研究的题目是情绪智力与变革型领导的关系。第一篇是探讨情绪智力与变革型领导通过Dirk Lindebaum和Susan Cartwright的作者之间的关系的批判性考察。第二篇是探讨情绪智力与变革型领导风格与Barbara Mandell和Shilpa Pherwani对领导风格的性别比较的关系。本研究旨在探讨情绪智力与变革型领导的关系。这个话题很有趣，因为它描述的是管理和心理学之间的关系。本研究的目的是评估情绪智力与变革型领导的关系、领导风格的性别比较、情绪智力的构建及其在工作场所中的重要性，并对这两篇文章进行比较和对比。在这项研究中，我将讨论他们是如何相关的情商和变革型领导？他们是如何描述情绪智力的？交易型领导与变革型领导的区别是什么？那么他们如何分析和讨论情绪智力和变革型领导在组织中的关系呢？
The title of the research is the Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. The first article is discussing about the critical examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership by the author of Dirk Lindebaum and Susan Cartwright. The second article is discussing about the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style and gender comparison of leadership style by the author of Barbara Mandell and Shilpa Pherwani. The purpose of this research is to study the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. This topic is very interesting because it is describing the relationship between the management and psychology. Objectives of this research is to evaluate the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, gender comparison of the leadership style, have contributed to the construct of emotional intelligence and its importance in the workplace, comparison and contrast between the two articles. In this research I am going to discuss about how they are relating emotional intelligence and transformational leadership? How they are describing emotional intelligence? And what is the difference between the transactional leadership and transformational leadership? Then how they are analyzing and discussing the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership in the organization?
Dirk Lindebaum and Susan Cartwright article seeks to remedy this efficiency. First, it provides a rationale for utilizing a particular conceptualization of Emotional Intelligence. Second, it synthesizes the theoretical concepts of Emotional intelligence and Transformational leadership and offers an overview of empirical studies that have investigated the interface between the two. It then proceeds to explain briefly the methodological concerns related to common method variance and the implications for research designs. The resultant design of this study explores the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and Transformational leadership (TFL), taking account of common method variance (CMV). Finally, the article discusses its findings in relation to previous studies, its limitations, and recommendations for future research (DirkLindebaum & SusanCartwright). The Barbara Mandell and Shilpa Pherwani article is providing the types of intelligence, types of mental abilities, models of emotional intelligence, comparison between transactional leadership and transformational leadership, gender comparison of leadership style, measurement instruments, and statistical analysis.#p#分页标题#e#
In Each article the Mayer and Salovey are giving the definition for emotional intelligence is different in different years. First article is showing the definition of Mayer and Salovey in 1997, they defined Emotional intelligence as, (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) 'ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual grow'. In second article has taken the definition of emotional intelligence from Mayer and Salovey in the year of 1990. Mayer and Salovey defined as, (Mayer & Salovey, 1990) "emotional intelligence as the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's own thinking and actions". Both articles are captured the imagination of management scholars and psychologist: emotional intelligence (EI) and Transformational leadership (TFL).
According to Dirk Lindebaum and Susan Cartwright article Emotional intelligence explains 34 percent of the variance in a measure of Transformational leadership (Butler & Chinowsky, 2006), which is an above-average percentage in social science research. Both articles are discussing two models of emotional intelligence. In Dirk and Susan article specifying two types of emotional intelligence that are, trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional intelligence. According to Petrides et al. (2007, p.273), trait emotional intelligence defined as 'emotion-related dispositions and self-perceptions'. Trait emotional intelligence relies upon self-report measure (e.g. the Emotional Quotient Inventory, EQ-i) and assesses typical or preferred modes of behavior, whereas the latter uses ability measures (e.g. the Mayor-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, MSCEIT), with right or wrong answers, and refers to maximum performance in processing emotional information. (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). However, representatives of both the trait and ability Emotional intelligence approach maintain that considerable progress of their respective conceptualization has been achieved in recent years (Mayer, et al., & Petrides et al., 2004).
According to Barbara Mandell and Shilpa Pherwani two models of emotional intelligence have emerged, these are ability model and mixed model. The ability model defines emotional intelligence as a set of abilities that involves perceiving and reasoning abstractly with information that emerges from feelings. This model has been supported by the researcher of Mayer, Caruso and Salovey (1999); Mayer, DiPaolo, and Salovey (1990); Mayer and Salovey (1993, 1997); and Salovey and Mayer (1990). The mixed model defines emotional intelligence as ability with social behaviors, traits and competencies. This model has found in the writing of Goleman (1995, 1998) and Bar-on (1997).#p#分页标题#e#
In Dirk and Susan article synthesizing emotional intelligence and transformational leadership this is explored first with regard to the conceptual proximity between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, followed by empirical studies that examined their relationship. Whilst transformational leadership has been variously defined, Burns (1978) characterizes the transformational leaders as someone who 'looks for potential followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the followers' (p.4). He goes on to suggest that the result 'is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents'. Bass and Avolio (Bass & Avolio, 1994) have refined earlier research on Transformational leader (e.g. Bass, 1985) and deconstructed the concept into four components. These are denoted as: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transformational leaders use inspirational motivation to communicate high expectations, often drawing on symbolic messages to provide meaning to their followers' work (Bass, 1990).
Barbara and Shilpa article describing the transformational leadership of two authors like Bass and Avolio. They defined transformational leadership as leadership that occurs when the leader stimulates the interest among colleagues and followers to view their work from a new prospective. According to Barbara and Shilpa the transformational leader generates awareness of the mission or vision of the organization, and develops colleagues and followers to higher levels of ability and potential. In addition, the transformational leader motivates colleagues and followers to look beyond their own interest towards interest that will benefit the group. In comparison to transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio (Bass & Avolio, 1994) described transactional leadership occurring when the leader rewards or disciplines the follower with regards to performance. Burns (Burns, 1978) described transactional leaders as leaders that emphasize work standards, assignment, and task-oriented goals. In addition, transactional leaders tend to focus on task completion and employee compliance, and these leaders rely quite heavily on organizational rewards and punishments to influence employee performance. Bass (Bass, 1997) suggested that transformational leaders (TFL) achieved higher levels of success in the workplace than transactional leaders (TAL). He noted that TF leaders were promoted more often and produced better financial results that TA leaders (Bass, 1997). Bass (Bass, 1997) also observed that employees rated TF leaders more satisfying and effective than TA leaders. Bass (Bar-On, 1997) would attribute transformational leaders' superior work performance to high EQ-I scores.
In recent years, numerous studies have examined empirically the link between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. The literature review permits the classification of these studies into three prominent streams. Stream1 includes those studies that collected data concerning trait emotional intelligence and transformational leadership from the same source using self-report measures. Stream2 features studies that administered trait emotional intelligence and transformational leadership questionnaires to different raters. Finally, studies pertaining the stream3 used an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence and collected data relative to transformational leadership from a different source. (DirkLindebaum & SusanCartwright). In addition Barbara and Shilpa were saying about gender comparison in their article. They specified as the researchers in the past have also looked at the gender differences for both transformational leadership style and emotional intelligence. Although past research on leadership style differences between men and women has been inconclusive, a review of research on leadership and gender consistently demonstrates that women leaders are often negatively evaluated in comparison to their male counterparts, especially when they employ an autocratic leadership style (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992).#p#分页标题#e#
To analyzing the relationship between the emotional intelligence and transformational leadership both different authors are using the different analysis methods. Dirk and Susan were used two analysis methods. Barbara and Shilpa were used one analysis method. According to Dirk and Susan two subsidiary analysis methods were used by the researcher. These are (1) control for fixed effects and (2) examine the data using randomization. Controlling for fixed effects can be highly desirable as it ensures that estimates are more consistent. In second subsidiary analysis, randomization was used to further examine the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and transformational leadership across all data produced by the same source. According to Barbara and Shilpa hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. The analysis also used to examine interaction of gender with emotional intelligence when predicting transformational leadership style. The analysis also helped the researchers identify gender differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style.
This research was designed to determine the predictive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style, as well as determined the gender comparison of leadership style. I find types of analysis for evaluation of relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style. Finally I find types of emotional intelligence and conceptualization of emotional intelligence, three types of streams to determine relationship, characteristics of leadership, comparison between transactional and transformational leadership from both articles.