American International Journal of Social Science Vol. 2 No.

8; December 2013

The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership:

James B. Hunt
MBA Program Convenor & Assistant Director of Postgraduate Programs
Newcastle Business School, Faculty of Business & Law
University of Newcastle, Australia
Professor Martin Fitzgerald
Discipline Head, Management & Organizational Behaviour
Newcastle Business School, Faculty of Business & Law
University of Newcastle, Australia

Abstract
Following a review of the literature on the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and
transformational leadership (TL), this paper provides an analysis of the findings of 22 published papers,
examining the range of instruments used to collect data, sample sizes, dates of publication and the reported
conclusions. This review reveals that investigations into the relationship between EI and TL continue to yield
mixed results, and have done so for almost 15 years now, indicating that this field of research continues to be
a contested area. Recommendations for advancing the scientific investigation of the EI-TL relationship are
put forward.
Key Words: emotional intelligence, transformational leadership
Introduction
Research into the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership spans
almost 15 years, and despite the bold claims in the popular literature (eg: Goleman, 1995) there remains
limited empirical evidence that the two concepts are significantly related. Recognised experts in the field of
EI, along with researchers in the area of transformational leadership, argue that elements of EI such as
emotional recognition, empathy and emotional processing are central to transformational leadership
behaviour (eg: Downey, Papageorgiou & Stough, 2005), yet a number of empirical studies over the past
six years in particular have failed to find a significant relationship between EI and TL (Harms and
Crede, 2010: 5). This is not to say that empirical evidence in support of the relationship doesn’t exist. The
present review has identified twelve such studies, indicating that the claims made by proponents of the EI-
TL relationship are not unsupported by published research. This paper investigates the nature of the
research undertaken in this important field to date, examining the findings that provide support for the
relationship between EI and TL, as well as the findings and arguments presented by researchers who cast
doubt on the strength of this relationship.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is one of the most popular and widely researched approaches to leadership today.
It has commanded a sustained high level of interest from the academic and management
practitioner communities for almost three decades (Northouse, 2010; Ergeneli, Gohar & Temirbekova,
2007). Often referred to as the ‘new leadership paradigm’ (Bryman, 1992), transformational leadership
emphasises the affective and emotive qualities of the leader in engaging with and heightening the
motivational arousal levels of subordinates. Transformational leadership is conceived as a process
that generates and builds an exceptional level of influence over followers, harnessing follower
commitment and leading to accomplishments above normal levels of expectation (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
Commencing in the 1970s and gaining momentum in the mid-1980s, the dominant paradigm for
leadership research began to evolve from its longstanding focus on employee-centred versus task-centred
leadership, to an interest in the ‘mode of exchange’ between the leader and subordinates (Hollander,
1986; Hunt, 2010). Downton (1973) was the first to draw attention to the distinction between the two
major types of exchange that were increasingly being seen to typify leader-subordinate interactions, a theme
extended by Burns (1978) who used the term ‘transforming leadership’ to emphasise the distinctive
features of leader-subordinate exchanges that resulted in very high levels of engagement, morale, motivation,
30
and achievement.
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.aijssnet.com
Burns contrasted transforming leaders with ‘transactional leaders’, noting the much more modest levels of
commitment and affective engagement attained through transactional leader-follower exchanges.
Transactional leaders were characterised by a tendency to concentrate on standard levels of performance as a
means to securing routine accomplishments (Burns, 1978). This paradigm was refined and expanded by Bass
(1985a)who proposed that transformational exchanges were effectively ‘augmentations’ of the more routine
but necessary transactional exchanges. Bass conceived transformational and transactional leadership as styles
along a single continuum, and redefined Burns’s concept of transformative leadership to include exchanges
where the ultimate outcomes were not always ethically palatable (Northouse, 2010), focusing instead on the
importance of heightened engagement between the leader and followers, thus giving greater attention to the
emotional dimensions of transformational leadership.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic research by Bass (1985a), Hater & Bass (1988), and Seltzer,
Numerof & Bass (1989) indicated that transformational leadership has an underlying four-dimensional factor
structure. Subsequent theories of transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1994) are based
on this structure, which consists of the following elements: idealized influence,also described ascharisma,
refers to the leader who is a role model for followers, provoking them to embrace the leader’s values and
principles, and to seek to emulate the leader; inspirational motivation, describes leaders who inspire followers
by projecting enthusiasm and articulating an attractive vision for the future; intellectual stimulation, refers to
leaders who express new ideas that challenge conventional organisational thinking, encouraging followers to
rethink established methods and practices; and individualized consideration, refers to leaders who recognise
the unique needs of individual followers and who provide subordinates with special attention to bolster their
self-efficacy.
Transformational leadership has been posited as a behavioural theory (Bass, 1998; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992)
with the implicit assumption that transformational behaviours can be learned. More recently, however, studies
into the links between ‘personality’ and leadership have indicated that styles of leadership are conceptually
related to a range of personality traits (Brandt & Laiho, 2013; Judge & Long, 2012; Hunt, 2010), and that
transformational leadership in particular correlates significantly with several personality dimensions
(Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann, 2012; Bono & Judge, 2004;Hetland & Sandal, 2003; Judge and Bono,
2000).This suggests some clear dispositional antecedents to the transformational leadership construct. Recent
research by Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann (2012) has also demonstrated that ‘general intelligence’ is highly
correlated with transformational leadership, reinforcing an earlier finding by Atwater and Yamarino (1993)
that higher levels of intelligence are related to transformational leadership.
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
Salovey & Mayer (1990: 189) define emotional intelligence (EI) as “the sub-set of social 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”, a definition that led others to connect the concept
with transformational leadership (eg; Barling, Slater and Kelloway, 2000).Indeed as early as 1999, several
researchers put forward the tentative proposition that there might be a relationship between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership (TL), calling for further investigation in this area (Dulewicz &
Higgs, 1999; Alimo-Metcalfe, 1999). Since this time, EI has been proposed as an important construct capable
of providing new insights into how leadership may be better understood and executed in contemporary
organisational settings (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Gardner & Stough, 2002). Downey, Papageorgiou
& Stough (2005: 251) have argued that transformational leadership is “largely dependent upon the evocation,
framing and mobilisation of emotions” and that EI is therefore an important antecedent of transformational
leadership. Lopez-Zafra, Garcia-Retamero & Martos (2012: 100) echo this point in noting that “it is widely
accepted that leadership is an emotion-laden process.”
Reasoning conceptually, a number of authors have asserted the apparent strength of the relationship between
transformational leadership and emotional intelligence (eg: Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002; Polychroniou, 2009).
Kupers & Weibler (2006: 374) note that “as TL demands leaders who are emotionally self-aware and capable
of emotional self-management, all transformational components require personal EI competencies.”
Similarly, Gardner & Stough (2002: 76) have posited conceptually meaningful links between emotional
intelligence and various dimensions of transformational leadership in their claim that “emotional intelligence
may underlie the ability of the leader to be inspirationally motivating and intellectually stimulating.” While
these claims appear to be well-founded in conceptual terms and also hold intuitive appeal, the empirical
evidence for the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership has consistently
yielded mixed results (Harms & Crede, 2010; Matthews, Zeidner & Roberts, 2012).

31
American International Journal of Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; December 2013

Antonakis (2004) argues that EI models are fraught with problems of validity and reliability, and suggests that
supportfor the EI construct may be based more on speculative thinking than on empirical evidence.
Lindebaum and Cartwright (2010) point to the problem of common method variance in studies using same-
source data to investigate the relationship between EI and TL.Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff (2003)
have noted that correlations are artificially inflated when common method bias is not accounted for. This is a
prevalent problem in several of the same-source research studies into the EI-TL relationship (Barbuto &
Burbach, 2006). Cavazotte, Moreno &Hickman (2012: 451) indicate another potential problem with
empirical research studies investigating the correlations between dimensions of EI and TL;
“When considered alone, emotional intelligence seems to be statistically related to transformational
leadership. However, when ability and personality were controlled for, the effect became non-significant.”
Cavazotte et al. (2012) note that empirical findings from studies into the EI-TL relationship might be inflated
when relevant predictors such as experience, ability or personality, are omitted from the research design, thus
joining Antonakis (2009) and Lindebaum & Cartwright (2010) in calling for more carefully designed studies
into this area of investigation.
Given the contested nature of the claims in the literature concerning the strength of the relationship between
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, it is timely to systematically review the empirical
evidence reported in published papers in this field. Our investigation examines two sets of published research
studies - those that report findings supporting the significance of the relationship between EI and TL, and
those that challenge the strength of the relationship. An evaluation of the sample sizes, research instruments
and findings is presented, followed by a series of recommendations for future research.
Method
A literature search was undertaken based on the following paired key words; transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence. The initial search was conducted using multiple international databases including
ScienceDirect, Proquest, PsychINFO and ABI/INFORM Complete. The structured key word search was
initiated with the following parameters; full-text, peer reviewed, scholarly journals, published in English
between January 1999 and October 2013. This initial search yielded just over 1,300 published articles, many
of which focused on either emotional intelligence or transformational leadership but not both. When the key
word search was refined and limited to terms in the title only, a much more parsimonious sample of 27 journal
articles was produced. This formed the basis of our initial sample.
Close visual inspection of these publications revealed that a small number tended to have a predominant focus
outside the exploration of the EI-TL relationship. For example, one study focused primarily on organisational
commitment, another concentrated largely on new venture growth, a third was concerned with cross-cultural
issues, and a fourth centred its analysis on gender issues. Accordingly, these studies were excluded from the
final set of journal articles selected for further investigation.
The next step in the research process involved a detailed content analysis of each of the 22 published papers
retained in the sample, to determine (1) the research methodology, (2) the data-gathering process (including
the sample size, the specific measurement instruments used, and whether same-source or multi-source data
were collected, and (3) the key findings. This process enabled the classification of the articles into two
distinct groups; those that found a significant positive relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership, and those that produced findings which challenged the significance of the EI-TL
relationship.
Following this classification process, a more detailed thematic analysis of the two groups of published
literature was conducted, with the aim of evaluating the relative persuasiveness of the two distinct sets of
claims, and to make an informed judgement about the strength of the findings in each case.
Results
An examination of the reported findings from each of the 22 peer-reviewed journal articles has enabled the
researchers to classify these studies into two distinct groups according to whether they provide evidence to
support or challenge claims concerning the strength of the relationship between EI and TL. The first group
consists of twelve empirical research studies providing evidence that emotional intelligence is positively
related to transformational leadership. These studies are presented in Table 1, together with their salient
features; sample size and type, research instruments used, and key findings reported.

32
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.aijssnet.com

The second group of studies consists of ten publications, comprising 7 independent empirical studies, one
meta-analysis, one interpretative method study and one critical rejoinder. These studies all report findings that
cast significant doubt on the strength of the relationship between EI and TL, and are presented in Table 2.
The first set of studies was published over the period between 2000 and 2012, with the majority of these
papers appearing in journals on or before 2004. Notably, only three of these studies were published during the
last 5 year period. The second set of studies spans the period from 1999 to 2012, with only two of these
appearing before 2006. Eight of the ten articles from this set of studies were published between 2006 and
2012.
A comparison of the sample sizes used in each independent study shows some important differences between
the groupings presented in Tables 1 and 2. Five of the research studies in the first group (Table 1) base their
findings on relatively small samples (n<50). By contrast, the reported findings presented in Table 2 are
derived from considerably larger samples. For example, study 3 in Table 2 (Brown, Bryant & Reilly, 2006)
draws upon a data set of 161 managers and 2,411 followers, while study 10 (Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann,
2012) gathered data from 134 managers and 325 subordinates.
A further comparison of the data-gathering approach indicates an important methodological difference
between the two groups. Seven of the twelve studies in Table 1 draw upon same-source data. That is, the
leaders in these studies completed self-report questionnaires concerning both their transformational leadership
propensityand their emotional intelligence. By contrast, all the empirical studies in Table 2 use multi-source
data to investigate the EI-TL relationship. That is, the researchers gathered data on emotional intelligence
from the leaders themselves, but utilised data gathered from subordinates to determine the leader’s
transformational qualities.
The preferred questionnaire employed to measure transformational leadership across both sets of studies isthe
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990b, 1995a). Measurement instruments employed to
gather data on emotional intelligence however, differ considerably across as well as within the two groupings.
Table 1 indicates that the Trait Meta Mood Scale (Salovey et al., 1995) was used in studies 2, 9 and 12, while
the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997) was used in studies 1, 4 and 6. Both these questionnaires
are classified in the International Handbook of Emotional Intelligence (Schultze & Roberts, 2005) as trait-
based instruments (Perez, Petrides & Furnham, 2005), while elsewhere in the literature Bar-On’s instrument is
widely referred to as a ‘mixed-model’ because it combines emotional abilities with personality dimensions
(Lopez-Zafra, Garcia-Retamero & Martos, 2012: 99). Table 2 indicates the use of Bar-On’s Emotional
Quotient Inventory in study 3, Carson’s (2000) Emotional Intelligence Instrument in study 6, and a version of
Wong & Law’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Test in studies 7, 9 and 10. The use of different instruments to
measure emotional intelligence is an issue that will be discussed further in the next section of this paper.
Discussion
Despite the evidence presented by each of the twelve empirical studies in Table 1, there is an increasing
number of reported research findings indicating little or no significant relationship between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership (Table 2). To what might we attribute this discrepancy? There
are three important areas of consideration in relation to addressing this question. The first is the size of the
data set, the second is the nature of the data source (same-source or multi-source data), and the third concerns
the research instruments used. Each of these considerations is addressed below. The size of the data set:
Brown, Bryant & Reilly (2006: 344) note that sample size is important to both the rigour of the analysis and
the generalizability of the results. This is particularly important in quantitative studies seeking to establish
correlations between items under investigation, with larger data-sets normally providing higher levels of
statistical power (Charter, 1999). As reported earlier, several of the studies listed in Table 1 have yielded
findings based on data sets that are relatively small, leading critics to question the robustness of their
conclusions.
The nature of the data-source: Studies that rely solely on same-source data to test relationships and establish
correlations are susceptible to common method bias, particularly when the data are gathered from the same
source at the same time using the same measurement technique (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Lee, 2003). This is
to say that a form of self-report bias can emerge from same-source data when respondents unconsciously
attempt to maintain a degree of consistency in their responses across items. This has a tendency to produce
relationships that may not otherwise exist (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As noted earlier, the majority of studies
listed in Table 1 employ same-source data as the basis of their analysis. By contrast, the empirical studies
listed in Table 2 all use multi-source data to test the EI-TL relationship. Barbuto & Burbach (2006) conducted
a study into the relationship between EI and TL in which they surveyed a sample of 80 leaders and 388 raters.
33
American International Journal of Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; December 2013

The leaders in this study completed both the MLQ and the emotional intelligence instrument, while the raters
completed only the MLQ. This enabled the researchers to investigate the correlations between leader self-
reports of EI and TL (same-source data) as well as the correlations between leader self-reports of EI and rater
reports of leader TL (multi source data).
This research found positive support for correlations between leader self-reports of EI and TL, but little
support for the EI-TL relationship when rater reports were correlated with leader self-reports. This assists in
providing a perspective on many of the contrasting findings presented in Tables 1 and 2. Harms and Crede
(2010) conducted a meta-analysis of studies on EI and TL, finding that same-source data tends to produce
“greatly inflated validity estimates of the EI-leadership relationship compared with studies that used a more
rigorous multi-method approach” (Harms & Crede, 2010: 12).
The research instruments used: While there appears to be a general consensus concerning the preferred
measurement instrument for gauging transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio’s Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire), different conceptualizations of emotional intelligence continue to prevail, giving rise to an
array of measurement instruments. Lopez-Zafra et al. (2012) refer to the three-fold classification system of EI
models; the ability model which emphasises emotional information processing capabilities, the trait model
which encompasses a range of emotion-related dispositions, and the mixed model which combines elements of
information processing with dispositional elements. Matthews, Zeidner & Roberts (2012: 118-9) propose four
distinct constructs relating to emotional intelligence: temperament, comprising broad-based personality traits
associated with emotionality; information processing, consisting of specific cognitive processing of emotional
information; emotion regulation, comprising traits relating to a person’s emotional management; and
emotional knowledge and skills.
Each of these constructs has its own set of measurement instruments. Zeng & Miller (2001: 40) note that the
array of tests relating to emotional intelligence is characterised by considerable diversity, both in terms of
their theoretical conceptualization and in their approaches to measurement. For example, several of the self-
report measures of EI relate strongly to dimensions of personality, whereas ability-based measures relate more
closely to cognitive ability (Zeng and Miller, 2001). Matthews et al. (2012) note that a lack of clarity has
emerged from this proliferation of different conceptual models, in that the term EI is used to refer to multiple,
distinct constructs. The lack of an established and broadly accepted measurement instrument of emotional
intelligence is perhaps part of the reason for the continued stream of mixed results reported in the published
EI-TL literature. Different studies are using different instruments to measure different constructs.
Conclusion
Concerns relating to methodology have led a number of researchers to call into question the findings reported
by studies providing evidence for the strength of the EI-TL relationship. In particular, small sample sizes and
same-source data sets are known to have a tendency to limit the generalizability of the findings and produce
artificially inflated correlations. Examining the studies listed in Table 1, it is apparent that several of these are
characterised by the methodological limitations noted above. However, four studies stand out in terms of their
relative methodological robustness. Studies 1, 4, 8 and 11 all draw upon multi-source data, derived from a
reasonable sample size, and accordingly, their findings concerning the positive relationship between
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership cannot be ignored.
Whilst a clear and definitive statement about the relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership is still some way off, there are some evident guidelines that will assist in the
progress made by future research in this area. First, clearer distinctions need to be drawn between studies that
investigate trait-based emotional intelligence and those that examine ability or cognitive based conceptions of
EI. Failure to effectively differentiate between these two important definitional parameters may conflate and
therefore misconstrue the concept of emotional intelligence, and as a consequence, may continue to confound
attempts to investigate and determine the predictive validity of EI and its proposed relationship to
transformational leadership. Second, multi-source data sets should form the basis of future research in order
to limit the problem of common method variance. Third, there appears to be little merit in conducting
quantitative analysis on very small data-sets, as these studies provide findings that cannot be generalized.
Research in this area has not benefitted from the lack of a “gold standard” instrument designed to effectively
measure EI. This inhibiting factor continues to limit the progress and advancement of scientific investigations
into the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Harms and Crede
(2010) in their meta-analysis of 62 independent research samples drawn from 106 journal articles concerning
the EI-TL relationship, found that trait-based EI measurement instruments demonstrated higher levels of
validity than ability-based measures.
34
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.aijssnet.com

Petrides (2011; 657) notes that the distinction between trait-based EI and ability-based EI is now widely
recognised and accepted in the scientific literature, along with the acknowledgement that trait EI and ability EI
are different constructs. This acknowledgement appears to be more widespread in the psychology literature
than in the literature on management, leadership or organisational behaviour, where it remains under-
recognised. It is important that future researchers investigating the EI-TL relationship remain mindful of this
pivotal distinction.
Table 1: Published papers providing empirical support for the relationship between transformational leadership (TL) and emotional intelligence (EI)

1. Barling, Slater & Kelloway (2000) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Bass & Avolio’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X Short)
 Bar-On’s (1997) self-report Emotional Intelligence Inventory
Sample: 49 managers + 187 subordinates: multi-source data
Findings: A positive relationship between EI and 3 aspects of TL (idealised influence, inspirational motivation, individualised consideration).
2. Palmer, Walls, Burgess & Stough (2001) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Bass & Avolio’s (1995) MLQ: 45 items
 Salovey’s (1995) modified Trait Meta Mood Scale: 41 items
Sample: 43 participants: same-source data
Findings: Significant correlations between some components of TL(idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration) and the
EI subscales.
3. Gardner & Stough (2002) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Bass & Avolio’s MLQ Form 5X: 45 items
 Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT): 65 items
Sample: 110 senior level managers: same-source data
Findings: EI correlated highly with all components of TL (idealised attributes, idealised behaviours, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
individual consideration).
4. Sivanathan & Fekken (2002) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Bass & Avolio’s MLQ-5X: 36 items
 Bar-On’s (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): 133 item self-measure
Sample: 58 subjects + 232 subordinates + 12 supervisors: multi-source data
Findings: Leaders who reported higher levels of EI were perceived by followers as higher in TL.
5. Duckett & MacFarlane (2003) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Annual appraisal scores + rankings by head office directors
 SMS-EQ Profile Tool – 13 dimensions
Sample: 13 store managers: same-source data for TL and EI components of the study
Findings: A high level of commonality in the relationship between TL profiles and EQ profiles.
6. Mandell & Pherwani (2003) - Journal of Business & Psychology
 Bass & Avolio’s (1996) MLQ-5X-Revised: 45 items
 Bar-On’s (1996) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): 133 items
Sample: 32 managers: same-source data
Findings: A significant linear relationship was found between EI and TL style.
7. Leban & Zulauf (2004) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) – Form 5X
 Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Ability Test (MSCEIT)
Sample: 24 project managers + team-members and stakeholders (unspecified n): multi-source data
Findings: EI ability contributes to a manager’s TL style.
8. Rubin, Munz & Bommer (2004) – Academy of Management Journal
 Transformational Leadership Behaviour Measure (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996): 22 items
 Goldberg’s (1999) Big Five Inventory – agreeableness, extraversion: 5 + 5 items
 Watson, Clark & Tellegen’s (1988) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PA-NAS): 10 + 10 items
 Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA): 24 items
Sample: 145 managers + 480 subordinates: multi-source data
Findings: Empirical evidence in support of one aspect of EI and its relationship to TL behaviour. Leaders who were better able to recognise emotion
accurately in others were rated more highly on TL.
9. Downey, Papageorgiou, & Stough, (2006) - Leadership and Organization Development Journal
 Avolio, Bass & Jung’s (1995) MLQ-5X-Short: 45 item self-report measure
 Palmer & Stough’s (2001) Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT): 64 item self-report measure
 Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey & Palfai’s (1995) Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS): 30 item self-report measure
Sample: 176 female managers: same-source data
Findings: A positive relationship was found between EI and transformational leadership. This suggests that the abilities encompassed by EI are
intrinsically related to the role of the transformational leader.
10. Polychroniou (2009) – Team Performance Management
 Transformational Leadership – Measured with 12 items adapted from the MLQ (Bass, 1985)
 EQ Index (EQI) (Rahim et al. 2002, 2006): 19 items
Sample: 267 managers: same-source data
Findings: Supervisors’ EI components are positively associated with TL.
11. Wang & Huang (2009) – Social Behaviour & Personality
 Transformational Leadership
 Emotional Intelligence
Sample: 51 department managers + 252 employees: multi-source data
Findings: EI is positively associated with TL.
12. Lopez-Zafra, Garcia-Retamero & Martos (2012) – The Psychological Record
 MLQ (Reduced Version) (Bass 1985): 22 items
 Trait Meta Mood Scale (TMMS) (Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey & Palfai, 1995): 24 items
Sample: 431 participants: same-source data
Findings: EI predicts TL

35
American International Journal of Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; December 2013

Table 2: Published papers casting doubt on the strength of the relationship between transformational leadership (TL)
and emotional intelligence (EI)
1. Sosik & Megerian (1999) – Group & Organization Management
 Bass & Avolio’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X Short)
 Composite Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: 95 items measuring 9 dimensions
Sample: 63 managers + 192 subordinates + 63 superiors: multi-source data
Findings: Correlations between EQ predictors of leadership behaviour differed based on categorizations of leader self-
awareness.
2. Antonakis (2004) - Organizational Analysis
 A review of the published research claims concerning the relationship between TL and EI
Cites: 57 published research articles
Findings: The state of empirical evidence for the relationship between EI and leadership remains weak after 15 years.
3. Brown, Bryant & Reilly (2006) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Bass & Avolio’s (1996) MLQ Form 5X: 45 items (A single measure of TL was computed by aggregating the four
subscale measures)
 Bar-On’s (1996) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): 133 items
Sample: 161 managers and supervisors + 2,411 followers: multi-source data
Findings: No indication that EI as operationalized and measured by the EQ-i is of any value in understanding or
exploring leadership.
4. Kupers & Weibler (2006) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 An analysis of the MLQ using a hermeneutic research focus.
 Use of interpretive method to map emotional qualities derived from Goleman’s (1998) framework to existing TL
dimensions of the MLQ
Cites: 69 published research articles
Findings: TL covers some emotions, but is far away from the claim of a full-range theory. Specific emotions concerning
individualised consideration are explicitly absent in the MLQ.
5. Moss, Ritossa & Ngu (2006) – Journal of Individual Differences
 Leadership Style Questionnaire
 Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire
Sample: 263 pairs of managers and subordinates in Study 1; 166 pairs of nurses and their supervisors in Study 2: multi-
source data
Findings: Individuals who reported emotional intelligence (high EI) were not more likely to demonstrate
transformational leadership.
6. Barbuto & Burbach (2006) – The Journal of Social Psychology
 Bass & Avolio’s (1995) MLQ: TL subscales only
 Carson’s (2000) Emotional Intelligence Instrument: 30 self-report items
Sample: 80 leaders + 388 raters (leaders completed EI + MLQ; raters completed MLQ: multi-source data
Findings: EI shared little significant variance with rater reports of intellectual stimulation and idealized influence. This
result weakens support for previous findings that demonstrated a relationship between EI and TL.
7. Lindebaum & Cartwright (2010) – Journal of Management Studies
• Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe (2001) Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ-Public) short
version: 32 items
• Wong & Law (2002) Emotional Intelligence test (WLEIS): 16 items
Sample: 55 managers + 110 team members + 62 line managers: multi-source data
Findings: When using a strong methodological design, no relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership is found.
8. Harms & Crede (2010) - Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
 A Literature Review of 106 journal articles investigating the relationship between TL and EI
 A Meta-Analysis of 62 independent studies investigating the relationship between TL and EI
Sample: 62 independent samples representing a total of 7145 leaders
Findings: To date there exists no well-designed study that validates the proposed EI-leadership relationship.
9. Lam & O’Higgins (2012) - Leadership & Organization Development Journal
 Bass & Avolio’s (1997) MLQ-5X Short: 20 items that make up the transformational dimension
 Wong (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale (WEIS): 40 item forced choice
Sample: 54 managers + 269 team members: multi-source data
Findings: The findings were not uniform across the study’s outcome variables. In some instances, TL style translates
from emotional intelligence, and in others, TL operates independently of EI.
10. Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann (2012) – The Leadership Quarterly
• Bass & Avolio’s MLQ (1997): 20 items that make up the transformational dimension
• Wong & Law (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
Sample: 134 managers + 325 subordinates: multi-source data
Findings: When ‘other’ individual differences (intelligence, personality) associated with leadership are taken into
account, the predictive power of emotional intelligence becomes frail.

36
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.aijssnet.com

References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1999). Developments on leadership research, Paper presented at BPS Annual Occupational Psychology
Conference, Blackpool, UK.
Antonakis, J. (2004). On why emotional intelligence will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the big five: An
extension and rejoinder, Organizational Analysis, 12 (2): 171-182.
Antonakis, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence: What does it measure and does it matter for leadership? In G.B. Graen (ed.),
LMX Leadership – Game-changing designs: Research-based tools, Greenwick, CT, Information Age: 163-192.
Ashkanasy, N.M. & Dasborough, M.T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching,
Journal of Education for Business, 79 (1): 18-22.
Atwater, L. & Yammarino, F. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of military
academy leadership, Human Relations, 46: 645-668.
Avolio, B.J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publications.
Barling, J., Slater, F. & Kelloway, K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an exploratory study,
Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 21 (3): 157-161.
Barbuto, J.J. & Burbach, M.E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials,
Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51-64.
Bar-On, R. (1996). The emotional quotient inventory (EQ-I): A test of emotional intelligence, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (1997).Emotional quotient inventory: Technical manual, Toronto, Multi-Health Systems.
Bass, B.M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations, New York, Free Press.
Bass, B. (1985b). Leadership: Good, better, best, Organizational Dynamics, 13 (3): 26-40.
Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990a). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team and
organizational development, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4: 231-272.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990b). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership, Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995a). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research, Menlo Park, CA, Mind Garden.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1995b). Transformational Leadership Development, Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists’ Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Brandt, T. & Laiho, M. (2013). Gender and personality in transformational leadership context; An examination of leader and
subordinate perspectives, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 34 (1): 44-66.
Brown, F.W., Bryant, S.E. & Reilly, M.D. (2006). Does emotional intelligence – as measured by the EQI – influence
transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27 (5):
330-351.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations, London, Sage.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership, New York, Harper and Row.
Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89 (5): 901-910.
Carson, K.D., Carson, P.P. & Birkenmeier, B.J. (2000). Measuring emotional intelligence: Development and validation of an
instrument, Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management, 2 (1): 32-44.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V. & Hickmann, M. (2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional intelligence on
transformational leadership and managerial performance, The Leadership Quarterly, 23 (3): 443-455.
Charter, R.A. (1999). Sample size requirements for precise estimates of reliability, generalizability and validity coefficients,
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21 (4): 559-566.
Downey, L.A., Papageorgiou, V. & Stough, C. (2006). Examining the relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence
and intuition in senior female managers, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27 (4): 250-264.
Downton, J. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process, New York, Free Press.
Duckett, H. & MacFarlane, E. (2003). Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership in retailing, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 24 (6): 309-317.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?, Leadership and Organization
Development, 20 (5): 242-252.
Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R. & Temirbekova, Z. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31 (6): 703-724.
Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level
managers, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23 (2): 68-78.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ, Bantam Books, New York.
Hater, J. & Bass, B. (1988). Supervisors’ Evaluations and Subordinates’ Perceptions of Transformational and Transactional
Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73:695-702.
Harms, P.D. & Crede, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 17 (1): 5 -17.
Hetland, H. & Sandal, G. (2003). Transformational leadership in Norway: Outcomes and personality correlates, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 2: 147-170.
Hollander, E. (1986). On the central role of leadership processes, International Review of Applied Psychology, 35: 39-52.

37
American International Journal of Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; December 2013
Hunt, J. (2010). Leadership style orientations of senior executives in Australia, Journal of the American Academy of Business,
Cambridge, Vol. 16, No. 1: 207-217.
Judge, T. & Bono, J. (2000). Five factor model of personality and transformational leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology,
78: 891-902.
Judge, T. & Long, D. (2012). Individual differencesin leadership. In D.V. Day & J.Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership,
second edition, pp. 179-217, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kupers, W. & Weibler, J. (2006). How emotional is transformational leadership really? Some suggestions for a necessary
extension, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27 (5): 368-383.
Lam, C.S. & O’Higgins, E.R. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated influences of managers’ emotional
intelligence and leadership style, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 33 (2): 149-174.
Leban, W. & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 25 (7): 554-564.
Lindebaum, D. & Cartwright, S. (2010). A critical examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership, Journal of Management Studies, 47 (7): 1317-1342.
Lopez-Zafra, E., Garcia-Retamero, R. & Martos, M. (2012). The relationship between transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence from a gendered approach, The Psychological Record, 62: 97-114.
Mandell, B. & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A
gender comparison, Journal of Business and Psychology, 17: 387-404.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R.D. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R.D. (2012). Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled?, Japanese Psychological
Research, 54 (2): 105-127.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2000), Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence,
Intelligence 27 (4): 267-298.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2000). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist, as personality and as a mental ability. In
Bar-On & Parker (Eds), Handbook of emotional intelligence, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2000). Competing models of emotional intelligence, Handbook of human intelligence,
second edition, New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2000). Test Manual for the MSCEIT V2.0. Multi-Health System Inc.
Moss, S., Ritossa, D. & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behaviour: The
role of emotional intelligence, Journal of individual Differences, 27: 93-107.
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: theory and practice, fifth edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 22 (1): 5.
Perez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring Trait Emotional Intelligence. In R. Schulze & R. D. Roberts
(Eds.), Emotional intelligence: An international handbook, Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Petrides, K.V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. Von Stumm & A. Furnham
(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences, First edition, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Polychroniou, P.V. (2009). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership of supervisors: the
impact on team effectiveness, Team Performance Management, 15 (7/8): 343-356.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y.. & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C. & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality
on transformational leadership behaviour, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 845-858.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, D.J. (1990). Emotional intelligence, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9: 185-211.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J., Goldman, S., Turvey, C. & Palfai, T. (1995), Emotional attention, clarity and repair: Exploring
emotional intelligence using the trait meta-mood scale. In J.W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure and health,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Schulze, R. & Roberts, R.D. (2005)., Emotional intelligence: An international handbook,. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber
Publishers.
Schute, N.S., Malouf, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggarty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and
validation of a measure of emotional intelligence, Personality & Individual Differences, 25 (2): 167-177.
Seltzer, J., Numerof, R. & Bass, B. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more or less burnout or stress?, Paper,
Academy of Management, New Orleans.
Sims, H. & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm. New Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sivanathan, N. & Fekken, G.C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and transformational leadership, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 23 (4): 198-204.
Sosik, J.J. & Megarian, L.E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other
agreement on transformational leadership perceptions, Group Organization Management, 24: 367-390.
Wang, Y.S. & Huang, T.C. (2009). The relationship of transformational leadership with group cohesiveness and emotional
intelligence, Social Behavior and Personality, 37 (3): 379-392
Wong, C.S. & Law, K.S. (2002). The effect of leaders and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: an
exploratory study, The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (3): 243-274.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. & Roberts, R.D. (2012). What we know about emotional intelligence: How it affects learning, work,
relationships, and our mental health, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zeng, X & Miller, C. (2001). Examinations of measurements of emotional intelligence, Ergometrika, 2: 38-49

38