationships well and accurately reading social situations
and networks, interacting smoothly; using these skills to persuade and
lead, negotiate and settle disputes, for cooperation and teamwork. These dimensions of EI are
critical for transformational leadership.
2.6.
Transformational Leadership
Leadership is an interesting area in the field of
organizational behavior, one in which new studies are consistently springing
up. One new important perspective of leadership is transformational leadership.
Leadership is about relationships and influence (MAXWELL, 2005). Transformational
leaders inspire and excite followers to high levels of performance.
Transformational leaders rely on their personal attributes instead of their
official positions; they are visionary and have the capacity of converting
their visions into reality (KENT, et al, 2001; ADAIR, 2003; BASS, 1990, BENNIS,
1989, BASS, 1985).
Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is about
the use of reward and punishment to enhance employee performance (STERNBERG,
2003). According to Bass and Avolio, (1994), transformational leadership adds
to the effects of transactional leadership, but exceptional transactional
leadership cannot substitute for transformational leadership.
Research on leaders from over 200 organizations
supports this idea (BONO; JUDGE, 2004). Transformational leadership is a
process through which positive change or transformation is introduced to
individuals and/or organizations. Bass and Avolio (1994) postulate five
dimensions of transformational leadership to include idealized influence
(attributed), idealized influence (behaviors), individual consideration,
inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation.
A transformational leader is the catalyst who
transforms the subordinates’ motivation to commitment and their commitment into
exceptional achievements. A transformational leader transforms and creates
meaning for his or her subordinates, a meaning that enhances the subordinates
need for identity and does this by giving meaning and strengthening the concept
of the self and by boosting their individual identity (MODASSIR; SINGH, 2008).
Drawing from a wealth of research, these transformational leadership dimensions
are identical with the major dimensions of emotional intelligence.
2.7.
Five
Dimensions of Transformational Leadership
- Idealized
influence (attributed): Involves the socialized charisma of the leader
whether or not he or she is perceived as being confident and committed to
high order ideas. This occurs when leaders earn the trust and respect of
their followers by doing the right thing rather than ensuring that
subordinates do things right. (HUMPHREYS; EINSTEIN, 2003; ANTONAKIS, et al, 2009; ANTONAKIS;
HOUSE, 2002)
- Idealized
influence (behavioral): According to Harms and Crede
(2010) idealized influence (behavioral) refers to charismatic actions by
the leader that are based on beliefs, ideas, or values. Humphreys and
Einstein (2003) believe that transformational leaders operate out of
deeply held personal value systems that include qualities like justice and
integrity. By expressing these personal standards, transformational
leaders unite their followers and more importantly, they change their
followers’ goals and beliefs for the better.
- Individualized
consideration. Individualized consideration is the extent to
which a leader attends to the needs of his or her followers by providing
socio – emotional support. It involves mentoring followers, maintaining
regular contact, motivating followers for self – actualization, and
providing the requisite empowerment for them. It involves moving along
with followers and not moving ahead of them. This is important because
leadership is dispositional and not positional. Consequently, individual
consideration implicates treating the subordinates as individuals and
never just as members of a work group. This transformational leadership
trait is exhibited by being compassionate, empathic, and responsive to the
subordinates needs by appreciating their attainments.
- Inspirational
motivation: Inspiration motivation is related to the degree
to which leaders inspire and appeal to followers by establishing
challenging targets and expressing optimism and hope as regards target
achievement. According to Conger and Kanungo (1988) inspirational
motivation and charisma go hand-in-hand. They posit that transformational
leaders inspire their subordinates to accomplish great feats by
communicating high expectations by using symbols to focus effects and by
expressing important purposes. Transformational leaders pay close
attention to the individual differences among their subordinates and often
act as mentors to them.
- Intellectual
stimulation: Intellectual stimulation occurs when leaders
engage in behaviors that make the subordinates to challenge their
assumptions, think creatively, take higher risks and act in more
intelligent ways. According to Shin, et al, (2003) intellectual
stimulation promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful
problem-solving abilities. It also involves engaging the rationality of
the subordinates, and makes them provide answers to their problems by
themselves.
2.8.
Relationship between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership
In spite of wide disparities in the various EI models
and measurement methods, contemporary interest in the field of EI continues to
grow, and more attention is now being directed toward the relationship between
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Cherniss and Goleman
(2001) opine that emotional intelligence contributes to about 90 percent of
leadership success. There is a growing number of theoretical evidence that
emotional intelligence is positively correlated with transformational
leadership (DAUS; ASHKANASY, 2005).
For example, EI competencies like self – awareness,
self – regulation, empathy, self-confidence, transparency, and optimism are
critical for transformational leadership (GOLEMAN, et al, 2002). Emotional
management promotes positive effect and confidence in followers, leaders who
are self – aware possess a greater than average sense of purpose and meaning
and equally people skilled in emotional intelligence frequently put the needs
of others ahead of their own individual needs. According to George (2000)
emotional appeal is needed by transformational leaders for inspirational
motivation of their subordinates.
According to Brown et al (2006) adherence to
professional or moral standard of behavior are common aspects of both emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership. Barling, et al (2000) observe
that emotional intelligence is associated with three dimensions of
transformational leadership such as idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, and individualized consideration.
Gardner and Stough (2002) state that the ability to
manage emotions in relationships allows the emotionally intelligent leader to
understand followers needs and to react accordingly. Social intelligence is
imperative in leadership positions. Stenberg (2003) defines social intelligence
as the ability to perceive one’s own and others’ internal state, motives and behaviors,
and to act towards them optimally on the basis of that information.
Researchers in the area of leadership state that
effective transformational leaders must possess social and emotional
intelligence. These elements are considered critical to inspire followers and
to build strong relationships. Research comparing emotional intelligent and
transformational leadership consistently finds positive correlations between
the two constructs.
In a study examining transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence in 32 individuals in management positions, Mandell and
Pherwani (2003) find that the level of emotional intelligence as measured by
the Bar – On (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ – i) significantly relate
to transformational leadership style (R = .50) Also, the MSCEIT (2002) reports
a positive correlation between EI and transformational leadership.
2.9.
Hypotheses
Using emotional intelligence as the index of positive
transformational leadership behaviors, the present study hypothesizes thus:
HO: Emotional intelligence has no correlation
with transformational leadership.
Hi: Emotional intelligence has correlation
with transformational leadership.
3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA
3.1.
Research design
The research adopts survey design. The survey design
describes a technique of data collection in which questionnaire was used to
collect data about an identified population (BURNS; GROVE, 1993). The design
can also be used to assess interrelationships. According to Shaughnessy and
Zechmeister (1997), this design is ideal to address the descriptive functions
with correlational research.
3.1.1. Participants
The sample comprised of a dyad of 47 managers and
subordinates, ranging in age from 18 to 70 years, and an average work
experience of 15.5 years, holding current positions for 6.5 years on the
average. The participants totaling 94 (male 70%) and (Female 30%) engaged in
different industries and occupations were obtained from the general population
in Aba, Abia State, Nigeria. The author personally administered the
questionnaire on the participants in the various organizations. All the
questionnaire copies distributed were retrieved representing 100 percent
response rate.
3.1.2. Instrument
Data were collected using the composite EI type-scale
developed by Schutte, et al, (1998). The scale is comprised of 33, 5 – Point
Likert – type scale, with numeric values ranging from 1 strongly disagreed to 5
strongly agreed. Previous investigations find the total scores on the Schutte
Self – Report Emotional Intelligence (SSREI) to be acceptably internally
consistent at about .90
3.1.3. Procedure
Total score was derived by summing up the item
responses. Validation included comparison with theoretically related constructs
like personality, alexithymia, and emotion. Data were coded using strict coding
procedures and coding sheets to ensure a high level of accuracy and rating
agreement (JONKER; VOSLOO, 2010; HARMS; CREDE, 2010). The resultant scores
corresponding with the five dimensions of emotional intelligence and five
dimensions of transformational leadership were then used for simple correlation
analysis. Contemporary emotional intelligence researchers such as Modassir and
Singh (2008) and Harms and Crede (2010) state that emotional intelligence
factors of self – awareness, self – confidence, emotional management, empathy
and transparency are positively correlated with transformational leadership
style. The data were presented in Table 1
3.2.
Data Analysis
To
investigate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership, this study employs the descriptive and correlation
analyses. Descriptive
analysis involves computing of mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis,
and Jarque-Bera statistic for the variables. Correlation
analysis, on the other hand, describes the degree of relationship between two
variables, and ranges from -1.00 to 1, with -1.00 and 1.00 representing perfect
negative and positive relationships respectively and 0 representing a lack of
relationship between the variables. The descriptive analysis and correlation
coefficient are presented in Tables 2 and 3.