International Review of Administrative Sciences-2011-Kotzé-397-427 (1)

http://ras.sagepub.com/Administrative SciencesInternational Review of

http://ras.sagepub.com/content/77/2/397The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0020852311399857

2011 77: 397International Review of Administrative SciencesMartina Kotzé and Ian Venter

leaders in the public sector: an empirical studyDifferences in emotional intelligence between effective and ineffective

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Institute of Administrative Sciences

at: can be foundInternational Review of Administrative SciencesAdditional services and information for

http://ras.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ras.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ras.sagepub.com/content/77/2/397.refs.htmlCitations:

at University of Nottingham on October 16, 2011ras.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ras.sagepub.com/

http://ras.sagepub.com/content/77/2/397

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.iias-iisa.org/

http://ras.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ras.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ras.sagepub.com/content/77/2/397.refs.html


What is This?

- Jun 13, 2011Version of Record >>


http://ras.sagepub.com/content/77/2/397.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


International Review of

Administrative Sciences

77(2) 397–427

! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0020852311399857

ras.sagepub.com

InternationalReview ofAdministrativeSciencesArticle

Differences in emotionalintelligence between effective andineffective leaders in the publicsector: an empirical study

Martina KotzeUniversity of the Free State, South Africa

Ian VenterUniversity of the Free State, South Africa

Abstract

The literature supporting leadership as the most important factor related to organiza-

tional success or failure is burgeoning. To a large extent, this may explain why so much

research focuses on factors influencing leadership effectiveness. A crucial aspect of

leadership research is to determine why some individuals perform effectively in lead-

ership roles while others demonstrate mediocre or low levels of effectiveness. Once

measures of individual characteristics have been validated within a relevant context,

they become useful sources of information for selecting, placing, and promoting people

into leadership positions. The aim of this study was to determine if there are statistically

significant differences in emotional intelligence between effective and ineffective leaders.

The sample included 114 leaders at the middle management level in a public sector

institution in South Africa. Each leader’s effectiveness was rated by themselves (self-

rating), as well as by four subordinates, thus involving 570 participants. The EQ-i� was

used as a measure of emotional intelligence, while Spangenberg and Theron’s

Leadership Behaviour Inventory was used to determine leadership effectiveness.

Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that the effective leaders scored significantly

higher on the total emotional intelligence measure. They also scored significantly higher

on two emotional intelligence composite scales (Interpersonal EQ and Stress

Management EQ) and six sub-scales (Self-actualization, Empathy, Social Responsibility,

Stress Tolerance, Problem-solving, and Optimism).

Points for practitioners

The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness seems to

warrant organizational consideration of the possible inclusion of emotional intelligence,

among other competencies, as a selection and promotion criterion for future leaders.

Job analyses and the subsequent identification of job competencies can be used in order

Corresponding author:

Martina Kotze, University of Free State, PO Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa

Email: [email protected]



to determine, among others, the emotional intelligence requirements of specific lead-

ership tasks, duties, and behaviours at different managerial levels within the organiza-

tion. Based on such predetermined criteria, valid measures of emotional intelligence

could be included as part of the selection and promotion process, along with other

desirable individual attributes, such as verbal and numerical abilities, personality attrib-

utes, and specific managerial and leadership competencies required for effective

leadership specifically within public sector institutions. Leadership development

courses may also include programmes to develop emotional intelligence

competencies. Potential candidates nominated to attend these courses could be

equipped with a vital understanding of their own emotional functioning as well as an

awareness of their influence on their followers. The continuous provision of feedback,

mentoring, and modelling is also a key consideration in the development of emotional

intelligence.

Keywords

emotional intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intra-personal intelligence, leadership,

leadership effectiveness

Introduction

Public sector institutions depend on their human resources in order to reach theirgoals. Peters and Austin (1990: 201) state that it is not techniques that producequality products, educate children, or pick up the garbage on time, but people whocare. One topic related to the extraordinary effort of people is leadership, whetherreferring to team effectiveness (Burke et al., 2006: 288) or individual effort (McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002: 555). Leadership is generally defined as the ability ofan individual to influence a group towards the achievement of goals (Hersey andBlanchard, 1982: 83; Robbins, 2001: 242). Leaders are often required to be able todrive transformation, lead people, and manage performance of their work unitseffectively. Thus, the range of skills necessary for leaders to lead successfully withinpublic sector institutions has grown (Bass, 1985). On the one hand, it requirestransformational leaders who are able to provide meaning through visioning andthe creation of shared values, while eliciting unusual levels of effort from employeesto achieve this vision. On the other hand, it requires leaders who are able to ensurethat employees meet work requirements, while providing support and work-relatedfeedback (Spangenberg and Theron, 2002: 10).

A crucial aspect of leadership research is to determine why some individualsperform effectively in leadership roles while others demonstrate mediocre or lowlevels of effectiveness. Jewell (1998: 526) states that leaders’ individual features areessential, not because they correspond in any one-to-one manner with some generalability to lead, but because they affect the perceptions of the individuals who are tobe led. These perceptions, in turn, influence the motivation to be led and how

398 International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)



followers respond to leaders’ behaviour. The literature is filled with efforts todetermine which human characteristics are associated with the ability to lead effec-tively. Studies pertaining to the individual characteristics of effective leadersinclude aspects such as personality (Judge and Bono, 2000: 760; Moss and Ngu,2005: 72, 76, 82), humour (Avolio et al., 1999: 219; Kalma and Visser, 1993: 45;Priest and Swain, 2002: 169), gender (Antonakis et al., 2003: 261; Berdahl, 1996:21), and experience levels (Avery et al., 2003: 673; Bettin and Kennedy, 1990: 219).Others focus on abilities such as cognitive and emotional abilities (Bar-On,2006: 20; Cherniss, 2000: 449; Marshall-Mies et al., 2000: 135; Mumford et al.,2000a: 87; 2000b: 155; 2000c: 11; 2000d: 115; Wolff et al., 2002: 510, 519; Zaccaroet al., 2000: 37). This type of research is also referred to as individual differenceleadership (Yammarino, 2000: 5). Once measures of individual characteristicshave been validated within a relevant context, they become useful sources ofinformation for selecting, placing, and promoting people to leadership positions(Jewell, 1998: 527).

A growing body of research is examining the association between emotionalintelligence and leadership effectiveness. A study conducted by Bar-On et al.(2003: 1790) indicates that poor personal judgement in decision-making resultedfrom lower levels of emotional intelligence, even though the subjects were of averageto above-average cognitive intelligence. Thus, while some researchers claim emo-tional intelligence, or certain dimensions thereof such as awareness or expression, isa necessity for leadership effectiveness (Bar-On, 2006: 16; Bono and Ilies, 2006: 331;Dasborough, 2006: 175; Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005: 115; Goleman et al., 2003: 5;Humphrey, 2002: 502;Mandel and Pherwani, 2003: 400; Robbins, 2001: 111; Roseteand Ciarrochi, 2005: 390, 394; Sy et al., 2006: 471), others contest such claims aspremature or unsupported by scientific research (Cobb and Mayer, 2000: 15).

Studies relating to emotional intelligence have been carried out mainly in privatesector organizations. Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler (2010: 82) state that there is anabsence of serious discourse in public administration theory and writing aboutfeelings, emotions, and emotional intelligence, and that recent writing about therequired changes and reforms in the public sector and personnel management haveleft this field almost untouched. A search of the major scientific publication searchengines reveals that, with the exception of Berman and West (2008) and Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler (2010), since 1990 almost no study has dealt seriously with suchtopics in relation to public sector organization theory. However, during those sameyears, 1100 articles were published on the topic of emotions and emotional intel-ligence in established, peer-reviewed journals in general management and organi-zation psychology (Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010: 82).

According to Ring and Perry (1985: 276), managing conflict and getting peopleto work together are critical skills for leaders in the public sector, since they have todeal with frequently changing agendas and unstable coalitions. Therefore, the abil-ity to encourage people to express their ideas, to listen carefully to what they say,and to integrate many differing but complementary ideas are critical to publicsector leadership. Neal (2008: 373) emphasized the importance of educating leaders

Kotze and Venter 399



in the public sector in an integral or holistic way and of nourishing their emotionalwell-being through understanding the importance of emotional intelligence andtheir own emotional patterns.

On the other hand, because of the specific characteristics of public sector insti-tutions, the requirements for leadership behaviour and effectiveness as well asemotional intelligence might be significantly different from those in private sectorand other organizations. The impact of leadership behaviours and emotional intel-ligence on a wide variety of outcome measures often depends on the presence ofvarious organizational characteristics (Podsakoff et al., 1996: 259). Rainey et al.(1995: 572) found that public sector institutions show much higher levels of for-malization in the functions of personnel and procurement. They note that thesefunctions are heavily influenced by externally imposed bodies of law, rules, andoversight activities, which take away more discretion from leaders in the publicsector. Subsequently, it may be that leaders in public sector institutions generallyget less opportunity to influence situations by means of informal relationships andemotionally intelligent behaviours, such as exemplary interpersonal relations andproblem-solving skills, since they may need to focus more on the implementation ofthese rules and regulations.

BothBerman andWest (2008: 753) andVogoda-Godot andMeisler (2010: 84) callfor studies in the arena of emotional intelligence within the public sector and recom-mend that future research should explore the effect of emotional intelligence onspecific aspects within public sector institutions, such as the performance of leaders.

Theoretical overview

Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence, a relatively new construct, has sparked considerable debateover its definition and factor structure (Livingstone and Day, 2005: 757; Roseteand Ciarrochi, 2005: 390; Zeng and Miller, 2003: 46). Mayer and Salovey presentedthe first conceptualization of emotional intelligence in 1990 (Hedlund andSternberg, 2000: 148; Mayer et al., 2000a: 92; Vitello-Cicciu, 2003: 29). Sincethen, several contemporary mainstream models of emotional intelligence haveemerged (Bar-On, 2007a). The various models of emotional intelligence are gener-ally divided into two categories. The first is referred to as the ability models(Charbonneau and Nichol, 2002: 1102; Mandell and Pherwani, 2003: 389; VanRooy et al., 2005: 690) and the second as the so-called mixed models (Brackettet al., 2004: 1389; Cobb and Mayer, 2000; 15; Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000: 146;Rosete and Ciarrochi, 2005: 389). The ability-based models view emotional intel-ligence in terms of ability, much like other types of mental performance measuressuch as IQ (Mayer et al., 2000a: 107). The mixed models, on the other hand, blendemotional intelligence as an ability with certain traits, competencies, and behaviour(Cobb and Mayer, 2000: 15; Zeng and Miller, 2003: 38), and generally includebroad arrays of non-cognitive factors such as personality and motivation




(Brackett et al., 2004: 1389; Van Rooy et al., 2005: 690). In this regard, manyauthors are convinced that emotional competence can be learned (Golemanet al., 2003: 132; Latour and Hosmer, 2002: 29).

Salovey and Mayer (1990: 189) define emotional intelligence as the subset ofsocial intelligences that involve the ability to monitor one’s own feelings and emo-tions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’sthinking. This conceptualization and subsequent assessment instrument is generallyreferred to as the ability model of emotional intelligence, although initial emotionalintelligence writing by Salovey and Mayer included personality traits, such aswarmth and outgoingness (Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000: 148). The Bar-Onmodel of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 2000: 363), as well as the emotional com-petence model of emotional intelligence proposed by Goleman (1995), are fre-quently viewed as mainstream mixed models of emotional intelligence. The basicapproach to the Bar-One model is that emotional intelligence is a multi-factorialarray of interrelated emotional, personal, and social abilities that influence one’soverall ability to cope actively and effectively with daily demands and pressures(Bar-On, 2000: 373, 385; 2005: 3). Bar-On (2005: 3) defines emotional intelligenceas a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills, andfacilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves,understand others and relate to them, and cope with daily demands. These com-ponents of emotional functioning allow for individuals to feel and express positiveemotions and remain optimistic.

Similar to the Bar-On model, Goleman’s (1998) model also emphasizes non-cognitive factors such as motivation and personality traits (Goleman et al., 2003:47, 327–332). Goleman (1998) defined emotional intelligence as the capacity torecognize one’s own feelings and those of others, and to motivate and to manageemotions in oneself and one’s relationships. A very important aspect of Goleman’sapproach is his emphasis on emotional competence. The author adapted Saloveyand Mayer’s model (1990) into a version he believed would enable an understand-ing of those talents that matter in work life (Goleman, 1998: 317). The adaptationincluded five basic clusters of emotional and social competencies including aspectssuch as self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and the way individ-uals handle emotions in relationships and interact with others. The five clusterswere later reduced (Boyatzis et al., 2000: 346) to four clusters of competenciesnecessary for proper functioning, namely (a) self-awareness, (b) self-management,(c) social awareness, and (d) relationship management (Boyatzis et al., 2000: 355;Goleman et al., 2003: 326).

Despite certain differences, it seems from the literature that all mainstream emo-tional intelligence models manifest certain commonalities. First, all of these modelshave both an intrapersonal component as well as a social or interpersonal compo-nent (Bar-On, 2006: 21; Goleman et al., 2003: 102, 326). Second, they all addressthe issue of being able to perceive and understand one’s own emotions (Bar-On,2000: 365; 2006: 21; Boyatzis et al., 2000: 344; Livingstone et al., 2002: 9, 19; Mayeret al., 2000a: 109). Third, the emphasis in all models is placed on emotional




self-management or regulating one’s emotions (Bar-On, 2006: 21; Bar-On et al.,2003: 1790; Mayer et al., 2000b: 322). Fourth, most models of emotional intelli-gence also include a component related to empathy, or the ability to understand thefeelings that others experience (Bar-On, 2000: 365, 2006: 21; Goleman et al., 2003:47; Mayer et al., 2000a: 110; Salovey and Mayer, 1990: 194). The fifth basic com-ponent addressed by most conceptualizations of emotional intelligence is the abilityto handle personal and interpersonal problems, and to cope with situationaldemands and changes (Bar-On, 2006: 21; Goleman, 2004: 328; Mayer et al.,2000a: 110). A sixth component common to most descriptions of emotional intel-ligence is the ability to generate positive effects, and to be self-motivated (Bar-On,2000: 383, 2005: 4; Lane, 2000: 172).

Apart from efforts to conceptualize emotional intelligence, substantial researchhas been undertaken to study emotional intelligence as both a criterion variable(Bar-On et al., 2003: 1791; Bechara et al., 2000: 192; Saarni, 2000: 69; Toppinget al., 2000: 33), as well as a predictor variable (Austin et al., 2005: 547; Bar-On,2000: 373, 2005: 12–14; Brackett et al., 2004: 1387). As a criterion variable research-ers have attempted to explain factors that affect the development of various aspectsof emotional intelligence, and as a predictor variable they have attempted to relateemotional intelligence to many domains of human experiential life and personalattributes.

Different studies highlight the role of demographic factors on emotional intel-ligence. A study by Bar-On et al. (2000) showed that there seems to be statisticallysignificant differences regarding certain emotional intelligence composite scales andsub-scales and culture, gender, age, and education levels. Van Rooy et al. (2005)examined the differences between various ethnic groups and emotional intelligence,and found that among Hispanic, Black, and White groups, Hispanics scoredhighest on emotional intelligence, followed by Blacks, with Whites scoring thelowest. A South African study, that included 9892 respondents, found that theethnicity effects were not strong enough to merit the inclusion of separate SouthAfrican ethnicity norms for the measurement of emotional intelligence (Gallant,2005).

Although several authors state that there are no significant differences betweenmales and females on overall emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 2006; Bar-On et al.,2000: 1111; Van Rooy et al., 2005), it was found that, in terms of gender, womentend to report higher scores on Interpersonal Relationships, while men obtainedhigher scores on sub-scales such as Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control, butlower scores on Empathy (Bar-On et al., 2000: 1111; 2006; Reissner and Geiger,1984: 317; Van Rooy et al., 2005). Age appears the most discriminating demo-graphic variable relating to emotional intelligence. It seems from various studiesthat participants obtained the highest scores on the EQ-i� around their late 40s(Bar-On, 2006; Lee, 2003; Van Rooy et al., 2005). Older subjects in particular arebetter than younger subjects at Reality Testing, Stress Tolerance, and ImpulseControl; and older subjects also appear to be more socially responsible than youn-ger ones.




Leadership effectiveness

The importance of leadership and, in particular, effective leadership is evident inthe voluminous amount of literature and research on the subject (Burke et al., 2006:288; Muldoon, 2004: 2). Spangenberg and Theron (2001: 9) state that the constructof leadership can be defined as a broader influencing process which also includesmanagement. House et al. (2002: 5) emphasize that organizational leadershipfocuses on the process of influencing individuals or groups towards the achieve-ment of goals. Leadership effectiveness, on the other hand, refers to the extent towhich the leadership process brings about group or organizational success. In otherwords, it refers to how successful an individual, already in a leadership position, isin influencing, motivating, and enabling others towards achieving group or orga-nizational success, a view supported by Bass (1995: 469). Thus, in essence, leader-ship represents a process, whereas leadership effectiveness signifies a result(McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002: 555).

Research on leadership effectiveness focuses on efforts to explain factors affect-ing leadership in one way or another. While some researchers focus mainly on theleader’s individual traits, value system, morality, and authenticity (Avolioand Gardner, 2005: 334; Carey, 1992: 217; Illies et al., 2005: 373; Sosik, 2005:221), others prefer to focus on leadership behaviours and styles, such as task-versus-people orientation (Kellet et al., 2006: 146), transformational, transactional,laissez-faire, or servant-leadership behaviour and style (Benjamin and Flynn, 2006:216; Berson et al., 2001: 53; Ehrlich et al., 1990: 229; Halverson et al., 2004: 263;Klein and House, 1995: 183; O’Connor et al., 1995: 529; Sternberg and Zhang,2005: 7). Leadership effectiveness as a dependent variable has also been linked to avast number of situational variables, including the role of culture, the attributes offollowers, and followers’ perceptions (Avolio and Bass, 1995: 199; Avolio andYammarino, 1990: 193; Hersey and Blanchard, 1982: 194; House et al., 2002: 3;Silverthorne, 2001: 303; Yammarino and Bass, 1993: 121). Efforts to link leadershipeffectiveness to specific behavioural patterns such as punishment and reward, com-munication styles, decision-making styles, distribution of power, and destructivebehaviour have also been undertaken (Atwater et al., 1997: 133; Field and Read,1990: 165; O’Connor et al., 1995: 529; Puffer, 1990: 177; Shamir et al., 1994: 25;Winter, 1991: 67).

While leadership effectiveness represents the standards by which leaders arejudged (Hogan et al., 1994: 494), how leaders’ effectiveness is determined is notstraightforward. Various factors cause complexities in the evaluation of leaders’effectiveness. Often, factors outside the organization or beyond the control ofthe leader may affect the group or organization’s performance (House et al.,2002: 8). According to the literature, leadership effectiveness is determined atvarious levels of analysis (Hogan et al., 1994: 495), such as at the individuallevel (i.e. employee satisfaction; productivity), the team level (i.e. team perfor-mance) or the organizational level (i.e. organization culture and climate, andfinancial success).




Evaluating leadership effectiveness is further complicated by the variety ofapproaches employed. These evaluation methods can be placed into five broadcategories (Hogan et al., 1994: 495). The first focuses on performance measures,which, as was mentioned, can concentrate on different units of analysis. The secondcategory of leadership research utilizes ratings by others: subordinates, peers, andsuperiors, for example. The third category of leadership studies focuses on leader-ship potential as a measure of anticipated leader effectiveness (i.e. interviews, sim-ulations, and assessment centres) (Hogan et al., 1994: 496).

A fourth category of the evaluation of leadership effectiveness is that of leaderself-rating (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005; Fleenor et al., 1996; Spangenberg andTheron, 2002) while a fifth category of leadership effectiveness research concen-trates on the ‘downside’ or ineffectiveness of leaders; for instance, leaders whosecareers are in jeopardy or who have been derailed. Indicators hereof are typicallynegative performance feedback, being passed over for promotion, demotions, ordismissal (Hogan et al., 1994: 496).

Aim of study

In the light of the literature review and the arguments outlined above, the aim ofthis study was to determine whether there are statistically significant differencesbetween effective and ineffective leaders in a South African public sector institu-tion, with regard to their scores on emotional intelligence.

Methodology

Hypotheses

For the purpose of the study, the following hypotheses were set:

Null hypothesis: There are no statistically significant differences between effective and

ineffective leaders in a South African public sector institution with regard to their

scores on emotional intelligence.

Alternative hypothesis: There are statistically significant differences between effective

and ineffective leaders in a South African public sector institution with regard to their

scores on emotional intelligence.

Sample and selection of the sample

The research group consisted of 114 leaders at middle management level in a publicsector institution, situated in six different geographical areas throughout SouthAfrica. Each leader’s effectiveness was rated by themselves (self-rating), as wellas by four subordinates, thus involving 570 participants. All leaders at this level




were invited to take part in the study, and no leader was excluded unless the leaderhad been appointed less than six months prior to the study. The rationale for thisexclusion was that followers had to have known a leader well enough to rate him orher. Most leaders were male (94.7 percent), in the age group of 41–50 years (56.1percent), and had between three and ten years’ leadership experience (53.5 percent).In terms of ethnicity, 63.2 percent were Afrikaans, 16.7 percent English, and therest of the sample included Coloureds (6.1 percent), Xhosas (4.4 percent), Tswanas(4.4 percent), Sothos (2.6 percent), Indians (1.8 percent), and Sepedis (0.9 percent).The majority (63.2 percent) had formal educational qualifications to the equivalentof Grade 12, while only 1.8 percent had obtained a degree.

Measuring instruments

For the purposes of the present study, Bar-On’s (2006: 21) model of emotionalintelligence was used. Emotional Intelligence was measured by the EmotionalQuotient Inventory (EQ-i�) (Bar-On, 2000: 364, 2006: 21) and leadership effective-ness by means of Spangenberg and Theron’s Leadership Behaviour Inventory(LBI) (Spangenberg and Theron, 2001: 1–22).

Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i�). The Bar-On model of emotionalintelligence (Bar-On, 2007a), and the subsequent EQ-i� measuring instrument(Bar-On, 2000: 364) include five key components which are (a) the ability to beaware of and understanding one’s emotions, feelings, and ideas, (b) awareness ofand understanding of others’ emotions and feelings, (c) the ability to cope withstress, (d) the ability to be flexible and alter one’s feelings with changing situ-ations, and (e) the ability to control emotions. These key components formthe five composite scales of the EQ-i�, namely: (a) Intra-personal EQ,(b) Interpersonal EQ, (c) Stress Management EQ, (d) Adaptability EQ, and(e) General Mood EQ (Bar-On, 2006: 21). Underlying these five compositescales are 15 sub-scales.

The EQ-i� consists of 133 items. These items are statements to which the respon-dent responds on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very seldom or not true ofme) to 5 (very often true of me or true of me) (Bar-On, 2006: 21). Table 1 sum-marizes the composite scales and subscales measured by the EQ-i�.

With regard to ethnicity, age and gender differences, Gallant (2005) found thatthe ethnicity effects were not strong enough to merit the inclusion of separate SouthAfrican ethnicity norms for the EQ-i�, but separate age and gender South Africannorms were used.

Reliability of the EQ-i�. Two types of reliability tests were conducted on theEQ-i�, which included retest reliability and internal consistency. Retest reliabilitywas 0.72 for males and 0.8 for females over a 6-month interval (Bar-On, 2006: 17).The internal consistency was found to be 0.95 for total EQ and the Cronbach alphacoefficients varied across the sub-scales from 0.69 to 0.92 (Gallant, 2005: 11).




Validity of the EQ-i�. The EQ-i� had, by 2005, already been subjected to 20predictive validity studies, across seven countries, on 22,971 subjects. Its predictivevalidity in terms of various aspects of human behaviour related to social andemotional functioning was confirmed (Bar-On, 2006: 17; Gallant, 2005: 14–18).

Leadership Behaviour Inventory (LBI). The LBI was used in order to measureleadership effectiveness (Spangenberg and Theron, 2001: 5, 2002: 13). The LBI has

Table 1. Composite scales and sub-scales measured by the EQ-i� (Bar-On, 2006: 21)

Composite scales and sub-scales Definition of composite scales and sub-scales

Intra-personal EQ Aware of and understanding one’s emotions, feelings, and ideas

Emotional self-awareness Recognizing and understanding one’s emotions

Assertiveness Expressing feeling, beliefs, and thoughts openly

Self-regard Awareness of and respect for oneself

Self-actualization Realization of one’s potential and engaging in activities that one

enjoys

Independence Self-direction and self-control in thinking and actions

Interpersonal EQ Aware of and understanding others’ emotions and feelings

Empathy Awareness of and appreciation for the feelings of others

Interpersonal relationships Establishing mutually satisfying relationships that demonstrate

closeness

Social responsibility Demonstrating that one is a cooperative member of a group

who contributes in a constructive manner to the well-being of

the group

Adaptability EQ Being flexible and altering one’s feelings with changing situations

Problem-solving Identifying and generating solutions for personal and social

problems

Reality testing Assessing correspondence between one’s perception and

reality

Flexibility Adjusting one’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviours to changing

situations

Stress Management EQ Coping with stress and controlling emotions

Stress tolerance Withstanding adverse events and stressful situations

Impulse control Resisting or delaying impulses and controlling one’s emotions

General Mood EQ Feeling and expressing positive emotions and remaining optimistic

Happiness Feeling satisfied with one’s life and expressing positive

emotions

Optimism Looking on the bright side of life and maintaining a positive

attitude in the face of adversity

Standard deviation and mean for total scale: Mean score¼ 100, Standard deviation¼ 15.




been developed specifically for the South African context and accommo-dates the diversity within the South African work environment. It alsoaddresses the issue of most people in South Africa not speaking English as first lan-guage, as was evident in the sample (Spangenberg and Theron, 2001: 10, 2002).It comprises of four phases or stages of leadership effectiveness, namely: (a)Environmental Orientation, (b) Vision Formulation and Sharing, (c) Preparingthe Organization for Implementing the Vision, and (d) Implementing theVision (Spangenberg and Theron, 2002: 16). These phases are summarized inTable 2.

The total structure of the LBI, reflecting the four phases, captures 24 dimensionsand 96 items (Spangenberg and Theron, 2002: 17). Four items capture each of the24 dimensions. Responses to specific items are measured on a 5-point Likert-scalewith response options being (a) rarely, (b) once in a while, (c) sometimes, (d) fairlyoften, and (e) very frequently. Each leader’s effectiveness was rated by themselves(self-rating), as well as by four subordinates. The leader’s self-rating accounted for20 percent of his or her leadership effectiveness score, while the subordinates’ scoresaccounted for 80 percent of the score.

Reliability of the LBI. Cronbach alpha values, varying between 0.69 and 0.93across the 24 sub-scales, were obtained from studies done by Spangenberg andTheron (2001: 18). In the present study, each of the four dimensions’ reliabilitycoefficients was determined. The alpha values found for the four meta-scales in thepresent study varied between 0.92 and 0.99.

Validity of the LBI. A confirmatory factor analysis by means of structural equa-tion modelling (SEM) assessed a series of ‘goodness-of-fit’ indices to determine theabsolute and comparative fit of the model. Values of less than 0.033 on the stan-dardized root mean square residual (RMR) were indicative that the data fit themodel well. The root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) was deter-mined at 0.059, which led to the conclusion that a good or acceptable fit had beenachieved. This conclusion was supported by the standardized RMR value of 0.033(Spangenberg and Theron, 2002: 19).

Statistical analysis

Multivariate analysis of variance was used by means of the SPSS programme inorder to determine the differences between effective and ineffective leaders withregard to emotional intelligence and its composite scales and sub-scales.Participants were divided into two groups based on their scores on the LBI.Fifty-one participants with the lowest leadership effectiveness scores were assignedto the ineffective leadership category and 50 respondents with the highest leader-ship effectiveness scores were assigned to the effective leader group. The 13 mostcentral scores were excluded in order to ensure that those in either of the effective-ness categories were included in the specific category by a safe margin. The effective




Table 2. Phases of leadership effectiveness measured by the Leadership Behaviour Inventory

(LBI) (Spangenberg and Theron, 2001: 17)

Code Phases and dimensions Definition

ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATION

AWEX Awareness of external

environment

Identifies and interprets external environments

that may affect unit performance. Understands

the business and position of the organization

AWIN Awareness of internal

environment

Interprets internal dynamics and identifies weak-

nesses that may affect unit performance.

VISION FORMULATING AND SHARING

VISI Developing a challenging

vision

Develops a vision that gives people a sense of

purpose, is customer-focused, and advances

diversity of people

TRUS Building trust Builds confidence in the unit and visibly supports

the mission and the values of the unit

ARTI Articulating vision and

enlisting followers

Articulates a vision for the future that provides

direction, excites followers, and inspires com-

mitment in followers

STRA Conceptualizing strategy Builds strategy and plans based on thorough

problem analysis and broad-based fact-finding.

Considers consequences of decisions

PREPARING THE ORGANIZATION FOR IMPLEMENTING THE VISION

RISK Enabling the leader: per-

sonal growth

Identifies challenging opportunities for self-

development and is committed to continuous

learning. Risks new ways of doing things

LEAD Enabling the leader: self-

discovery and –

management

Has good insight into own capabilities, weak-

nesses, and behaviour, and manages him/herself

well

FOLL Empowering followers Facilitates personal growth of followers and cre-

ates a ‘hassle’-free environment that provides

ownership of work

SYST Optimizing structures and

systems

Adapts structures, processes, and procedures to

support implementation of strategy in a changing

environment

CULT Building culture Develops a culture of openness that facilitates

employee diversity and participation and is

directed to high performance

IMPLEMENTING THE VISION

INFL Influencing the external

environment

Builds the image of the organization and practises

good citizenship

HONO Honesty and integrity Considers ethical implications of decisions,

assures agreed-upon values are adhered to, and

deals honestly with all stakeholders

(continued)




and ineffective leadership groups were subsequently compared in terms of theirscores obtained on emotional intelligence.

Results

First, the effective and ineffective leader groups were compared in terms of theirmean scores on emotional intelligence (total score). Subsequently, the two groupswere compared with regard to their performance on the five emotional intelligencecomposite scales and then in terms of their sample means on all 15 emotionalintelligence sub-scales. The differences between effective and ineffective leadersregarding their total emotional intelligence and its scores on the five compositescales are presented in Table 3.

Table 2. Continued

Code Phases and dimensions Definition

DECI Decisiveness and

hardiness

Acts decisively and makes hard decisions.

Performs effectively under stress, and reacts

positively to change and uncertainty

VALU Challenging current reality Challenges current thinking, reconsiders current

practices, and improves work methods

LEAR Facilitating learning Encourages followers to express ideas and feel-

ings, and develops a full understanding for their

problems. Promotes continuous learning

MANA Interpersonal skills Effectively handles interpersonal and group

relations

TREA Showing concern for

others

Shows concern for the aspirations, needs, and

feelings of others

INSP Inspiring people Raises the aspirations, confidence, and motivation

of followers. Conveys the message convincingly

COOR Facilitates interdepart-

mental cooperation

Facilitates interdepartmental cooperation, and

helps people see the big picture

ACTI Acting entrepreneurially Develops new ideas, seizes opportunities, and

initiates projects for the benefit of the unit

PLAN Develops and implements

performance plans

Ensures that the employees and unit goals and

plans support the organizational strategy, and that

employees know what is expected of them

REVI Reviewing performance Provides followers with feedback about unit per-

formance as well as specific feedback about their

own performance

REWA Rewarding performance Acknowledges positive employee performance

and behaviour, celebrates success




From Table 3, it is evident that the effective and ineffective leaders demonstratedsignificant differences in their scores on total emotional intelligence. The means forthe overall emotional intelligence scores of the high and low effective leaders were98.74 and 90.63 respectively (p¼ .02). These differences are represented graphicallyin Figure 1.

98.74

90.63

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

Ineffective leadersEffective leaders

Mea

n E

Q s

core

Figure 1. Graphical representation of significant differences between effective and ineffective

leaders in terms of emotional intelligence

Table 3. Differences between effective and ineffective leaders regarding their scores on total

emotional intelligence and its five dimensions

Effective leaders Ineffective leaders

Total Emotional Intelligence

and Composite scales Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev F-value p-value

Emotional intelligence

(total score) 98.74 14.23 90.63 19.52 5.59 .02*

Intra-personal EQ 97.38 14.73 92.78 17.76 2 .16

Interpersonal EQ 97.20 13.92 90.86 18.35 3.81 .05*

Stress Management EQ 101.28 13.42 95.47 15.41 4.07 .05*

Adaptability EQ 99.22 14.14 93.01 17.95 3.62 .06

General Mood EQ 97.82 14.75 92.88 15.02 2.78 .1

*p< .05.




The effective and ineffective leader groups were also compared in terms of theirsample means on the five emotional intelligence composite scales, namely: (a) Intra-personal EQ, (b) Interpersonal EQ, (c) Stress Management EQ, (d) AdaptabilityEQ, and (e) General Mood EQ (Table 3). Two composite scales emerged thatdiffered significantly between effective and ineffective leaders. These dimensionsare Interpersonal EQ and Stress Management EQ. The effective leaders’ scoresfor Interpersonal EQ had a mean of 97.20, whereas the low leadership effectivenessgroup scored an average of 90.86 on the Interpersonal EQ dimension. The differ-ence between effective and ineffective leaders in terms of their scores on the emo-tional intelligence dimension Interpersonal EQ was significant at p¼ .05.

The effective leaders had a mean of 101.28 compared to the mean score of 95.47for ineffective leaders on the Stress Management EQ composite scales dimension.The difference between effective and ineffective leaders in terms of their scores onthe emotional intelligence composite scale Stress Management EQ was significantat p¼ .05. These differences regarding Interpersonal EQ and Stress ManagementEQ are graphically displayed in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively.

The effective and ineffective leaders were further compared in terms of theirscores on the 15 emotional intelligence sub-scales. These results are illustrated inTable 4.

Six sub-scales emerged on which effective and ineffective leaders differed signif-icantly. The effective leaders scored higher on all 15 sub-scales, although the dif-ferences between the effective and ineffective leaders were significant on only six of

97.2

90.86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98


Inte

r-pe

rson

al E

Q

Figure 2. Graphic representation of the significant differences between effective and

ineffective leaders in terms of their scores on Interpersonal EQ




these sub-scales. A significant difference between the effective and ineffective lea-ders emerged regarding Self-actualization (p¼ .01). The group of effective leadersscored significantly higher on Empathy (p¼ .001), as well as on SocialResponsibility with mean scores of 100.06 and 92, respectively (p¼ .01). The effec-tive leaders significantly outperformed the ineffective leaders on the StressTolerance and Optimism sub-subscales (p< .01). Effective and ineffective leadersalso showed a significant difference in terms of Problem-solving (p< .01). Theseresults are graphically displayed in Figure 4.

Discussion of results

The null hypothesis, which states that there are no significant differences betweeneffective and ineffective leaders in a South African public sector institution withregard to their scores on emotional intelligence, was rejected. As reported inTable 3, a significant difference between effective and ineffective leaders emergedwith regard to their overall emotional intelligence scores (p¼ .02). These resultssupported evidence from prior research in the private sector (Bar-On, 2006: 22;Bono and Ilies, 2006: 330; Charbonneau and Nicol, 2002: 1111; Dasborough, 2006:175; Goleman et al., 2003: 325; Humphrey, 2002: 494; Mandel and Pherwani,2003: 400; Rosete and Ciarrochi, 2005: 388; Sy et al., 2006: 471; Wong and Law,2002: 269), and shows that leader emotional intelligence can also be an importantvariable related to leadership effectiveness within a public sector institution.

101.28

95.47

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102


Str

ess

Man

agem

ent E

Q

Figure 3. Graphic representation of the significant differences between effective and

ineffective leaders in terms of their scores on Stress Management EQ




Although the effective leaders scored higher on all the emotional intelligencecomposite scales, these differences were not significant in all cases. Effective leadersscored significantly higher on the Interpersonal EQ and Stress Management EQcomposite scales, as well as on six sub-scales namely, Self-actualization, Empathy,Social responsibility, Stress tolerance, Problem-solving, and Optimism.

Within the Intra-personal EQ composite scale, Self-awareness reflected the smal-lest difference between effective and ineffective leaders, while a significant differencebetween the effective and ineffective leaders emerged with regard to Self-actualiza-tion, with the effective leaders scoring higher (p¼ .01). This was unforeseen due tothe large body of literature advocating a strong relationship between self-awarenessand leadership effectiveness (Illies et al., 2005; Sosik and Megerian, 1999; VanSickle, 2004), while no research could be found relating self-actualization to lead-ership effectiveness. Self-actualization refers to the individual’s ability to realize his

Table 4. Differences in scores between effective and ineffective leaders on the 15 emotional

intelligence sub-scales


Dimension Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev F-value p-value

Intra-personal EQ

Self-regard 101 13.86 97.24 15.16 1.68 .2

Self-awareness 99.96 15.38 99.47 16.85 0.02 .88

Assertiveness 95.35 16.03 92.33 16.29 0.87 .35

Independence 95.47 15.01 91.94 16.97 1.2 .28

Self-actualization 98.94 13.38 91.73 15.14 6.35 .01*

Interpersonal EQ

Empathy 99.45 14.33 87.73 20.12 11.18 .001**

Social responsibility 100.06 13.58 92 17.15 6.75 .01*

Interpersonal relations 96.25 14.22 93.75 16.96 0.64 .43

Stress Management EQ

Stress tolerance 102.65 13.94 93 16.78 9.75 .002**

Impulse control 100.14 14.93 98.31 13.62 0.41 .52

Adaptability EQ

Reality testing 99.37 15.6 97.04 18.64 0.46 .5

Flexibility 97.35 14.14 92.47 18.56 2.17 .14

Problem-solving 102.96 12.86 93.69 16.74 9.6 .003**

General Mood EQ

Optimism 97.82 13.8 90.04 14.17 7.73 .007**

Happiness 99.49 13.62 96.53 16.64 0.94 .33

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




or her potential, and is associated with feelings of self-satisfaction and efforts toimprove competencies, skills, and talents (Bar-On, 2007b).

The Interpersonal EQ scale focuses on social awareness and interpersonal rela-tionships (Bar-On, 2006), and relates to the ability to maintain healthy, satisfyingrelationships (Bar-On, 2007b). It includes the sub-scales Empathy, referring to theawareness of and appreciation for the feelings of others, and Social Responsibility,demonstrating that one is a cooperative member of a group who contributes in aconstructive manner to the well-being of the group. Both these sub-scales contrib-uted significantly to the overall difference between effective and ineffective leadersin terms of Interpersonal EQ. Various studies found that leaders who are moreattentive and understanding of their followers’ emotions, and who have the capac-ity to identify with their work groups and cooperate with others performed better,were more successful in completing complex projects, and received higher leader-ship effectiveness ratings (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Bar-On, 2000; Byron, 2003;Leban, 2003). Trusting relationships are regarded as the foundation of leadership(Robbins et al., 2003), and are central to many theoretical leadership frameworks,such as servant leadership, and neo-charismatic leadership (Bolden et al., 2003;Cascio and Shurygailo, 2003; Fiol et al., 1999; House, 1999; Russel, 2001). Bar-On(2000, 2005) states that one’s group and cooperation orientation – specifically one’scognisance of others’ feelings, needs, and concerns – is one of the primary factorsassociated with work effectiveness. Prior research across 36 countries found socialresponsibility to be one of the most important predictors of work effectiveness(Bar-On, 2000). The present study supports these findings, as those leaders rated

98.94100.06

102.65 102.96

97.82

9293

99.45

91.73

87.73

93.69

90.04

80

85

90

95

100

105

Self-actualisation

Empathy SocialResponsibility

StressTolerance

Problem-solving

Optimism

Effective leaders

Ineffective leaders

Figure 4. Significant differences between the effective and ineffective leader groups on the

emotional intelligence sub-scales




as more effective scored higher on Interpersonal EQ, as well as on the Empathy andSocial Responsibility sub-scales.

As discussed previously, it is often suggested that the need for managers andleaders who are highly skilled in interpersonal relationships, is much lower inhighly formalized, command-and-control organizations than in organizationswith flatter structures and more informal organizational cultures, where employeesare more often influenced by means of informal relationships than by positionpower. Despite the fact that this public sector institution can be described as acommand-and-control organization with a high level of formalization, whereauthority and control are given via precisely defined chains of command, therole of Interpersonal EQ and specifically Empathy and Social Responsibility inleadership effectiveness is evident. Additionally, the sample of leaders consistedmostly of males (97.4 percent), and this is indicative of a strong male-orientedand more masculine institutional environment. Some authors (Fambrough andHart, 2008: 743, 744) suggest that the emotions associated with organizationswith a masculine-oriented environment have traditionally been more masculinein nature, such as anger, contempt, and aggression, while personal emotionssuch as empathy are considered more feminine, and are often not seen as appro-priate to the public male workplace. Yet these results show that despite theseorganizational characteristics, effective leaders in this institution are regarded asbeing able to maintain healthy, satisfying relations, as being sensitive to, and inter-ested in what, how, and why people feel the way they do, and as demonstratingtheir contribution to the well-being of the group.

With regard to the Stress Management EQ composite scale and its sub-scaleStress Tolerance, as well as the sub-scales Optimism and Problem-solving, the effec-tive leaders significantly outperformed the ineffective leaders. Several authors havelinked effective leadership to the ability to handle stress and to solve problemseffectively (Bar-On, 2007b; Conelli et al., 2000; Lopes, 2004; Morris, 1996;Snyder, 1979). These authors state that individuals who are skilful in managingstress and who have a high level of stress tolerance are rarely impulsive, and workwell under pressure. Such individuals are able to perform successfully in stressful,anxiety-provoking, and even dangerous work settings, and have the capacity to facecrises and problems rather than surrendering to feelings of helplessness and hope-lessness. These individuals also perceive problems as manageable and approachthem in a methodical and systematic manner with perseverance. With regard toOptimism, previous research also suggests that effective leaders tend to maintaina positive attitude in the face of adversity. Bass (1995, 1999) described how leadersenergize followers by viewing the future with optimism. Optimism also surfaced intrait theory as a predictor of leadership effectiveness (Muchinsky, 2000).

The institution that was included in the sample for the purposes of this researchoften requires its personnel to work longer or more irregular hours than what isusually expected from public sector institutions. Furthermore, due to the specificnature of the work, quick problem-solving, often under high levels of pressurewithin a team context, as well as precision in the execution of tasks is essential.




According to House and Howell (1992), the challenge for leaders within a demand-ing work environment is to be able to maintain a positive work environment bymeans of empathy, optimism, enthusiasm, and confidence levels. This may explainthe results of the study, indicating that effective leaders are more able to managetheir stress effectively (Stress Management EQ and Stress Tolerance), are moreOptimistic, and have higher scores on Problem-solving, Empathy and SocialResponsibility.

From the aforementioned, it seems that the results of this study are similar tothose of studies conducted in the private sector and other institutions, supporting arelationship between dimensions of emotional intelligence and leadership effective-ness (Bono and Ilies, 2006; Dasborough, 2006; Hopkins, 2005; Stubbs, 2005; Syet al., 2006).

Conclusion and recommendations

Although the importance of emotional intelligence in the workplace has beenrepeatedly proven by research in the private sector, it has become evident thatthere is a need for the promotion of understanding regarding emotional intelligencein public sector institutions (Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010: 84). The aim of thisstudy was to determine whether there are statistically significant differencesbetween effective and ineffective leaders in a South African public sector institu-tion, with regard to their scores on emotional intelligence. Effective leaders scoredsignificantly higher on Interpersonal EQ (including the sub-scales Empathy andSocial Responsibility) and Stress Management EQ (including the sub-scale StressTolerance), as well as on three other sub-scales, namely, Self-actualization,Problem-solving, and Optimism.

Although the results of the study cannot be generalized to other public sectorinstitutions due to the specific nature and characteristics of the institution as well asthe sample, the results should not be ignored. From the very few studies relatingto emotional intelligence conducted in the public sector, it can be concludedthat there seems to be a lack of certain emotional intelligence competencies atboth managerial and entry level, including typical emotional intelligence skillssuch as self-awareness, stress management, the ability to work in diverse groups(social responsibility), flexibility and adaptability, as well as empathy and the reg-ulation of one’s own emotions (Berman and West, 2008; Bester and Boshoff, 2009;Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010: 84).

Various authors (Borins, 2002: 467; Price, 1996: 98) question the conventionalwisdom that public sector institutions are usually large bureaucracies structured toperform their core tasks with stability and consistency, often resisting change ordisruption of these tasks. They maintain that the public sector has been facinggreater numbers of challenges, forcing it to become more innovative; and increas-ingly focused on cost and quality control. They also often need to deliver services tosocieties and communities characterized by an increased level of diversity in termsof culture, language, religion and educational level. Subsequently, leaders would be




required to develop into more ‘gifted generalists’ with a broad range of leader-ship capabilities. Functional skills alone appear less likely to guarantee leadershipeffectiveness as such a work environment requires leaders who are socially andemotionally competent and who have the ability to regulate their own andothers’ behaviour according to situational changes (Spannenberg and Theron,2002).

Many questions regarding emotional intelligence in the public sector still remainunanswered, but it appears from the results of this study, as well as previousstudies, that the role of emotional intelligence in leadership effectiveness in thepublic sector should not be ignored. With an increased awareness of higher cus-tomer focus and efforts undertaken by public sector institutions in this regard,recruiting emotionally intelligent people could assist these institutions in creatinga greater focus on customer satisfaction levels. Specifically, the relationshipbetween emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness seems to warrant orga-nizational consideration of the possible inclusion of emotional intelligence, amongother competencies, as a selection and promotion criterion for future leaders.Job analyses and the subsequent identification of job competencies can be usedin order to determine, among others, the emotional intelligence requirements ofspecific leadership tasks, duties, and behaviours at different managerial levelswithin the specific context of the organization, including its characteristicsand nature of work. Based on such predetermined criteria, valid measures of emo-tional intelligence could be included as part of the selection and promotion pro-cess, along with other desirable individual attributes, such as verbal andnumerical abilities, personality attributes, and specific managerial and leadershipcompetencies required for effective leadership specifically within public sectorinstitutions.

Leadership development courses may also include programmes to develop emo-tional intelligence competencies. Potential candidates nominated to attend thesecourses could be equipped with a vital understanding of their own emotional func-tioning, as well as an awareness of their influence on their followers. The contin-uous provision of feedback, mentoring, and modelling is also a key considerationin the development of emotional intelligence.

References

Antonakis J, Avolio BJ and Sivasubramaniam N (2003) Context and leadership: An exam-ination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Leadership Quarterly 14: 261–295.

Atwater LE, Comobreco JF, Dionne SD, Avolio BJ and Lau AN (1997) Effects of rewards

and punishments on leader charisma, leader effectiveness and follower reactions.Leadership Quarterly 8(2): 133–152.

Austin EJ, Saklofske DH and Egan V (2005) Personality, well-being and health

correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Difference 38:547–558.




Avery DR, Tonidandel S, Griffith KH and Quinones MA (2003) The impact of multiplemeasures of leader experience on leader effectiveness: New insights for leader selection.Journal of Business Research 56: 673–679.

Avolio BJ and Bass BM (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis:A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership.Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 199–218.

Avolio BJ and Gardner WL (2005) Authentic leadership development: Getting to the rootsof positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly 16: 315–338.

Avolio BJ and Yammarino FJ (1990) Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a level-

of-analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly 1(3): 193–208.Avolio BJ, Howell JM and Sosik JJ (1999) A funny thing happened on the way to the

bottom line: Humor as moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of ManagementJournal 42(2): 219–227.

Bar-On R (2000) Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional quotientinventory. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) Handbook of Emotional Intelligence:Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in the

Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 363–388.Bar-On R (2005) The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence. Psicothema 17 (Special

Issue).

Bar-On R (2006) The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence. Psicothema 18(Suppl):13–25.

Bar-On R (2007a) The conceptual aspect of the Bar-On model (the theory). Available at:http://www.reuvenbaron.org/bar-on-model/conceptual-aspects.php (accessed 4 August

2009).Bar-On R (2007b) The 5 meta-factors and 15 sub-factors of the Bar-On model. Available at:

http://www.reuvenbaron.org/bar-on-model/essay.php?i¼3 (accessed 4 August 2009).

Bar-On R (2007c) Theoretical foundations, background and development of the Bar-Onmodel of emotional intelligence. Available at: http://www.reuvenbaron.org/bar-on-model/essay.php?i¼1 (accessed on 4 August 2009).

Bar-On F, Brown JM, Kirkcaldy B and Thome E (2000) Emotional expression and implica-tions for occupational stress: An application of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i).Personality and Individual Differences 28: 1107–1118.

Bar-On R, Tranel D, Denburg NL and Bechara A (2003) Exploring the neurological sub-strate of emotional and social intelligence. Brain 126(8): 1790–1800.

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass BM (1995) Theory of transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly 6(4):

463–478.Bass BM (1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1): 9–32.

Bechara A, Tranel D and Damasio AR (2000) Poor judgement in spite of high intellect:Neurological evidence of emotional intelligence. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds)Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application

at Home, School and in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 192–214.Benjamin L and Flynn FJ (2006) Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit?

Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100: 216–230.Berdahl JL (1996) Gender and leadership in work groups. Leadership Quarterly 7(1): 21–40.

Berman EM and West JP (2008) Managing emotional intelligence in US cities: A study ofsocial skills among public managers. Public Administration Review 68(4): 742–758.




Berson Y, Shamir B, Avolio BJ and Popper M (2001) The relationship between visionstrength, leadership style, and context. Leadership Quarterly 12: 53–73.

Bester CL and Boshoff E (2009) Perceptions of managers in the public sector regarding the

relevance of training and education of entrants to the labour market. Journal forHumanities 49(4): 728–739.

Bettin PJ and Kennedy JK Jnr (1990) Leadership experience and leader performance: Some

empirical support at last. Leadership Quarterly 1(4): 219–228.Bolden R, Gosling J, Marturano A and Dennison P (2003) A review of leadership theory

and competency frameworks: Edited version of a report for Chase Consulting and the

Management Standards Centre. Available at: http://www.leadership-studies.com/docu-ments/mgmt_standards.pdf (accessed 2 November 2008).

Bono JE and Ilies R (2006) Charisma, positive emotion and mood contagion. LeadershipQuarterly 17(4): 317–334.

Borins S (2002) Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal 23(8): 467–476.

Boyatzis ER, Goleman D and Rhee KS (2000) Clustering competence in emotional intelli-

gence. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory,Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 343–362.

Brackett MA, Mayer JD and Warner RM (2004) Emotional intelligence and its relation toeveryday behaviour. Personality and Individual Difference 36: 1387–1402.

Burke CS, Stagl KC, Klein C, Goodwin GF, Salas E and Halpin SM (2006) What type ofleadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly 17:

288–307.Byron KL (2003) Are better managers better at reading others? Testing the claim that emo-

tional intelligence predicts managerial performance. PhD dissertation, Georgia State

University, Atlanta. Available at: Emotional Intelligence Consortium database: www.eiconsortium.org/ references/dissertation_abstractshtml (accessed 9 November 2009).

Carey MR (1992) Transformational leadership and the fundamental option for self-trans-

cendence. Leadership Quarterly 3(3): 217–236.Cascio WF and Shurygailo S (2003) E-leadership and virtual teams. Organisational

Dynamics 31(4): 362–376.

Charbonneau D and Nicol AAM (2002) Emotional intelligence and leadership in adoles-cents. Personality and Individual Difference 33: 1101–1113.

Cherniss C (2000) Social and emotional competence in the workplace. In: Bar-On R andParker JDA (eds) Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment,

and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,433–458.

Cobb CD and Mayer JD (2000) Emotional intelligence. Educational Leadership 58(3):

14–18.Conelli MS, Gilbert JA, Zaccaro SJ, Threlfall KV, Marks MA and Mumford MD (2000)

Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leadership performance.

Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 65–86.Dasborough MT (2006) Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership

behaviour. Leadership Quarterly 17: 163–178.Dulewicz V and Higgs M (2005) Assessing leadership styles and organisational context.

Journal of Managerial Psychology 5(2): 105–123.




Ehrlich SB, Meindl JR and Viellieu B (1990) The charismatic appeal of a transformationalleader: An empirical case study of a small, high-technology contractor. LeadershipQuarterly 1(4): 229–247.

Fambrough MJ and Hart RK (2008) Emotions in leadership development: A critique ofemotional intelligence. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10(5): 740–758.

Field RHG and Read PC (1990) The effect of situation attributes on decision method choice

in the Vroom-Jago model of participation in decision making. Leadership Quarterly 1(3):165–176.

Fiol CM, Harris D and House R (1999) Charismatic Leadership: Strategies for Effecting

Social Change. Available at: http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/l_change/publications/House/Charismatic%20Leadership%20-%20House%20.doc (accessed 28 July 2006).

Fleenor JW, McCauley CD and Brutus S (1996) Self–other rating agreement and leadereffectiveness. Leadership Quarterly 7(4): 487–506.

Gallant S (2005) EQ-i� South African Norms. MHS Technical Report No. 0035, Researchand Development, Jopie van Rooyen and Partners SA, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Goleman D (1995) Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goleman D (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Goleman D (2004) Emotional Intelligence and Working with Emotional Intelligence. London:

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goleman D, Boyatzis R and McKee A (2003) The New Leaders: Transforming the Art ofLeadership into the Science of Results. London: Time Warner Paperbacks.

Halverson SK, Holladay CL, Kazama SM and Quinones MA (2004) Self-sacrificial behav-ior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors.

Leadership Quarterly 15: 263–275.Hedlund J and Sternberg RJ (2000) Too many intelligences? Integrating social, emotional

and public intelligence. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) Handbook of Emotional

Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and inthe Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 136–167.

Hersey P and Blanchard K (1982) Management of Organisational Behavior: Utilizing Human

Resources, 4th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hogan R, Curphy GJ and Hogan J (1994) What we know about leadership: Effectiveness

and personality. American Psychologist 49(6): 493–504.

Hopkins MM (2005) The impact of gender, emotional intelligence competencies, and styles onleadership success. PhD dissertation, Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University.Available at: Emotional Intelligence Consortium database: www.eiconsortium.org/references/dissertation_ abstracts.html (Abstract accessed 9 November 2009).

House RJ (1999) Weber and neo-charismatic leadership paradigm: A response to Beyer.Leadership Quarterly 10(4): 563–574.

House RJ and Howell JM (1992) Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership

Quarterly 3(2): 81–108.House R, Javidan M, Hanges P and Dorfman P (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit

leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of

World Business 37: 3–10.Humphrey RH (2002) The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership Quarterly 13:

493–504.Illies R, Morgenson FP and Nahrgang JD (2005) Authentic leadership and

eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly16: 373–394.




Jewell LN (1998) Contemporary Industrial/organisational Psychology, 3rd edn. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Judge TA and Bono JE (2000) Five-factor model of personality and transformational lead-

ership style. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(5): 715–730.Kalma AP and Visser L (1993) Social and aggressive dominance: Personality differences in

leadership style. Leadership Quarterly 4(1): 45–64.

Kellet JB, Humphrey RH and Sleeth RG (2006) Empathy and the emergence of task andrelations leaders. Leadership Quarterly 17: 146–162.

Klein KJ and House RJ (1995) On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis.

Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 183–198.Lane RD (2000) Levels of emotional awareness: Neurological, psychological and social

perspectives. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) Handbook of Emotional Intelligence:Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 171–191.Latour SM and Hosmer BC (2002) Emotional intelligence. Air and Space Power Journal

16(4): 27–36.

Leban WV (2003) The relationship between leader behavior and emotional intelligence of theproject manager and the success of complex projects. PhD dissertation, BenedictineUniversity, Chicago, IL. Available at: Emotional Intelligence Consortium database: www.

eiconsortium.org/references/dissertation_ abstracts.html (accessed 9 November 2009).Lee FM (2003) Conflict management styles and emotional intelligence of faculty staff at

a selected college in southern Taiwan (China). EdD dissertation, University ofSouth Florida, St Petersburg. Available at: Emotional Intelligence Consortium

database: www.eiconsortiu.org/references /dissertation_abstracts.html (Abstract accessed9 November 2009).

Livingstone H, Nadjiwon-Foster M and Smithers S (2002) Emotional Intelligence and

Military Leadership. Prepared for: Canadian Forces Leadership. Copyright: HerMajesty the Queen in Right of Canada as Represented by the Minister of NationalDefence.

Livingstone HA and Day AL (2005) Comparing the construct and criterion-related validityof ability-based and mixed-model measures of emotional intelligence. Educational andPsychological Measurement 65(5): 757–779.

Lopes PN (2004) Emotional abilities and the quality of interpersonal interaction. PhD thesis,Yale University, New Haven, CT. Available at: Emotional Intelligence Consortiumdatabase: www.eiconsortium.org/ references/dissertation_ abstractshtml (accessed 9November 2009).

Mandell B and Pherwani S (2003) Relationship between emotional intelligence and trans-formational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology17(3): 387–404.

Marshall-Mies JC, Fleishman EA, Martin JA, Zaccaro SJ, Baughman WA and McGee ML(2000) Development and evaluation of cognitive and acognitive measures for predictingleadership potential. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 135–153.

Mayer JD, Salovey P and Caruso DR (2000a) Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist, as per-sonality, and as mental ability. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) Handbook ofEmotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home,School and in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 92–117.

Mayer JD, Salovey P and Caruso DR (2000b) Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence:The case for the ability scales. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) Handbook of




Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home,School and in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 320–342.

McColl-Kennedy JR and Anderson RD (2002) Impact of leadership style and emotions on

subordinate performance. Leadership Quarterly 13: 545–559.Morris CG (1996) Psychology: An Introduction, 9th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Moss SA and Ngu S (2005) The relationship between personality and leadership preferences.Current Research in Social Psychology 11(6): 70–91.

Muchinsky PM (2000) Psychology Applied to Work, 6th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/

Thomson Learning.Muldoon SD (2004) Is symbolic interactionism the fifth paradigm of leadership? Working

Paper Series. Victoria University of Technology. Melbourne. Available at: http://eprints.vu.edu.au/view/year/2004.html (accessed 11 November 2009).

Mumford MD, Marks MA, Conelli MS, Zaccaro SJ and Reiter-Palmon R (2000a)Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. Leadership Quarterly 11(1):87–114.

Mumford MD, Zaccaro SJ, Conelli MS and Marks MA (2000b) Leadership skills:Conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 155–170.

Mumford MD, Zaccaro SJ, Harding FD and Fleishman EA (2000c) Leadership skills for a

changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 11–35.Mumford MD, Zaccaro SJ, Johnson JF, Diana M, Gilbert JA and Threlfall KV (2000d)

Patterns of leadership characteristics: Implications for performance and development.Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 115–133.

Neal JA (2008) Integral learning: A new look at management development in public admin-istration. International Journal of Public Administration 31: 372–395.

O’Connor JA, Mumford MD, Clifton TC and Gessner TL (1995) Charismatic leaders and

destructiveness: A historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly 6(4): 529–555.Peters TJ and Austin NK (1990) A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Difference.

Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Bommer WH (1996) Transformational leader behav-iors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commit-ment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Management 22:

259–298.Price DE (1996) Some thoughts on the military circa 2025. Joint Force Quarterly 13: 97–99.Priest RF and Swain JE (2002) Humor and its implications for leadership effectiveness.

Humor 15(2): 169–189.

Puffer SM (1990) Attributions of charismatic leadership: The impact of decision style, out-come, and observer characteristics. Leadership Quarterly 1(3): 177–192.

Rainey H, Pandey S and Bozeman B (1995) Research note: Public and private managers

perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review 55: 567–574.Reissner M and Geiger SP (1984) Police officer as victim. Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice 15: 315–323.

Ring PS and Perry JL (1985) Strategic management in public and private organizations:Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review 10:276–286.

Robbins SP (2001) Organisational Behaviour, 9th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Robbins SP, Odendaal A and Roodt G (2003) Organisational Behaviour: Global andSouthern African Perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa.




Rosete D and Ciarrochi J (2005) Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplaceperformance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal 26(5): 388–399.

Russel RF (2001) The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal 22(2): 76–83.

Saarni C (2000) Emotional competence: A developmental perspective. In: Bar-On R and

Parker JDA (eds) Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment,and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,68–91.

Salovey P and Mayer JD (1990) Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition andPersonality 9: 185–211.

Shamir B, Arthur MB and House RJ (1994) The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: Atheoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. Leadership Quarterly

5(1): 25–42.Silverthorne C (2001) Leadership effectiveness and personality: A cross cultural evaluation.

Personality and Individual Differences 30: 303–309.

Snyder M (1979) Self-monitoring processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology12(30): 85–125.

Sosik JJ (2005) The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate man-

agers: A model and preliminary field study. Leadership Quarterly 16: 221–244.Sosik JJ and Megerian LE (1999) Understanding leader emotional intelligence and perfor-

mance: The role of self–other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions.Group and Organisation Management 24(3): 367–390.

Spangenberg HH and Theron CC (2001) Manual for the Leadership Behaviour Inventory:Guidelines for Administration, Scoring and Interpretation. Stellenbosch: University ofStellenbosch.

Spangenberg HH and Theron CC (2002) Development of a uniquely South African leader-ship questionnaire. South African Journal of Psychology 32(2): 9–25.

Sternberg RJ and Zhang L (2005) Developing the leaders of tomorrow: The wrong direction

is the wrong way to the right direction. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving15(2): 7–12.

Stubbs EC (2005) Emotional intelligence competencies in team and team leader: A multi-level

examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on group performance. UnpublishedPhD dissertation, Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University. Available at: EmotionalIntelligence Consortium database: www.eiconsortium.org/references/dissertation_abstracts.html (accessed 9 November 2009).

Sy T, Tram S and O’Hara LA (2006) Relation of employee and manager emotionalintelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68:461–473.

Topping K, Bremner W and Holmes EA (2000) Social competence: The social constructionof the concept. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) Handbook of Emotional Intelligence:Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 28–39.Van Rooy DL, Alonso A and Viswesvaran C (2005) Group difference in emotional intelli-

gence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Personality and Individual Difference38: 689–700.

Van Sickle J (2004) The relationship between emotional intelligence and coaching effectivenessin Division 1 head softball coaches. PhD dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.




Available at: Emotional Intelligence Consortium database: www.eiconsortium.org/refer-ences/ dissertation_abstracts.html (accessed 9 November 2009).

Vigoda-Gadot E and Meisler G (2010) Emotions in management and the management of

emotions: The impact of emotional intelligence and organisational politics on publicsector employees. Public Administration Review 70: 72–86.

Vitello-Cicciu JM (2003) Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Nursing

Management 34(10): 28–34.Winter DG (1991) A motivational model of leadership: Predicting long-term management

success from TAT measures of power motivation and responsibility. Leadership

Quarterly 2(2): 67–80.Wolff SB, Pescosolido AT and Druskat VU (2002) Emotional intelligence as the basis of

leadership emergence in self-managing teams. Leadership Quarterly 13: 505–522.Wong C and Law KS (2002) The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on

performance and attitude: An exploratory analysis. Leadership Quarterly 13: 243–274.Yammarino FJ (2000) Leadership skills: Introduction and overview. Leadership Quarterly

11(1): 5–9.

Yammarino FJ and Bass BM (1993) Person and situation views of leadership: A multiplelevels of analysis approach. Leadership Quarterly 2(2): 121–139.

Zaccaro SJ, Mumford MD, Conelli MS, Marks MA and Gilbert JA (2000) Assessment on

leader problem-solving capabilities. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 37–64.Zeng X and Miller CE (2003) Examination of measurements of emotional intelligence.

Ergometrika 3: 38–49.

Appendix Tables

Table 1. Relationships between the four phases of leadership effectiveness and emotional

intelligence composite scales regarding leaders in a public sector institution

Phases of leadership effectiveness (Lb1)

Environmental

orientation

Vision

formulating

and sharing

Preparing

organisation Implementing

Emotional

Intelligence

Composite

Scales r-value p-value r-value p-value r-value p-value r-value p-value

Intra-personal EQ .221 .018* .227 .015* .193 .040* .191 .042*

Inter-personal EQ .161 .086 .224 .017* .151 .110 .173 .066

Stress Management EQ .185 .049* .232 .013* .209 .026* .224 .017*

Adaptability EQ .290 .002** .311 .001** .274 .003** .271 .004**

General Mood EQ .191 .042* .225 .016* .186 .047* .195 .038*

*p� .05; **p� .01.




Tab

le2.

Rela

tionsh

ips

betw

een

the

dim

ensi

ons

of

lead

ers

hip

effect

iveness

and

the

em

otional

inte

llige

nce

sub-s

cale

sre

gard

ing

lead

ers

ina

public

sect

or

inst

itution

El

Dim

ensi

on

of

lead

ers

hip

effect

iveness

Sub-s

cale

s

Envi

ronm

ent

ori

enta

tion’

Vis

ion

form

ula

tions

Pre

par

ing

the

org

aniz

atio

n

for

imple

menting

the

visi

on

AW

EX

AW

INV

ISI

TR

US

ART

IST

RA

RIS

KLEA

DFO

LL

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

Self-

awar

eness

.525

.06

.721

.034

.542

.058

.232

.113

.349

.089

.570

.054

.932

.008

.827

.021

.983

.002

Ass

ert

iveness

.033*

.2.0

25*

.21

.129

.143

.075

.167

.042*

.191

.023*

.213

.045*

.188

.112

.150

.124

.145

Self-

rega

rd.0

72

.169

.115

.148

.074

.168

.058

.178

.028*

.206

.064

.174

.055

.180

.156

.134

.072

.165

Independence

.116

.148

.076

.167

.242

.11

.167

.13

.033*

.2.0

35*

.198

.006**

.256

.038*

.194

.230

.113

Self

actu

aliz

atio

n.0

02**

.288

.006**

.256

.022*

.214

0.0

1**

.239

.005**

.260

.012*

.233

.004**

.270

.039*

.194

.013*

.233

Em

pat

hy.0

76

.167

.039*

.194

.005**

.260

.011*

.238

.019*

.220

.021*

.216

.031*

.202

.126

.144

.011*

.236

Soci

alre

sponsi

bili

ty.1

39

.139

.103

.153

.022*

.214

.016*

.224

.059

.177

.057

.179

.072

.169

.183

.126

.095

.157

Inte

rpers

onal

.366

.086

.334

.091

.080

.165

.164

.131

.135

.141

.304

.097

.503

.063

.732

.032

.184

.125

Stre

ssto

lera

nce

.004**

.266

.002**

.284

.005**

.260

.005**

.259

.001**

.319

.004**

.270

.001**

.313

.009**

.245

.002**

.282

Impuls

eco

ntr

ol

.536

.058

.710

.035

.331

.092

.257

.107

.089

.160

.307

.096

.540

.058

.280

.102

.284

.101

Real

ity

test

ing

.095

.157

.316

.095

.303

.097

.248

.109

.194

.122

.316

.095

.236

.112

.328

.092

.269

.104

Flexib

ility

.014*

.229

.049*

.185

.024*

.211

.011*

.238

0**

.328

.015*

.228

.01**

.240

.011*

.236

.01**

.240

Pro

ble

mso

lvin

g0**

.363

0**

.366

0**

.327

0**

.371

0**

.389

0**

.428

0**

.417

.001**

.303

0**

.340

Optim

ism

.006**

.255

.019*

.220

.013*

.232

.008**

.248

.003**

.273

.004**

.267

.004**

.270

.135

.141

.043*

.190

Hap

pin

ess

.296

.099

.252

.108

.069

.171

.189

.124

.152

.135

.251

.108

.270

.104

.321

.094

.109

.151

*p�

.05;**

p�

.01.




Table 2. Continued

EIDimensions of leadership effectiveness

Implementing the vision

COOR ACTI PLAN REVI REWA

Sub-scales

p-

value

r-

value

p-

value

r-

value

p-

value

r-

value

p-

value

r-

value

p-

value

r-

value

Sell-awareness .718 .034 .628 �.046 .637 .045 .509 .062 .315 .095

Assertiveness .158 .133 .186 .125 .031* .203 .042* .191 .167 .130

Self-regard .053 .182 .048* .186 .028* .205 .054 .181 .128 .144

Independence .212 .118 .085 .162 .025* .211 .101 .154 .111 .150

Self-actualization .024* .211 .042* .191 .002** .284 .060 .177 .023* .212

Empathy .037* .195 .146 .137 .110 .150 .098 .156 .008** .245

Social responsibility .076 .167 .41v0 .078 .165 .131 .078 .165 .054 .181

Interpersonal .194 .123 .656 .042 .446 .072 .309 .096 .085 .162

Stress tolerance .004** .271 .002** .287 .001** .313 .005** .260 .004** .269

Impulse control .355 .087 .391 .081 .383 .082 .124 .145 .369 .085

Reality testing .488 .066 .790 .025 .188 .124 .333 .091 .363 .086

Flexibility .007** .250 .002** .293 .01** .239 .003** .272 .016* .225

Problem solving 0** .342 .001** .301 0** .360 .006** .257 .001** .305

Optimism .026* .209 .034* .198 .025* .210 .071 .170 .047* .186

Happiness .142 .138 .178 .127 .110 .150 .212 .118 .104 .153

*p� .05; **p� .01.




Tab

le2.

Continued

El

Dim

ensi

ons

of

lead

ers

hip

effect

iveness

Pre

par

ing

the

org

anis

atio

nfo

r

imple

menting

the

visi

on

Imple

menting

the

visi

on

SYST

CU

LTIN

FLH

ON

OD

EC

IVA

LU

LEA

RM

AN

AT

REA

INSP

Sub-s

cale

s

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

p-

valu

e

r- valu

e

Self-

awar

eness

.884�

.014

.854

.017

.747

.031

.793

.025

.959�

.005

.812

.023

.980�

.002

.708

.035

.591

.051

.965�

.004

Ass

ert

iveness

.066

.173

.418

.077

.021*

.215

.244

.110

.051

.184

.054*

.199

.168

.130

.349

.089

.641

.044

.393

.081

Self-

rega

rd.0

33*

.200

.175

.128

.02*

.218

.078

.166

.037*

.196

.05*

.184

.166

.131

.142

.138

.205

.120

.207

.119

Independence

.124

.145

.225

.115

.096

.157

.169

.130

.018*

.222

.053

.182

.417

.077

.177

.127

.290

.100

.232

.113

Self

actu

aliz

atio

n.0

08**

.246

.071

.170

.012*

.235

.013*

.232

.016*

.224

.011*

.237

.084

.163

.053

.182

.107

.152

.121

.146

Em

pat

hy.2

03

.120

.076

.167

.077

.166

.105

.135

.05*

.184

.051

.183

.026*

.209

.027*

.207

.006**

.257

.043*

.196

Soci

alre

sponsi

bili

ty.2

84

.101

.135

.135

.236

.112

.075

.167

.183

.126

.214

.117

.137

.140

.145

.137

.053

.181

.081

.164

Inte

rpers

onal

.398

.080

.415

.077

.275

.103

.555

.056

.376

.084

.245

.110

.356

.087

.243

.110

.166

.131

.390

.081

Stre

ssto

lera

nce

.003**

.276

.005**

.261

.002**

.287

.005**

.262

0**

.329

.001**

.307

.013*

.233

.001

**.2

98

.009**

.243

.011*

.237

Impuls

eco

ntr

ol

.802

.024*

.376

.084

.595

.050

.732

.032

.399

.080

.303

.097

.402

.079

.100

.155

.142

.138

.395

.080

Real

ity

test

ing

.359

.057

.447

.072

.248

.109

.442

.073

.486

.066

.212

.118

.535

.059

.654

.042

.582

.052

.819

.022

Flexib

ility

.068

.171

.026*

.209

.002**

.282

.023*

.214

.004**

.267

.001**

.307

.032*

.201

.014*

.230

.014*

.230

.09

.178

Pro

ble

mso

lvin

g0**

.347

.003**

.274

0**

.343

0**

.354

0**

.368

0**

.368

.001**

.295

.006**

.254

.01*

.210

.003**

.276

Optim

ism

.016*

.225

.119

.147

.025*

.210

.016*

.225

.005**

.263

.027*

.207

.070

.170

.062

.176

.059

.177

.027*

.207

Hap

pin

ess

.213

.117

.138

.140

.111

.150

.311

.096

.122

.146

.081

.164

.168

.130

.273

.104

.416

.077

.395

.080

*p�

.05;**

p�

.01.




International Review of Administrative Sciences-2011-Kotzé-397-427 (1)

Documents

Transcript of International Review of Administrative Sciences-2011-Kotzé-397-427 (1)