A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 情商的跨文化研究.doc

29Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership: A Cross-Cultural Study M. Afzalur RahimCenter for Advanced Studies in Management1574 Mallory CourtBowling Green, KY 42103, USAPhone/Fax: 2707822898/2601, Email: Clement PsenickaManagement DepartmentYoungstown State UniversityYoungstown, OH 44555Phone: 3307578188, Email: Sae-Yoon OhDepartment of Public AdministrationHonam University 59-1 Seobong-DongGwangsan-Gu, Gwangiu-City, South KoreaPhone/Fax: + 82-62-940-5243/5227, Email: syohhonam.ac.krPanagiotis PolychroniouUniversity of Ioannina2, G. Seferi St.Agrinio, GreecePhone/Fax: 0030-26410-39523/39579, ppolychrcc.uoi.grJoao Ferreira DiasISCTE - PortugalEdificio ISCTE (cacifo 238-B)Av. das Foras Armadas, 1649-026LISBOA, PortugalPhone: +(351)938450825, Email: fdiasiscte.ptMd. Sahidur RahmanShameema FerdausyUniversity of ChittagongDepartment of ManagementChittagong, BangladeshPhone/Fax: 880-31-716552/726310, Email: sahidur_, s_Running head: Social Competence, Emotional Intelligence, Transformational LeadershipAbstractThis study investigated the relationship between emotional intelligenceempathy and social skillsand transformational leadership. Questionnaire data on emotional intelligence and transformational leadership for this study were collected in five countries (U.S., Greece, Portugal, South Korea, and Bangladesh) from observers (an MBA student and two of his/her colleagues who had the same supervisor, N = 685 triads). In other words, three observers rated their common supervisor on the independent and criterion variables and the scale for each variable was created by averaging responses to its items for each group (triad). Empathy was positively associated with transformational leadership in all the five countries. Social skills was positively associated with transformational leadership in the U.S., Greece, South Korea, and Bangladesh, but not in Portugal. Overall, there were similarities in the results between the individualistic (U.S., Portugal, and Greece) and collectivistic (South Korea and Bangladesh) cultures.Literature in organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology generally acknowledge the inadequacy of intelligence as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. In reviewing the literature on intelligence and transformational leadership, Bass (2002) concluded that traditional conceptualization of intelligence is generally concerned with the analytical or academic aspect of intelligence, but an adequate conceptualization of this construct comprises other aspects, such as emotional and social intelligences, as well. Sternberg (2002) suggests, the predictive value of intelligence may have been flagged in various studies because these studies examined and measured aspects of intelligence that, however effective they may be in predicting academic and certain other kinds of performance, are not effective predictors of leadership performance (p. 9). He suggests that there are other dimensions of intelligencesocial intelligence, emotional intelligence, or practical intelligence or what scholars refer to as street smartswhich indicates that an individual is not limited simply because he or she has a below average academic intelligence or IQ.Over the years many studies on intelligence focused mainly on the adaptive use of cognition, but in recent years theorists such as Gardner (1983, 1999) and Sternberg (1985, 2002) have suggested more encompassing approaches to conceptualizing intelligence. Although Gardner did not use the term emotional intelligence, his concepts of intra- and inter-personal intelligences provided the basis for the conceptualization of EQ. Whereas, intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to be aware of and regulate ones own emotions (feelings, moods, and desires), interpersonal intelligence is associated with ones ability to understand others emotions and to induce desirable responses in them. The present study used Gardners conceptualization of interpersonal intelligence. Goleman (2001) suggested that this intelligence is associated with social competencies, such as empathy and social skills. We selected empathy and social skills components of EQ for the present study because we believed that (a) manifestations of empathy and social skills in an organizational context will have a significant influence on employees perceptions of their supervisors transformational leadership and (b) no studies to our knowledge investigated the relationships between the two constructs in domestic or cross-cultural context.In his role as a consultant in organizations, Goleman (1998; see also Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002) found that emotional intelligence is twice more important than technical skills and IQ for jobs at all levels. He also reported that emotional intelligence plays an increasingly important role at the highest levels of a company. When he compared Star performers with average ones in senior leadership positions, nearly 90% of the difference in their profiles was attributable to emotional intelligence factors rather than cognitive abilities (Goleman, 1998, p. 108). We acknowledge that some social scientists may not consider this claim as scientific evidence.Studies on EQ in an organizational context are limited, but scholars and writers in management are beginning to emphasize the importance EQ on leadership effectiveness (Bass, 2002; Goleman, 1998; Hesselbein, Goldsmith, & Beckhard, 1996; Megerian & Sosik, 1996; Morris & Feldman, 1996). These theoretical contributions suggest that some aspects of EQ may be associated with effective leadership. Sosik and Megerian (1999) suggest that an intrapersonal aspect of EQ, such as self-awareness, which involves a strong leaderfollower emotional relationship, is positively associated with transformational leadership. Taking lead from these contributions, we hypothesize that interpersonal dimensions of EQ, such as empathy and social skills are associated with transformational leadership. In other words, leaders who possess empathy and social skills aspects of EQ are likely to exhibit behaviors associated with transformational leadership.Emotional intelligence refers to ones ability to be aware of ones own feelings, be aware of others feelings, to differentiate among them, and to use the information to guide ones thinking and behavior (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). This definition consists of three categories of abilities: evaluation and expression of emotion, regulation of emotion, and using emotions in decision-making. Goleman (1998) provided a similar definition: the capacity for organizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships (p. 317). These and other definitions by Bar-On (1997), Boyatzi (2001), and others are complimentary. It appears that EQ relates to a number of non-cognitive skills, abilities, or competencies that influence an individuals capacity to deal with environmental demands and pressures. The EQ construct was first discussed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and had its roots in Gardners (1983) concepts of intra- and inter-personal intelligences, and in Thorndikes (1920) concept of social intelligence.Emotional IntelligenceSeveral scholars use the term EQ to include almost everything but IQ: emotional awareness, accurate self-assessment, self-confidence, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability, innovation, and so on (Bar-On & Parker, 2000; Goleman, 1998), but this framework stretches the conceptualization of intelligence way beyond acceptable limits (Hedlund & Sternberg, 2000). As suggested by Salovey and Mayer (1994) and Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (2000) there should be a more restrictive model of EQ based on ability and distinguished from personality. We do this by defining the two dimensions of interpersonal intelligence selected for the present study as follows:1. Empathy refers to ones ability of understanding others and taking active interest in them, recognizing and responding to changes in their emotional states, understanding their feelings transmitted through verbal and nonverbal messages, to provide emotional support to people when needed, and to understand the links between their emotions and behavior.2. Social Skills is associated with ones ability of inducing desirable responses in others, dealing with problems without demeaning those who work with him or her, to not allow own or others negative feelings to inhibit collaboration, and to negotiate and manage affective conflict with tack and diplomacy.Transformational LeadershipFollowing Burns (1978), Bass (1985; see also Bass & Avolino, 1993) proposed that transformational leadership is associated with distinct dimensions of intellectual stimulation (encouraging followers to question their own way of doing things and become innovative), individualized consideration (providing personal attention, empathy, and encouragement for self-development of followers), charisma or idealized influence (trust, respect, and pride stimulated by and emotional identification with the leader), and inspirational motivation (encouraging followers to improve their contribution by articulating a compelling vision). Leaders who possess interpersonal intelligence may be associated with transformational leadership for several reasons. Leaders who possess empathy aspect of EQ are likely to recognize followers need, take active interest in them, and respond to changes in their emotional states. Empathy is likely to be associated with individualized consideration. Social skills aspect of EQ, which is associated with enabling followers to engage in desirable behaviors, is likely to be associated with intellectual stimulation. Employees are likely to respect and emotionally identify with a leader who is considerate and is willing to help employees to be effective and improve their job performance. Therefore, the social competence dimension of EQ is likely to be associated with leaders charisma or idealized influence.Developed by Bass (1985), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a widely used instrument to assess the three aspects of transformational leadershipcharisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. However, there has been lack of evidence of construct validity of the instrument (Tejeda, 2001). Carlessas (1998) study indicated that there is little evidence to support that the MLQ measures three distinct transformational leader behaviors. In the present study, we conceptualize transformational leadership as a unidimensional construct consisting of the three types of interrelated behaviors. (As will be seen later, in the present study a factor analysis of the MLQ items resulted in a single factor.).On the basis of our theoretical discussion, we formulate the following hypotheses for the study:Hypothesis 1: Empathy is positively associated with transformational leadership.Hypothesis 2: Social skills is positively associated with transformational leadership.We also wanted to explore how these relationships differ between individualistic (U.S., Greece, and Portugal) and collectivistic (China and Bangladesh) cultures?Davis, Stankov, and Roberts (1998, p. 1013) study indicates the potential dark side of popularizing a construct before it is carefully conceptualized and operationalized and rigorous empirical studies are completed. Self-report measures of EQ (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001; Bernet, 1996; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Mayer et al., 2000; Schutte et al., 1998) and criterion variables may have resulted in common method variance. This occurs when data are collected from the same respondents, with the same measures, and at the same time. The EQ instruments developed by Law, Wong, and Song and by Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey are psychometrically sound which are likely to be resistant to common method variance (cf. Spector, 1987). Another issue is that in organizational studies, supervisors are often asked to assess their own managerial skills, but studies by Kruger and Dunning (1999) and Shipper and Dillard (2000) reported that unsuccessful supervisors overestimate their skills compared to successful supervisors. Also three studies reported that under-estimators of their managerial skills are likely to be more effective than over-estimators (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Church, 1997; Van Velsor, Taylor, & Leslie, 1993). As a result, if the supervisors are asked to self-assess their EQ, some of them will probably provide misleading information.The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationships of two dimensions of social competencies of EQempathy and social skillsto transformational leadership in a cross-cultural context. An attempt was made to overcome some of the limitations of the existing self-report measures of EQ by using a new measure which involved asking observers (e.g., MBA students and their colleagues) to assess their supervisors EQ and transformational leadership.Cultural Differences Among the Five CountriesSince our study investigated the relationship between EQ and transformational leadership in five countries, it is appropriate to discuss cultural differences among these countries. Hofstedes study (1980) shows that the five countries differ greatly on the cultural dimension of individualismcollectivism. In individualistic cultures, individuals primarily look after their own and immediate familys interests (husband, wife, and children), but in collectivist cultures, individuals belong to one or more close groups created by birth and later events, from which they cannot separate themselves. Overall, individualistic cultures (such as Australia and the United States) value individual goals over group goals, individual concerns over group concerns, and individual rights and needs over collective responsibilities and obligations. Collectivistic cultures (such as China, Japan, and Korea), in contrast, value group goals over individual goals, group concerns over individual concerns, and collective needs over individual needs (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991, p. 277). On the individualismcollectivism dimension, the United States is extremely individualistic among the 50 countries studied by Hofstede and Bond (1988). Greece and Portugal are moderately individualistic countries and the remaining two countries are collectivistic nations. Given this cultural difference among these countries, a central issue is whether managers in these countries significantly differ on the relationships between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership.Hofstedes other cultural dimensions are power distance (i.e., the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization believe and accept that power is unevenly distributed), uncertainty avoidance (i.e., the extent to which people avoid unclear or unpredictable situations), and masculinity (i.e., the extent to which there is sex role differentiation). The differences on these dimensions among the five countries were not very high.MethodSample and ProcedureData for this study were collected from 685 dyads (MBA students and their colleagues) in the U.S. (n = 128), Greece (n = 86), Portugal (n = 74), South Korea (n = 263), and Bangladesh (n = 134). The EQ data were collected from MBA students and their colleagues in order to make the samples from the five countries as comparable as possible.Average chronological age of the respondents in the five countries ranged between 27.31-35.19 (SD = 4.7510.19). Their average full-time work experience with the present supervisors ranged between 2.734.74 (SD = 3.044.87) years. The percentage of male respondents in the five countries ranged between 68%89%.MeasurementEmotional Intelligence. The two dimensions of supervisory EQ were measured with 12 items adopted from the EQ Index (EQI) (Rahim et al., 2002). These items were designed to measure subordinates perceptions of their respective supervisors empathy and social skills. The EQI was designed on the basis of repeated feedback from respondents and faculty and an iterative process of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of various sets of items. Considerable attention was devoted to the study of published instruments on EQ. Initially an instrument was designed and filled out by MBA and undergraduate students (N = 90). After the students completed the questionnaire, the instructor initiated an item-by-item discussion. Critiques of the instrument were also received from four management professors. The items that were reported to be difficult, ambiguous, or inconsistent were either dropped or revised. A new item was added to compensate for the elimination of an item. Special attempts were made to make the items free from social desirability contamination. Four successive factor analyses were performed to select items for the EQI (Ns: organizational members = 65; employed management students = 365; Chamber of Commerce members = 220, MBA and employed management students = 423). After each factor analysis, the items that loaded less than .50 and/or loaded on an uninterpretable factor were dropped or rephrased. As a result of the above analysis, the EQI was developed that uses a 7point Likert scale (7 = Strongly Agree . . . 1 = Strongly Disagree) for ranking each of the items and a higher score indicates a greater emotional intelligence of a supervisor. Sample items for the two dimensions are: “My supervisor understands the feelings transmitted through nonverbal messages,” “My supervisor understands the links between employees emotions and what they do” (empathy) and “My supervisor confronts prob