An Examination of Emotional Intelligence and Individual Advancement

© Monash Business Review Volume 2 Issue 2 – July 2006

1

The relationship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement and the mediating role of transformational leadership

Ross Donohue Department of Management, Monash University

[email protected]

Louisa Stevensen Department of Management, Monash University

Fully Refereed Paper Submitted to the HRM, performance and worker well-being stream of the ACREW Conference, Prato Centre, Tuscany, Italy 1-4 July 2006.

This study examined whether emotional intelligence was related to individual

advancement and the potential mediating role of transformational leadership in this

relationship. The sample comprised 140 adults employed in a range of occupations.

Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that emotional intelligence was positively

related to career advancement, when the effects of age, gender, education, and tenure

were held constant. Additionally, using a series of hierarchical regression analyses,

transformational leadership was found to fully mediate the relationship between

emotional intelligence and individual advancement. Theoretical and practical

implications arising from these findings are discussed.

Introduction Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively nascent construct that has attracted considerable interest in both the empirical and popular management literature. There are a number of competing definitions of emotional intelligence, however, one of the most robust conceptualisations was proffered by Mayer and Salovey (1997). They stated that, “emotional intelligence is 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 thoughts, actions, and to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (p.189).

A number of authors (Abraham, 2000; Akers & Porter, 2003; Cadman & Brewer, 2001; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Foote, 2001; Goleman, 1995, 1996, 1998; Langley, 2000; Martinez, 1997; Mayer, 2001; Miller, 1999; Rice, 1999; Watkin, 2000) have asserted that emotional intelligence is predictive of the likelihood and extent of an individual’s advancement and success. However, it should be noted that many of these claims relating EI to advancement, have been made without the support of empirical evidence. Additionally, little research has been conducted at the organisational level and proposed applications of EI in this context tend to be predominantly based on derivative arguments and anecdotal case descriptions (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000). Given the paucity of empirical research, the first purpose of this study is to examine whether emotional intelligence is related individual advancement.


2

Emotional intelligence and individual advancement Individual advancement within an organisation typically entails at least one or more of the following factors: progression to a higher organisational level (promotion) (Boudreau, Boswell & Judge, 2001; Metz & Tharenou, 2001); an increase in span of control (Tharenou, Latimer, & Conroy, 1994); greater responsibility at work either in terms of people, projects or finances, or an increase in pay (Pergamit & Veum, 1999). In one of the few empirical studies to examine EI and advancement, Cadman and Brewer (2001) found that the level of EI was a reliable predictor of career progression with a sample of nurses employed in the United States. Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) used a competency based framework to assess 100 managers in terms of competencies and advancement within their organisations, over a 7-year period. They also measured intelligence quotient (IQ), EI, and potentially related personality traits. Dulewicz and Higgs found that competency based EI factors explained 36% of the variance in organisational advancement, while IQ only contributed 27%. Similarly, Bachman et al. (2000) employed the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I; Bar-On, 1997) to examine the ability of emotional intelligence to predict job performance in a sample of 36 debt collectors. The overall score for EI for the “less successful” group was significantly lower (t = 1.85, p < .05) than the overall EI score of the “best practices” group. Rice (1999), examined 164 employees of an insurance company, organised into 26 teams, and 11 of their team leaders. Specifically, it was found that scores on EI were related to certain aspects of effective team leadership and team performance. Additionally, the total EI score of the 26 teams was found to be significantly related to managers’ ratings of team performance for customer service (r = .46, p< .05).

The author most commonly associated with EI, Goleman (1998) has made reference to studies conducted at Bell Laboratories, which he claims demonstrate the association between EI and individual advancement. In these studies, engineers who were top performers were found to be more emotionally intelligent than their peers. Jordan et al. (2002) examined the relationship between EI and team effectiveness with a sample of 448 Australian students, divided into 3- to 7- person teams. The teams were then separated into two groups, one containing the 15 highest average EI teams and the other comprising the 15 lowest average EI teams. The results indicated that the group consisting of the low EI teams exhibited a lower level of process effectiveness than the group consisting of the high EI teams.

Although the aforementioned studies all identified a positive relationship between EI and individual advancement, in some instances this finding should be interpreted with caution, due to methodological limitations. For example, Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) failed to measure the two central facets of EI (emotion awareness and emotion regulation) and relied on self-reported intelligence to assess IQ. The study by Bachman et al. (2000) employed an inordinately small sample (N = 36) and assessed EQ using Bar-on’s (1997) EQI, which is not as theoretically robust or as psychometrically sound as those measures based on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model (Zeidner et al., 2004). Further, the results of the Bell Laboratories studies have never been published in full and indeed examination of Goleman’s (1998) secondary account of these studies indicates that EI was imputed rather than actually measured. Finally, many of the studies cited failed to control for variables such as age, gender, education, and tenure which have been identified as potential confounding factors in advancement research (Metz, 2004). Despite the limitations, based on the findings of these studies (Bachman et al., 2000; Cadman & Brewer, 2001; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Jordan et al., 2002; Rice, 1999), Hypothesis 1 states:

emotional intelligence will be positively related to individual advancement, when the effects of age, gender, education, and tenure are controlled for statistically.

The current study seeks to redress the limitations of extant studies through the application of a valid and reliable measure of EI [based on Mayer and Salovey’s, (1997) conceptualisation], the use of a sample size large enough to provide adequate statistical power, and by controlling for the effects of potential covariates.


3

Potential mediating role of transformational leadership While some studies have established a link between EI and individual advancement, the strength of the associations have generally been modest, suggesting that other variables may mediate this relationship (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004). A number of authors (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Goleman 1998) have theorised that EI is an antecedent of transformational leadership. Bass and Avolio (2000) have defined the transformational leader as an individual, who arouses interest and awareness in another individual or group, increases the confidence of individuals, and orientates their subordinates towards performance beyond established goals. Empirical research has also provided support for the proposition that EI is related to transformational leadership. Gardner and Stough (2002) examined 110 senior level managers and found a significant positive correlation between EI and transformational leadership (r = .68, p <0.01).

Palmer et al. (2001) investigated the relationship between EI and the facets of transformational leadership with a sample of 43 past and current students. It was found that idealised influence correlated significantly with emotional monitoring (r = .44, p < .01), while inspirational motivation and individualised consideration were both correlated with emotional monitoring (r = .42, p < .01; r = .55, p < .01 respectively) and emotional management (r = .37, p < .05; r = .35, p < .05 respectively). Additionally, Barling, et al. (2000) examined whether EI was associated with transformational leadership in a sample of 49 managers. Results indicated that EI was related to three aspects of transformational leadership: idealised influence (r = .12, p < .05), inspirational motivation (r = .56, p < .05), and individualised consideration (r = .49, p < .05).

Sosik and Mergerian (1999) found that emotionally intelligent individuals were more secure in their ability to manipulate and control life events. Based on this finding, the authors concluded that individuals with high emotional intelligence are able to provide followers with individualised focus, intellectual stimulation, and motivation. These behavioural characteristics of emotionally intelligent people align with the three major components of transformational leadership: individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation.

While there appears to be theoretical and empirical support for the relationship between EI and transformational leadership, there is also evidence that transformational leadership is related to career advancement, further strengthening the mediation argument. Vitry (1996) articulated that effective leadership is a powerful force in creating high performance organisations. Further, he suggested that effective leadership is highly valued by organisations and as a result, individuals who exhibit effective leadership are usually rewarded with advancement. Additionally, Bass (1996; 1997) noted that exhibiting transformational leadership may impact positively on the likelihood of being promoted to more advanced levels in organisations and Bar-On (1997) has stated that transformational leaders exhibit superior work performance.

George (2000) has argued that leaders demonstrating high EI are more able to understand when and why their followers experience particular feelings and are more able to find ways of instilling courage, optimism and enthusiasm in followers. Lewis (1996) also noted the importance of effective leadership in influencing the likelihood of promotion, which is clearly an important aspect of individual advancement. Similarly, Lipsky (1996) examined the relationship between effective leadership and individual success criteria and found that 15 of the 16 scales assessing leadership were significantly related to effectiveness, while 14 of the 16 scales were related to at least one of the success factors.

Considered together, the findings of these studies indicate that EI is related to transformational leadership and that transformational leadership is related to career advancement. Recently, Brown and Moshavi (2005) have argued that more research, examining the potential interplay between EI and transformational leadership in predicting desirable individual and organisational outcomes, is required. Thus, the second purpose of the current study is to examine whether transformational leadership mediates the relationship between EI and individual advancement. While no previous studies have examined the potential mediating role of transformational leadership, based on positive bivariate findings, Hypothesis 2 states:


4

transformational leadership will mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement, when the effects of age, gender, education, and tenure are controlled for statistically.

Method Participants

The sample was comprised of 140 adults employed in a range of occupations. Participants ranged in age from 22 to 56 years, with a mean age of 33.5 years and 65 (46.4%) were female, while 75 (53.6%) were male. In terms of educational levels, 53.6% of respondents held undergraduate degrees, while 27.5% had completed some form of postgraduate study.

Measures

Participant information: Respondents completed a research questionnaire which assessed information such as age, gender, education, and organisational tenure.

Emotional intelligence: Emotional intelligence was measured using the Work Group Emotional Intelligence Profile, Version 3 (WEIP- 3; Jordan et al., 2002), which is based on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model of EI. This scale consists of 46 items and was designed to measure the emotional intelligence of individuals within teams. For the purpose of the current study, this measure was slightly adapted so that it focused on the EI of individuals within their organisations (effectively a larger group) rather than small work groups. This measure uses a Likert response scale, ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) through to 7 (strong agreement). The WEIP-3 consists of three subscales: ability to deal with one’s own emotions; ability to deal with others’ emotions; and ability to use emotions to facilitate thinking. Jordan et al. examined the convergent and divergent validity of the WEIP-3 and found that it was positively correlated with similar scales and negatively related to scales measuring theoretically contradictory constructs. It would appear that the WEIP-3 is quite internally consistent as an alpha coefficient of .74 was obtained with the current sample.

Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership was measured using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X; Bass & Avolio, 2000). For the purpose of this study only 20 items of the MLQ, which specifically assess transformational leadership, were used. The items are displayed as propositional statements and are measured on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). There are five sub-scales which assess transformational leadership behaviour including: idealised influence attributes, idealised influence behaviours, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. Consistent with the procedure employed in a number of previous studies (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Dubinsky, Yammarino, & Jolson, 1995; Sosik & Megerian, 1999) we operationalised transformational leadership as being a single 20-item scale. This decision was supported by the fact that there were high intercorrelations between the five subscales (ranging from .51 to .69) in our data. Additionally, second-order principal components analysis conducted on the five scales yielded one significant factor, which accounted for 64.4% of the variance.

Individual advancement: In order to assess individual advancement, a composite was derived comprising standardised scores for annual salary; ratio level within the organisation (calculated by dividing number of levels in a participant’s organisation by a participant’s current level) and span of control. While the intercorrelations between these variables were all positive and significant, no correlation coefficient exceeded .70. This linear composite has been used extensively in the organisational behaviour literature as a measure of individual advancement (Boudreau, et al., 2001; Pergamit & Veum, 1999; Tharenou, et al., 1994).


5

Procedure

Initially, the researchers contacted individuals, employed in a range of occupations, by utilising personal, academic, and consultancy referrals. These individuals were asked to act as research representatives in their organisations. The research representatives were provided with packages containing a covering letter, the questionnaires, and a reply-paid envelope. These research representatives then distributed the packages to work colleagues in their organisations. The covering letter explained the purpose of the study and assured potential respondents that their participation was voluntary and that their responses would remain confidential. Participants completed the questionnaires anonymously, in their own time, and returned them to the researcher using the reply paid envelopes. A total of 140 questionnaires were retuned, however, as the research representatives distributed the questionnaires in their respective organisations, using a convenience sampling procedure, it was not possible to systematically identify the refusal rate, nor the reasons for not participating. Missing data was dealt with using pairwise deletion and no cases were found to have excessive missing data.

Results Prior to analysis, checks of the theoretical assumptions underlying multiple regression were undertaken, including normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. These assumptions were met and indeed Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) have stated that multiple regression is quite robust to any violations. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the variables in this study. As evident in Table 1, none of the independent variables were correlated above .7, suggesting an absence of multicollinearity. The fact that none of the tolerance levels were found to be less than .1 and that all of the variance inflation factors (VIF) were less than 10 (See Tables 2-5) provided additional evidence that the variables were not collinear (Pallant, 2001).

Table 1

Mean, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients Among Variables

Variable

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age

33.53 9.09

2. Gender

1.46 0.50 -.14

3. Education

6.79 1.27 -.10 -.17*

4. Tenure

5.74 1.56 .55** -.08 -.13

5. Emotional Intelligence

239.72 16.09 .90 .21* .06 -.05

6. Transformational Leadership

2.89 0.47 .23** .04 .08 .18 .49**

7. Individual Advancement

0.0 0.85 .57** -.26** .26** .31* .24** .39**

*p < .05. **p < .01.


6

The first purpose of this study was to examine whether emotional intelligence was related to individual advancement. Hypotheses 1 stated that emotional intelligence would be positively related to individual advancement, when the effects of age, gender, education, and tenure were controlled for statistically. In order to address this hypothesis, hierarchical regression analysis was undertaken with age, gender, education, and tenure entered as a block at Step 1 and emotional intelligence entered at Step 2. In this analysis, individual advancement served as the criterion variable.

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Individual Advancement With Controls Entered at Step 1 and Emotional Intelligence Entered at Step 2

Total Sample (N = 101) Variables β Tolerance

s VIF

Step 1:

Control variables

Age .56** .68 1.46

Gender -.13 .95 1.06

Education .29** .95 1.06

Organisational tenure .02 .69 1.45 df = (4, 132)

R2 .44**

F 26.15

Step 2:

Control variables

Age .52** .67 1.51

Gender -.18 .89 1.12

Education .27** .94 1.07

Organisational tenure .05 .68 1.50

Predictor variable

Emotional Intelligence .22** .92 1.09

Df = (1, 131)

R2 .49**

ΔR2 .05**

F 11.21** Note. β = Standardised beta coefficients; VIF = Variance inflation factors *p < .05. ** p < .01.


7

Examination of Table 2 demonstrates that entry of the control variables at Step 1 was significant, R = .67, F (4,132) = 26.15, p<.001. The R-squared value for Step 1 was .44, which indicated that together the controls accounted for 44% of the variance in individual advancement. The inclusion of emotional intelligence at Step 2, resulted in a Change in R-squared of .05, Finc (1, 132) = 11.21, p<.001. This indicated that emotional intelligence contributed significant explanatory power (explained an additional 5% of the variance), over and above that already accounted for by the control variables. The beta weight obtained for emotional intelligence was .22 (t = 3.35, p<.001), indicating that scores on this variable were positively related to scores on individual advancement.

The second purpose of the study was to determine whether transformational leadership mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement. Hypothesis 2 states that transformational leadership will mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement. Baron and Kenny (1986) have stated that four conditions need to be met in order for mediation to be determined. Figure 1 depicts these four conditions in relation to the current study’s variables. The first condition of mediation is that variations in the independent variable must be significantly associated with variations in the dependent variable. As evident in the above analysis, emotional intelligence was significantly related to individual advancement and therefore satisfied the first condition of mediation (Path A).

Figure 1. Diagram of Predictor, Mediator and Criterion Relationships (adapted from Grimmer & Oddy, 2006)

The second condition of mediation - that variations in the independent variable must significantly account for variations in the presumed mediator variable - was also assessed via hierarchical regression. In this analysis, transformational leadership served as the criterion, age, gender, education, and tenure were entered as controls at Step 1, and emotional intelligence was entered as the predictor at Step 2. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.

Predictor: Emotional

Intelligence

Mediator: Transformationa

l Leadership

Criterion: Individual

Advancement

Path A

Path B Path C

Path A1

Mediator


8

Table 3

Mediation Test 2 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Transformational Leadership With Controls Entered at Step 1 and Emotional Intelligence Entered at Step 2


s VIF

Step 1:

Control variables

Age .25* .68 1.42

Gender .10 .95 1.06

Education .12 .95 1.06

Organisational tenure .00 .69 1.45 Df = (4, 132)

R2 .07*

F 2.57*

Step 2:

Control variables

Age .16 .67 1.50

Gender -.02 .89 1.12

Education .08 .94 1.07


Predictor variable

Emotional Intelligence .48** .92 1.09

Df = (1, 131)

R2 .28**

ΔR2 .21**


Review of Table 3 indicates that the control variables entered at Step 1 resulted in an R of .67, F (4,132) = 26.15, p<.001. An R-squared of .07 was obtained, which demonstrated that 7% of the variance in transformational leadership was explained by the control variables. After including emotional intelligence at Step 2, Change in R-squared was .21, Finc (1, 132) = 38.11, p<.001, indicating that emotional intelligence explained an additional 21% of the variance in transformational leadership. The significant beta weight for emotional intelligence (β = .48, t = 6.17, p<.001) demonstrated that the second condition required for mediation (Path B) had been met. Hierarchical regression was also utilised to test the third condition of mediation: that variations in


9

the presumed mediator must be associated with variations in the dependent variable. In this analysis, the control variables were entered at Step1 and transformational leadership was entered as the predictor variable at Step 2, while individual advancement was the criterion. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Mediation Test 3 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Individual Advancement With Controls Entered at Step 1 and Transformational Leadership Entered at Step 2


s VIF

Step 1:

Control variables

Age -.56** .68 1.46

Gender -.13 .95 1.05

Education .29** .95 1.05

Organisational tenure .02 .69 1.45 Df = (4, 135)

R2 .44**

F 26.75**

Step 2:

Control variables

Age .50** .65 1.53

Gender -.16* .94 1.06

Education .26** .93 1.07


Predictor variable

Transformational Leadership .26** .93 1.08

Df = (1, 134)

R2 .50**

ΔR2 .06**


As the results for Step 1 of this analysis are identical to those detailed in Table 2 and have been discussed earlier, they will not be discussed here. The addition of transformational leadership to the equation at Step 2, resulted in a Change in R-squared of .06, Finc (1, 134) = 16.69, p<.001. Thus, transformational leadership was found to contribute significantly to the prediction of individual advancement by explaining an additional 6% of the variance in this criterion, over and


10

above the effects of the controls. The beta weight for emotional intelligence (β = .26, t = 4.09, p<.001) revealed that it was positively related to individual advancement and therefore indicated that the third condition for mediation (Path C) had been satisfied.

The final of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) conditions for mediation holds that when variance due to the presumed mediator is partialled out of the equation, there is no longer a significant relation between the independent and dependent variables. Again, hierarchical regression was employed with the controls entered at Step 1, transformational leadership (mediator) entered at Step 2, and emotional intelligence entered at Step 3, while individual advancement served as the criterion. Table 5 presents the results of this analysis.

Table 5

Mediation Test 4 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Individual Advancement With Controls Entered at Step 1, Transformational Leadership Entered at Step 2, and Emotional Intelligence Entered at Step 3


s VIF

Step 1:

Control variables

Age .57** .68 1.46

Gender -.13 .95 1.06

Education .29** .95 1.10

Organisational tenure .02 .95 1.10 df = (5, 94)

R2 .44** .69 1.45

F 26.16**

Step 2:

Control variables

Age .50** .93 1.08

Gender -.16* .82 1.22

Education .26** .85 1.18


Mediator variable


df = (1, 131)

R2 .50**

ΔR2 .06**

F 16.31**

Step 3


11

Control variables

Age .49** .65 1.54

Gender -.18** .89 1.12

Education .26** .93 1.08


Mediator variable


Predictor variable

Emotional Intelligence .12 .71 1.40

df = (1, 130)

R2 .51**

ΔR2 .01

F 2.91 Note. β = Standardised beta coefficients; VIF = Variance inflation factors *p < .05. ** p < .01.

While the results from the three Steps in the analysis are depicted in Table 5, only those obtained from Step 3 will be discussed here as the findings from Step 1 and Step 2 are identical to those from earlier analyses and have been discussed above. The inclusion of emotional intelligence to the equation at Step 3 did not result in a significant increment in R-squared. Consistent with the final condition of mediation, when the effects of transformational leadership were partialled out, the relationship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement became nonsignificant (Path A1).

Discussion The first purpose of this study was to examine whether EI was related to individual advancement. Hypotheses 1 stated that EI would be positively related to individual advancement, when the effects of age, gender, education, and tenure are held constant and the results of the current study supported this assertion. Thus, individuals who were higher in emotional intelligence were more likely to advance in their organisation. This positive relationship is consistent with the findings of a number of previous studies (Bachman, et al., 2000; Cadman & Brewer, 2001; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Jordan et al., 2002; Rice, 1999).

This finding of the current study also provides support for the theoretical argument that emotional intelligence is an important factor in determining career success (Abraham, 2000; Akers & Porter, 2003; Cadman & Brewer, 2001; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Foote, 2001; Goleman, 1995, 1996, 1998; Langley, 2000; Martinez, 1997; Mayer, 2001; Miller, 1999; Watkin, 2000). Those proffering this argument have often been criticised for doing so without sufficient empirical evidence (Zeidner et al., 2004) and therefore the finding of the current study is important as it provides some support for this assertion. Essentially, these authors state that performance and advancement is dependent on interpersonal workplace behaviours that occur as a result of high emotional intelligence: effective interpersonal relationships, adaptability, empathy, and tolerance. As “people” or “soft” skills become increasingly important the higher individuals advance in their organisations, it makes logical sense that those demonstrating these skills are promoted. Additionally, as these individuals are proficient in regulating their own


12

emotions and are sensate to the emotions of others, it is likely that they have well developed impression management and social capital skills. These social factors have been found to be more important than technical factors in terms of being identified for promotion (Tharenou, 1997).

The second purpose of the study was to examine whether transformational leadership mediated the relationship between EI and individual advancement. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the relationship between EI and individual advancement was found to be fully mediated by transformational leadership. The implication of this finding is that, while emotional intelligence is related to individual advancement, this relationship is transmitted through the intervening variable: transformational leadership. It may be the case that individuals who are high in emotional intelligence are likely to exhibit a transformational leadership style, which in turn may increase their likelihood of advancement. This tentative interpretation is made based on the theoretical assumption that EI is an antecedent of transformational leadership (Barling, et al., 2000; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Goleman 1998) and the logical assumption that individual advancement is an outcome variable.

While some studies have identified that EI is related to transformational leadership (Barling, et al. 2000; Gardner & Stough, 2000; Palmer et al. 2001; Soskik & Mergerian, 1999) and others have revealed that transformational leadership is related to individual advancement (Lewis, 1996; Lipsky, 1999; George, 2003), no research has examined the potential mediating role of transformational leadership. Moreover, in a conceptual paper, Brown and Moshavi (2005) recently stated that more research is required examining the interrelationships between EI, transformational leadership and individual/organisational outcomes. Thus, the finding in the current study is significant as it redresses this gap in the literature.

Given that both emotional intelligence and transformational leadership only explained modest amounts of variance in individual advancement (with the effects of the controls removed), it raises the issue of whether the findings are practically significant. We argue that they are, despite the weak associations, for two reasons. First, weak relationships are commonplace in management research due to small effect sizes, design inadequacies, and measurement imprecision. Second, while a variable may have a weak association, it may still be worthy of attention, if the outcome is important [e.g., aspirin has a weak effect size in relation to stroke prevention, but many at-risk people still take it and it saves thousands of lives each year (Gorard, 2004)].

In terms of practical implications, the findings suggest that individuals should focus on increasing their levels of emotional intelligence. Allio (2002) argued that EI, unlike IQ which is an immutable characteristic, can be learned to some extent. Thus, individuals should attempt to develop their self-awareness, practise delayed gratification, enhance their listening skills, and improve their rapport building and networking (Cherniss & Goleman, 2001). The findings also suggest that increasing emotional intelligence may not be sufficient to advance in an organisation; individuals may also have to develop their transformational leadership skills. Organisations should also provide leadership development training and this should be targeted at employees with high EI. Indeed, a number of companies are already integrating EI assessment and development into their leadership identification and training programs (Barling et al. 2000).

There are limitations associated with the current study that should be considered when interpreting its findings. Arguably the most important limitations were that the data were cross-sectional and nonexperimental. As a consequence no conclusions can be drawn regarding causality or indeed which variable (EI or transformational leadership) occurs temporally prior to the other. Consistent with the recommendations of a number of theorists (Barling, et al., 2000; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Goleman 1998) we conceived EI to be an antecedent of transformational leadership, however, it may be the case that transformational leadership is an antecedent of emotional intelligence. Similarly, while it may be intuitively logical to assume that EI leads to higher individual advancement, the possibility that working at more advanced levels raises an individual’s level of EI cannot be excluded from consideration. Another limitation concerned the fact that all of the study variables were obtained via self-report and therefore common-method variance may have caused inflated relationships between the constructs. To some extent the potential of this problem would have been limited by the fact that the dependent


13

variable, while based on self-report, was essentially an amalgam of nonattitudinal “hard” data such as pay, ratio level, and span of control. Finally, it should be noted that the current study utilised a convenience sampling technique, rather than probability sampling, in order to select participants. Thus, the representativeness of the sample is not certain, which therefore limits the generalisability of the findings.

In terms of future research directions, subsequent studies should attempt to examine the relationship between EI and individual advancement, as well as the potential mediating role of transformational leadership, longitudinally. Prospective designs would allow for examination of whether EI is predictive of transformational leadership and whether transformational leadership, in turn, predicts individual advancement. Subsequent studies should attempt to employ more rigorous sampling procedures to improve the extent to which the findings can be generalised beyond the study sample. Additionally, given the modest amounts of variance explained by EI and transformational leadership, future studies examining individual advancement should include additional variables believed to be predictive of this outcome.

Conclusion The current study found that emotional intelligence is positively related to individual advancement. However, it would appear that this relationship is fully mediated by transformational leadership. While both EI and transformational leadership explained small proportions of the variance in individual advancement, the relationships were nonetheless significant. As a consequence, we recommend that individuals seeking advancement in their organisation should attempt to increase their EI and develop their transformational leadership style. Additionally, organisations are advised to provide leadership training, targeted at employees with high EI, and to integrate emotional intelligence assessment and development into these programs.

References

Abraham, R. (2000). The role of job control as a moderator of emotional dissonance and emotional intelligence- outcome relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 134, 169-184.

Akers, M. D., & Porter, G. L. (2003). Your EQ skills: Got what it takes. Journal of Accountancy, 19, 65-68.

Allio, R. (2002). Emotionally unbalanced. Strategy and Leadership, 30, 35-37.

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). The influence of upward feedback on self and

follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 35-59.

Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K., & Sitarenious, G. (2000). Emotional intelligence in the collection of debt. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 176-182.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21, 57-161.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institution for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A., (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the U.S. and Europe. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 228-247.


14

Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: a potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871.

Cadman, C., & Brewer, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A vital prerequisite for recruiting in nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 9, 321-324.

Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). Training for emotional intelligence: A model. In C.

Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp.209-203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and organizations. New York: Grosset/Putnam.

Dubinsky, A. J. Yammarino, F. J., & Jolson, M. A. (1995). An examination of linkages

between personality characteristics and dimensions of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 315-335.

Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence- A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341-372.

Foote, D. (2001). What’s your ‘emotional intelligence’? Computerworld, 35, 28-29.

Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23, 68-78.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027-1041.

Gorard, S. (2004). Judgement-based statistical analysis. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16-18 September 2004. Electronic copy available on the Education-line database.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Goleman, D., (1996). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. London, Bloomsbury Publishing.

Grimmer, M., & Oddy, M. (under review) Violation of the psychological contract: The mediating effect of relational versus transactional beliefs. Australian Journal of Management.

Jordan, P, L., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 195-214.

Langley, A. (2000). Emotional intelligence- A new evaluation for management development?. Career Development International, 5, 177-183.

Lewis, B. (1996). Becoming a good leader might mean teaching an old dog new tricks. InfoWorld, 18, 72-73.

Lipsky, D. R. (1996). The relationship between managerial leadership Behavior, effectiveness, and success. Dissertation Abstract International, 57, 1730-1739.

Martinez, M. N. (1997). The smart that counts. HR Magazine, 42, 72-78.

Mayer, J. D. (2001). A field guide to emotional intelligence. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. Mayer, Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific enquiry (pp. 3-24). Philadelphia, Psychology Press.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence. In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter, Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-34). New York: Basicbooks, Inc.

Metz, I. (2004) Do personality traits indirectly affect women's advancement? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 695-707.

Metz, I.., & Tharenou, P. (2001). Women’s career advancement: The relative contribution of human and social capital. Group and Organization Management, 26, 312-342.

Miller, M. (1999). Emotional intelligence helps managers succeed. Credit Union Magazine, 65, 25-26.

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual. Sydney, Allen & Unwin.

Pergamit, M. R., & Veum, J. R. (1999). What is a promotion? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52, 581-601.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22, 1-7.

Pergamit, M. R., & Veum, J. R. (1999). What is a promotion? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52, 581-601.

Rice, C. L. (1999). A quantitative study of emotional intelligence and its impact on team performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, Pepperdine University,. Malibu, US.


15

Sosik, J. J., & Mergerian, L. E., (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group and Organizational Management, 24, 367-390.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tharenou, P. (1997). Managerial career advancement. In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 39 - 54). New York: Wiley.

Tharenou, P., Latimer, S., & Conroy, D. (1994). How do you make it to the top? An examination of influences on women’s and men’s managerial advancement. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 899-931.

Tischler, L., Biberman, J., & McKeage. (2002). Linking emotional intelligence, spirituality and workplace performance: Definitions, models and ideas for research. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 203-218.

Vitry, R. (1996). Leaders who make a difference. European Management Journal, 14, 486-493.

Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 89-95.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 371-399.

Documents

An Examination of Emotional Intelligence and Individual Advancement