Leading From Within The Effects of Emotion

Leading from within: The Effects of Emotion Recognition and Personality on
Transformational Leadership Behavior

Author(s): Robert S. Rubin, David C. Munz and William H. Bommer
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5 (Oct., 2005), pp. 845-858
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159701 .
Accessed: 13/12/2013 06:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 103.26.197.23 on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:58:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
Academy ofManagement Journal
2005, Vol. 48, No. 5, 845-858.
LEADING FROM WITHIN: THE EFFECTS OF EMOTION

RECOGNITION AND PERSONALITY ON
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
ROBERT S. RUBIN
DePaul University
DAVID C. MUNZ
Saint Louis University
WILLIAM H. BOMMER
Cleveland State University
This study of 145 managers of a large biotechnology/agricultural company examined

how leaders' emotion recognition ability and personality characteristics influenced
performance of transformational leadership behavior. Emotion recognition, positive
affectivity, and agreeableness positively predicted such behavior. In addition, extra
version moderated the relationship between emotion recognition and transformational
leadership. We also provided construct validity evidence for transformational leader
ship behavior by showing differing effects of these antecedents on contingent reward
behavior. The study provides empirical support for the contribution of emotion and
personality to transformational leadership behavior.
The past two decades have witnessed a great deal can be both constructive and corrective. Corrective
of scholarly attention to transformational leader exchanges involve leader behavior whereby leaders
ship behavior, which is currently the most widely seek to correct mistakes before or after
actively they
accepted leadership paradigm (Tejeda, 2001). Inter occur. Constructive exchanges take the form of con
est in transformational leadership behavior contin tingent rewards whereby leaders promise rewards
ues, largely bolsteredby Avolio and Bass's "full for satisfactory performance and deliver the re
range leadership theory" (Bass, 1998; Avolio, wards when performance is achieved.
1999). In this theory, leader behavior has three
Transformational leadership behavior represents
broad categories: transformational, transactional, the most active/effective form of leadership, a form
and nontransactional (laissez-faire). These catego in which leaders are closely engaged with follow
ries describe leader behavior ranging from, at the ers, motivating them to perform beyond their trans
best, the active and effective, to?at the worst? actional agreements. Podsakoff and colleagues ex
passive and ineffective (Avolio, 1999). The most seven
tensively reviewed conceptualizations of
passive and ineffective form of leadership, laissez transformational behavior and found
leadership
faire, is characterized by a complete abdication or
that it included a vision of the future,
articulating
avoidance of leadership. The transactional form of
is characterized fostering group-oriented work, setting high expec
leadership by leaders' engaging in tations, challenging followers' thinking, supporting
an exchange process with followers whereby the
followers' individual needs, and acting as a role
leader rewards or punishes followers on the basis
model (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
of follower performance. This exchange process
1990). As Avolio (1999) noted, every leader dis
plays behavior that can be characterized as trans
formational, transactional, and nontransactional;
A previous version of thismanuscript was presented at
however, effective leaders more often display trans
the 2003 Academy of Management meeting in Seattle.
formational leadership behavior and contingent re
The authors would like to thank Tom Lee and three
ward behavior and less frequently display more
anonymous reviewers for their guidance and collegiality.
In addition, we would like to thank Cathy Daus, Jill passive and ineffective behaviors.
In order to demonstrate transformational leader
Kickul, and Ray Coye for their helpful comments on
drafts. Special recognition goes to Pam Carrafa and Leslie ship behavior's relative effectiveness among leader
O'Brien for their assistance in data collection and site ship behaviors, much research has been concerned
coordination. with outcomes of transformational leadership be
845

846 Academy ofManagement Journal October
havior (e.g., employee attitudes, performance, and recent calls to incorporate both emotion (Ashforth
so forth). Indeed, to say that transformational lead & Humphrey, 1995; George, 2000) and personality
ership behavior is predictive of positive individual (Pillai et al., 2003) into studies of leadership and
and organizational outcomes is somewhat axiom transformational behavior.
atic (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Beyond exploring these two antecedent domains,
One unintended of the literature's we wanted to address some recent concerns regard
consequence
rather primary focus on transformational leader ing transformational leadership behavior research.
some have that am
ship's outcomes has been a relative lack of empha Specifically, argued conceptual
sis concerning the underlying basis of this leader biguity exists among the components of transfor
mational and transactional leadership (Yukl, 1999).
ship behavior (Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004;
Theoretically, these two forms of leader behavior
Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001). Put simply, research are linked, as transactional exchanges form the ba
ers know very little about why some leaders engage
sis upon which transformational leadership behav
in transformational leadership behavior and others
ior is performed (Avolio, 1999: 42). Empirically,
do not.
the two constructs tend to be highly correlated and
Although little is known about transformational
to predict similar outcomes (Bycio, Hackett, &
leadership behavior antecedents, they have not Allen, 1995), indicating that, indeed, littlemay dis
been totally neglected in the literature. More spe
cer tinguish the two forms of behavior. Bass (1999)
cifically, some conceptual work suggests that
articulated a need for research that could contrib
tain macro-organizational work contexts (e.g., or ute to this discussion, noting that little is known
ganizational structure) will be more conducive to about the differences in the perceptions of transfor
this behavior than others (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). mational and transactional leaders.
Further, empirical research has examined leaders' From an antecedent perspective, it is unclear
biographies (Avolio, 1994) and personal character whether the genesis of transformational leadership
istics (Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Judge & Bono, behavior differs significantly from that of transac
2000; Pillai, Williams, Lowe, & Jung, 2003). tional behavior. Avolio that "such ex
argued
The vast majority of transformational leadership changes [transactional leadership] are only the base
behavior research, however, focuses upon media to build on, however, rather than the ceiling for the
tion (Podsakoff et al., 1990) or moderation (Howell leader's efforts" (1999: 42). Thus, itwould be rea
& Hall-Merenda, 1999) of leader effectiveness. Re sonable to assume that while the antecedents of
have called for greater consideration transformational and transactional behavior are
cently, many
of individual and contextual antecedents of trans likely to be somewhat similar, transformational
formational leadership behavior leadership behavior
may require additional or
(Bass, 1998; Bass,
antecedents. However, research has yet to
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bommer et al., 2004; unique
Pawar & Eastman, how antecedents
1997). As Bass astutely asked, fully explore might differently
"Can the tendency to be more transformational be affect transformational and transactional leader
If so how?" behavior. Although the primary focus of our hy
accurately predicted? (1998: 117). The
pothesis development is on transformational lead
purpose of this study was to investigate this
we our
ership behavior, include in study the pro
question.
this question can be approached totypical and constructive form of transactional
Undoubtedly, reward behavior?to
from many angles. In order to conduct a focused leadership?contingent pro
vide construct validity data and contribute to the
investigation, we began with the influence of indi network for future antecedent work.
vidual differences, since we could draw on both nomological
theoretical and
empirical support for such influ
ence. The impact of individual differences on be
havior has been a core area of study in organiza HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
tional science. As Murphy remarked, "[individual exist on the nature
Though multiple perspectives
differences] profoundly affect our behavior; an ex of emotions, it seems clear that emotions play an
amination of the role of individual differences pro
important role in organizational research and prac
vides an important starting point for understanding tice. Recent research suggests that a focus on emo
human behavior in organizations" (1996: xvi). tion and transformational behavior
leadership
Given the extensive literature, we narrowed our would be productive (Ashkanasy, H?rtel, & Daus,
investigation to two important individual differ 2002). Huy (1999) argued that emotion at the indi
ences domains, namely, emotional intelligence and vidual level is critical in creating radical change
personality traits, thereby contributing directly to (i.e., paradigm shifts). Huy's arguments are highly

2005 Rubin, M?nz, and Bommer 847
consistent with descriptions of transformational needs of each

employee" (1990: 21). George (2000)
leadership behavior whereby leaders attempt to contended that creation of follower excitement and
evoke change by appealing to followers' emotional enthusiasm stems from appraisal of followers' au
states to motivate personal adaptation. Similarly, thentic feelings. A prerequisite formeeting follow
Fox and Amichai-Hamburger (2001) argued that ers' emotional needs, then, is accurate assessment
persuasion of employees to support organizational of how followers feel. According to the literature on
change is most successful through affective rather emotional intelligence, these authentic feelings are
than cognitive appeals. Supporting this view, Ash communicated
primarily through facial expres
kanasy and Tse (2000) described transformational sions and nonverbal behavior (Ekman & Friesen,
leadership behavior as the management of leader 1974; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitaremos, 2001).
and follower emotion, suggesting that emotional a
Thus, ability to accurately
leader's recognize
abilities are critical in accomplishing this task. emotions in followers opens as a window to follow
ers' authentic feelings. Emotion recognition in
volves the ability to accurately decode others' ex
Emotional and Transformational pressions of emotions communicated
through
Intelligence
Behavior nonverbal channels
(i.e., the face, body, and voice).
Leadership
This ability is positively linked to social compe
Many of the connections between transforma tence and interaction since nonverbal behavior is a
tional leadership behavior and emotion are predi source of information on others' emo
dependable
cated on the notion that individuals differ consid
tional states (Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Elfenbein and
erably in their ability to understand and utilize
commented that emotion recognition is
re Ambady
emotional stimuli in productive ways. More
the most "reliably validated component of emo
cently, theories of emotional intelligence have be
tional intelligence" linked to a variety of pos
and
gun to more fully explicate these differences. Ac
itive organizational outcomes (2002: 963; for an
cording toMayer, Caruso, and Salovey, "Emotional
extensive review, see Elfenbein, Marsh, and Am
intelligence refers to an ability to recognize the
of emotions and their and bady [2002]).
meanings relationships, and Salovey
on the basis of them"
Caruso, Mayer, (2002) argued that
to reason and problem-solve
accurately recognizing emotion in others is critical
(1999: 267). Thus, emotional intelligence describes to leaders' capacity to inspire and build relation
differences among individuals with regard to un
ships. Indeed, prior research in the area of emotion
derstanding and solving problems with and about
emotions. Caruso, recognition has demonstrated that facial recogni
Specifically, Mayer, Salovey,
tion ability is integral to maintaining successful
and Sitaremos (2003) proposed that emotional in
social and work interactions, including successful
telligence consists of four skill dimensions: (1) per
marriages, managerial status, and strong clinical
ceiving emotion (i.e., ability to identify emotions in
and leadership skills (Carney & Harrigan, 2003; Elf
faces, pictures, music, etc.), (2) facilitating thought
enbein & Ambady, 2002). Within the context of
with emotion (i.e., ability to harness emotional in
formation in one's leadership, successful interpersonal interactions
thinking), (3) understanding
are not trivial matters. For instance, some research
emotion (i.e., ability to comprehend emotional in
emotion (i.e., ability has shown that managerial derailment is heavily
formation), and (4) managing
tomanage emotions for personal and interpersonal influenced by managers' inability to understand
others' perspectives, a limitation that makes them
growth). These skills are hierarchically arranged in
such a way that perceiving emotion correctly is pri insensitive to others (Lombardo, Ruderman, & Mc
mary to facilitating thought, understanding emotion, Cauley, 1987). Further, leaders who engage more
and managing emotion (Mayer et al., 2003). Ashka frequently in transformational leadership behavior
are often found to have higher-quality leader-mem
nasy and his colleagues (2002) argued that the com
ber relationships than those engaging more fre
ponents of emotional intelligence are highly con
sistent with transformational leadership behavior. quently in transactional forms of leadership (Graen
Within emotional emo & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
intelligence, perceiving
tions may be particularly Since leader-follower are critical to
important for the perfor relationships
mance of transformational leadership behavior. As
successful leadership, and the ability to recognize
Ashkanasy and Tse commented, "Transformational emotion is important for building strong leader
leaders are sensitive to followers' needs. . follower relationships, it stands to reason that
.they
show empathy to followers, making them under transformational leaders who build strong relation
stand how others feel" (2000: 232). Bass argued that ships do so in part through understanding follow
transformational leaders "meet the emotional ers' emotions. The ability to accurately recognize

emotions via nonverbal expressions is, then, criti Ployhart et al., 2001). Bass (1998) noted, for in
cal to this relationship-building process. Further, if stance, that emotional stability is often shown to be
emotional appeals are an effective means of chal more predictive of lower forms of leader behavior,
lenging the status quo (Fox & Amichai-Hamburger, such as laissez-faire leadership. The extant studies
2001), then transformational leaders must be highly indicate
that narrowing the FFM to agreeableness
attuned to the emotional feedback they receive and extraversion may be most useful, while other
when delivering appeals. In view of the above re FFM traits may play a less important role. We do
search, we contribute to the literature by offering a not mean to imply however, that other FFM traits
direct test of the emotion recognition and transfor are unequivocally unimportant for transforma
mational leadership behavior relationship. tional leadership behavior, but rather, that agree
ableness and extraversion seem to be traits that
1. Leader emotion recognition abil
Hypothesis play a unique role in transformational leadership
is
ity positively associated with leader transfor behavior.
mational leadership behavior. Extraversion and agreeableness are viewed as key
traits enabling an individual to engage others and
to allow for others to engage him or her. For exam
Personality Traits and Transformational
ple, behaviors often identified as being "transfor
Leadership Behavior
mational" (e.g., articulating a vision, providing in
With respect to personality traits and transforma tellectual stimulation) all require a leader to
tional leadership behavior, Bass remarked, "When communicate values and ideas and to engage fol
it comes to predicting transformational leadership lowers in social interactions. Extraversion allows
and its components, there is no shortage of person for the requisite assertiveness and gregariousness
ality expectations. However, the empirical support needed to perform such transformational leader
has been spotty" (1998: 122). One possible expla ship behavior. For example, Thomas, Dickson, and
nation for this mottled support may be the employ Bliese (2001) found that extraversion significantly
ment of multiple personality frameworks within predicted human relations aspects ofmilitary cadet
transformational leadership behavior research. Uti leader performance.
lizing the well-known five-factor model (FFM) as a Transformational leadership behavior also re
framework for examining personality and transfor quires leaders to build trusting, warm relationships
mational leadership behavior may reduce the in with employees through honest engagement, the
consistent findings. Ployhart and colleagues noted hallmark of an agreeable personality. Keller (1999)
this: "Organizing this literature [on transforma found that agreeableness was significantly related
tional leadership behavior] around the FFM of per to ratings of leader sensitivity. Atwater and Yam
sonality provides some structure to this process" marino (1993) found that warmth was a significant
(2001: 814). Although the jury is still out, a growing predictor of transformational leadership behavior.
consensus that the FFM traits encapsulate many of In view of the available research and above logic,
the important aspects of personality exists (Judge, we offer the following hypotheses:
Bono, Hies, & Gehardt, 2002).
Recent research has demonstrated that certain Hypothesis 2a. Leader agreeableness is posi
traits of the FFM may be more relevant than others. tively associated with leader transformational
Specifically, Judge and Bono (2000) found that of leadership behavior.
the five traits, only agreeableness was a strong and 2b. Leader extraversion is posi
Hypothesis
consistent predictor of transformational leadership associated with leader
tively transformational
behavior. Extraversion and openness to experience behavior.
leadership
did show a significant correlation with the focal
behavior, and extraversion was marginally predic Another important personality trait likely to
tive. In another recent study, Ployhart and col strongly influence transformational leadership be
leagues (2001) found a strong relationship between havior is positive affectivity (PA). Individuals with
extraversion and transformational leadership be high PA are likely to experience positive emotion
havior in both typical and maximum performance and moods. George commented that these individ
situations. Conscientiousness, though predictive of uals "tend to have an overall sense of well-being
leader emergence (Judge et al., 2002) and in some and to be positively engaged in the world around
cases leader effectiveness, does not seem to be pre them, in terms of both achievement and interper
dictive of transformational leadership behavior sonal relations" (1996:146). Positive affectivity has
(Judge & Bono, 2000). Similarly, mixed results for been associated with prosocial behavior (George,
the trait of openness exist (Judge & Bono, 2000; 1991), performance (Wong & Law, 2002), work

achievement (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994), indi emotional intelligence literature, accurate recogni
cators of leader effectiveness (George, 1995), and tion of follower emotion plays an important role in
the ability to develop and maintain workplace re
directing leaders' attention toward the most pro
lationships (Staw et al., 1994). These findings are in ductive courses of action. In the case of transforma
line with the view that PA could be an antecedent tional leadership behavior,
recognizing emotion
of transformational leadership behavior. and to followers' emo
appropriately responding
Transformational leaders are describedas cham tion is essential for effective influence and main
of and as tomanifest
pions change likely important taining the leader-follower relationship (Caruso et
social values (Bass et al., 2003). These leaders are al., 2002; George, 2000). For example, it is one
also likely to utilize emotion to communicate vi for a leader to a follower is angry;
ability recognize
sion and motivation to followers (Lewis, 2000). In it is entirely another ability for the leader to express
dividuals with high PA search for and get pleasure of that emotion to the follower, thereby
recognition
from social relations (George, 1996). Since affect recognizing the employee's needs and worth (e.g.,
may be strongly tied to social perceptions in organ
"Bob, I see you are angry about this decision, per
izations (Lord & Maher, 1991), it follows that PA like to talk specifically about how
haps you would
would be an important component of eliciting pos it impacts you?"). Extraverted individuals have a
itive social interaction and change. Further, indi
strong inclination toward this expressiveness
viduals considered high in PA often perceive pos
&
(Judge Bono, 2000). Thus, extraversion may allow
itive events as more likely to occur (Mayer & a leader to utilize his or her emotion recognition
Salovey, 1993). Thus, leaders who are character
ability more effectively. Much as highly intelligent
ized by a high degree of PA may be more willing to
individuals who lack requisite social skills are per
a
perform transformational leadership behavior as ceived as relatively ineffective in social situations
change mechanism since they are likely to believe
(i.e., as solely "book smart"; Ferris, Witt, and
change is possible. Some research has supported
Hochwarter leaders who
[2001]), possess strong
this link. For example, Howell and Frost (1989)
emotion recognition ability but lack expressiveness
found that effective visions are tied to emotional
may not profit from their emotion recognition ability
expression and nonverbal communication. Fox and
in terms of performing transformational leadership
Spector (2000) found that PA was positively related behavior. Consequently, we tested this premise via
to leader-follower liking and perceived similarity. the following:
Further, Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) showed
that leader positive affect resulted in higher lead
Hypothesis 4. Leader extraversion moderates
ership ratings. Given the above research and logic,
the relationship between leader emotion recog
we propose:
nition and transformational leadership behav
Hypothesis 3. Leader positive affectivity is pos ior. Specifically, increased levels of leader ex
itively associated with leader transformational traversion will the relationship
strengthen
leadership behavior. between leader emotion recognition and trans
Communication from leader to follower
is often formational leadership behavior.
laden with emotional content (George, 2000). For
example, Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) con
tended that leadership involves dis METHODS
necessarily
playing and arousing emotion in others. Similarly, and Procedures
Participants
Conger and Kanungo (1987) argued that leaders
utilize emotions to arouse certain feelings and mo A large, Midwest-based, global biotechnology/
tivation in followers.
Thus, leadership naturally agricultural company agreed to provide access to
234 managers and their 1,400 subordinates from
involves recognition of others' emotions and ex
Leaders who can more effectively di five organizational units. We use the term "leader"
pressiveness.
rect these two abilities toward productive transfor to refer to these managers, who were the focus of
this study. In addition, the term "subordinate" is
mational leadership behavior should be effective in
used to refer to a leader's "direct report." As an
influencing employees (Dasborough & Ashkanasy,
2002). Therefore, in addition to the associations incentive to participate, leaders were informed that
hypothesized above, an interaction between emo they would receive a timely feedback report on
tion recognition and extraversion is also likely. their leadership behavior consistent with the com
Specifically, extraversion may strengthen the re pany's ongoing efforts to develop self-aware lead
lationship between emotion recognition and trans ers. A total of 177 leaders (76 percent of the total)
formational leadership behavior. According to the volunteered to take part in the study.

To beincluded in the study, a leader had to ratingsof charisma, which are found in Bass's
satisfy three criteria: (1) the leader had to have two widely used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
or more subordinates rate his or her leadership and focuses directly on leader behavior, rather than
behavior, (2) at least two subordinates who com on behaviors and attributions of leadership. Previ
pleted the leadership measures had to have re ous research has shown a correlation between cha
ported directly to the leader for at least three risma and aspects of the FFM (Keller, 1999). Thus,
months, and (3) the leader him-/herself had to com we believed the Podsakoff et al. (1996) measure
plete measures assessing the variables examined in would provide a less biased assessment of transfor
this study. Of the 177 participating leaders, 145 met mational leadership behavior, given our study's in
the above inclusion criteria. The leaders averaged tent. Podsakoff and his colleagues (1996) found
43.3 years of age and 12.9 years of company tenure. internal consistencies from .82 to .90.
ranging
Over three-fifths (62%) were male, and all had at The constructive transactional be
prototypical
least a college degree (64% held graduate degrees). havior, contingent reward was measured
behavior,
A total of 480 subordinates (of a possible 1,078) with five items from Podsakoff and colleagues' con
responses for an average of 3.31 respon
provided tingent reward scale (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, &
dents per leader (min. = 2; max. = 11) and a 45 et al. (1984) reported a
Huber, 1984). Podsakoff
percent subordinate participation rate. coefficient for this scale (a = .93).
high alpha
Leaders attended a 75-minute survey session to Leaders' and extraversion were
agreeableness
complete all surveys. Multiple levels of leaders measured items from Goldberg's
with (1999) Big
were recruited to participate in the study; thus,
Five Inventory. Both scales contain five items and
only the subordinates reporting to first-line leaders utilize a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("not
were not themselves also leaders. These nonleader
at all descriptive ofme") to 5 ("very descriptive of
subordinates who volunteered attended a 30
me"). Goldberg (1999) reported average scale reli
minute survey solely to rate their direct
session
abilities between .75 and .85 and high correlations
leaders' leadership behavior. To avoid leaders and
with other known measures of the five-factor model
subordinates being in the same survey session
(.94 with NEO-PI-R).
room, we had leaders attend sessions with other
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PA
leaders at similar hierarchical levels. The first au
NAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to
thor conducted all survey sessions and reiterated
measure leader positive and negative affect. Nega
the purpose, confidentiality, and voluntary nature
tive affect was included in the analyses as a control
of the study. Paper-and-pencil surveys were used to
and for purposes of construct validity. Both scales
collect the data.
contain ten adjectives assessing positive and nega
tive trait affect. Respondents were asked to indicate
the extent to which they they generally experi
Measures enced each feeling on a five-point scale (1, "not at
The measure of transformational all";5, "extremely"). The PANAS iswidely used in

leadership be =
organizational research, and the PA [a .88) and
havior used in this study was developed by Podsa
NA [a = scales have shown internal
koff and colleagues (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bom .87) acceptable
& consistency (Watson et al., 1988).
mer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman,
and was rated focal leaders' subor The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy
Fetter, 1990) by
rated his or her (DANVA) was used to measure leaders' emotion
dinates. That is, each subordinate
recognition. The DANVA is a performance-based
direct only. The measure
leader consisted of 22
items pertaining to six dimensions: articulating a
measure that assesses individuals' ability to cor
vision, providing a role model, communicating rectly identify the basic emotions of happiness,
individ sadness, anger, and fear in 24 photographs of adult
high performance expectations, providing
facial expressions at an equal number of high and
ualized support, fostering the acceptance of group
goals, and providing intellectual stimulation. This low intensities (Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Specifi
measure was via appropriate cally, the DANVA tests stimuli that both children
soundly developed
classical test theory construction. Further, it repre and adults would recognize at least 80 percent of
sents a shared conceptualization of transforma the time as a particular emotion. Nowicki and Duke
since it is explicitly a an internal of .78 for
tional leadership behavior (2001) reported consistency
collection of behaviors used by other theories to the facial recognition test. The DANVA has been
capture the behaviors expressed by "transforma widely used in clinical/social psychological and
tional" leaders. However, this measure excludes organizational studies (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002).

Although the DANVA is scored as the number in and contingent reward behavior score. Following
correct, we recoded to reflect more conventional George's (1990) suggestion and previous transfor
scoring, so that a score of 24 (not 0) represents a mational leadership behavior research (e.g., Bass et
perfect score in our results. al., 2003; Bommer et al., 2004), we computed a
As an additional control variable, we measured measure of within-group agreement taken
(rwg)
leaders' span of control. Since larger spans of con from James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) for each
trol can diminish a leader's ability to influence, it is leader's group. For each leader's transformational
likely that a wide span of control would lead to leadership behavior and contingent reward behav
fewer resources allocated across
employees. Simi ior ratings, the mean were .93 and .94 respec
rwg's
lar arguments have been made
with respect to em tively. In both cases less than 4 percent (contingent
ployee performance ratings (e.g., Judge & Ferris, reward behavior) and 1 percent (transformational
1993). Much as professors who teach large sections leadership behavior) of the rwg calculations fell be
have less time to devote to individual student low the acceptable .70 cutoff. On the basis of these
needs, leaders with wider spans of control also data, we aggregated subordinate ratings.
have less time to engage employees with transfor
mational leadership behavior such as providing in
dividualized support or intellectual stimulation.
the survey session, leaders indicated the Hypothesis Testing
During
number of subordinates they managed directly. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,
Wide-ranging spans of control were reported by and correlations for all study variables. As ex
leaders (range = 2-56); the average was 7.3 subor pected, wider spans of control were significantly
dinates per leader. associated with less transformational leadership
=
behavior (r -.25, p < .01) and contingent reward
behavior =
(r -.27, p<.01). Negative affectivity
RESULTS
was not significantly related to either transforma
Because our hypotheses are
concerned with tional leadership behavior or contingent reward
transformational behaviorin a general behavior.
leadership
sense, and not its specific manifestations, we col To ensure the appropriateness of regression anal
lapsed the measure into a single construct. This ysis, we examined the data with respect to the
procedure appears to have been empirically justi underlying assumptions of regression. A thorough
=
fied by the single measure's high reliability [a analysis of the data suggested that all of the as
.92) and the correlations among the dimensions sumptions of ordinary least squares regression
(i.e., the average correlation was .43). In addition, were met. As the regression results in Table 2 in
we wanted to aggregate subordinate ratings for each dicate, the four predictor and two control variables
leader. Previous research suggests that a measure of included in this study accounted for 26 percent of
within-group agreement provides sufficient justifi the variance in transformational leadership behav
cation for aggregating subordinates' ratings into a ior and 17 percent of the variance in contingent
single leader transformational leadership behavior reward behavior. A closer examination of the rela
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for all Study Variables3
Variable Mean s.d.
Transformational leadership
1. Behavior 3.69 0.41 (.92)
2. Contingent reward behavior 3.77 0.62 .58** (.91)
3. Span of control 7.32 6.98 -.24** -.29**
4. Agreeableness 3.91 0.49 .30** .25** -.12 (.67)
5. Extraversion 3.14 0.83 .07
.04 -.07 .32** (.78)
6. Positive affectivity 3.92 0.45 .12
.29** .11 .24** .40** (.84)
7. Negative affectivity 1.83 0.37 -.03
.00 -.06 -.10 -.29** -.18* (.75)
8. Emotion 18.92 2.70 .17* -.15 .11 .03 -.13 -.03 (.68)
recognition15
an = 145. Alpha coefficients appear on the

diagonal in parentheses.
b
A K-R 20 reliability assessment was used to calculate
alpha for emotion recognition.
* <
p .05
**
p < .01

TABLE 2
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Transformational
Leadership Behavior and Contingent Reward Behavior
Transformational Leadership Behavior Contingent Reward Behavior
Variable
Step 1
Constant 3.79*** .18 4.12*** .27
Span of control -.02 .01 -.26* -.03 .01 .29***
Negative affectivity -.04 .10 .01 -.09 .15 .05

R2 .06 .09
Step 2
Constant -^47*** .46 1.88** .75
Span of control -.02 .01 -.25** -.02 .01 .27***
Negative affectivity .05 .09 .04 -.06 .15 .03

.19 .07 .23** .26 .11 .20*
Agreeableness
Extraversion -.07 .04 -.14 -.08 .07 .11
Positive affectivity .32 .08 .36*** .22 .12 .16
Emotion recognition .03 .01 .18* .03 .02 .13
R2 .26 .17
AR2 .20*** .08*
Step 3
Constant 1.36*** .45 1.78** .75
Span of control -.02 .00 -.29*** -.03 .01 29***
Negative Affectivity .06 .09 .06 -.04 .15 .02

.21 .07 .26** .28 .11 .22*
Agreeableness
Extraversion -.08 .04 -.16 -.08 .07 .11
Positive affectivity .33 .07 .37*** .23 .12 .17
X extraversion
R2 .29 .18
Ai?2 .03* .01
*
p < .05
< .01
**p
< .001
***p
tionships and specific tests of hypotheses are dis able were likely to be rated as engaging in transfor
cussed below, and results are presented in Table 2. mational leadership behavior and contingent re
With respect to emotion recognition, Hypothesis ward behavior. Hypothesis 3 states that PA is
1 posits that leader emotion recognition ability is positively associated with transformational leader
positively associated with leader transformational ship behavior. Results showed support forHypoth
leadership behavior. Results supported Hypothesis esis 3 in that leaders with high positive affectivity
1. Leaders who accurately identified emotions from were more likely to be rated as performing trans
=
facial expressions were more likely to engage in formational leadership behavior (? .36, p < .001).
=
transformational leadership behavior (? .18, p < In contrast, PA was not a significant predictor of
.05). Emotion recognition was not a significant pre contingent reward behavior.
dictor of contingent reward behavior. Beyond positing simple "main effects," Hypoth
Regarding leader personality traits, Hypotheses esis 4 asserts that extraversion moderates the rela
2a and 2b suggest that agreeableness and extraver tionship between emotion recognition and transfor
sion, respectively, are positively associated with mational leadership behavior; according to our
transformational leadership behavior. As seen in hypothesis, increased levels of extraversion posi
=
Table 2, only agreeableness (? .23, p < .01) was tively strengthen the relationship between emotion
a significant predictor, showing support for Hy recognition and transformational leadership behav
pothesis 2a but not for 2b. Similarly, agreeableness ior. To test Hypothesis 4, we created mean-centered
was also significantly related to contingent reward interaction terms for extraversion and emotion rec
= while extraversion was them to create a single
behavior (? .20,p<.01), ognition and multiplied
not. Thus, leaders who reported being more agree interaction term. The interaction term was then

added to step 3 in the hierarchical regression anal Broadly speaking, the results showed that person
ysis. Results showed that the interaction was sig ality traits and emotional recognition were posi
nificant for transformational behavior linked to transformational
leadership tively leadership behav
=
(? .19, p < .05), but not for contingent reward ior. Overall, over one-quarter of the variance in
behavior. Following the recommendations ofAiken transformational could be ex
leadership behavior
and West (1991), we subjected the interaction to a plained by a relatively few trait, ability, and control
split-plot analysis to better understand its form. variables. Although some of the findings reinforce
The form in Figure 1 supports Hypothesis 4, as the
previous research, others represent more novel dis
regression for high emotion recognition is signifi coveries. Moreover, the study results are encourag
cant (p < .05), whereas the regression for low emo as are
ing they free of same-source variance
tion recognition is nonsignificant. Specifically, inflation.
leaders high in extraversion and with emotion
With respect to personality traits, this study rep
recognition ability were rated more highly on trans
licated previous findings, added new data, and ex
formational leadership behavior than leaders high
tended research by including contingent reward
in extraversion and low in emotion recognition behavior. First, leaders with high positive affect
ability. For leaders who were low in extraversion, were more likely to perform transformational lead
emotion recognition ability made no statistically
ership behavior but not more or less likely to en
significant difference in their transformational
behavior gage in contingent reward behavior. Second, results
leadership ratings.1
showed that agreeableness, but not extraversion,
predicted transformational leadership behavior
DISCUSSION and contingent reward behavior. Our findings are
The goal of the present study was to examine the consistent with
Judge and Bono's (2000) demon
influence of emotional intelligence and personality stration that agreeableness was the strongest pre
traits on transformational behavior. dictor of transformational leadership behavior.
leadership
This convergence of findings is encouraging since
the present study and Judge and Bono's (2000)
1
To assess whether a nonlinear was study utilized different measures of transforma
relationship
tional leadership behavior and personality.
present, we testedwhether the squared terms of emotion
recognition
or extraversion added unique variance. In Much has been written recently regarding the
neither case was a nonlinear
relationship found.
potential influence of emotional intelligence and
FIGURE 1
Split-Plot Analysis of the Interactive Effects of Emotion Recognition and Extraversion
on Transformational Behavior
Leadership
High
Transformational
Leadership +1 s.d. extraversion

Behavior
-1 s.d. extraversion
Low
Low High
Emotional Recognition

its role in organizational leadership, but little em ship behavior. Future researchers may want to con
pirical work exists on the topic. This study contrib sider the use of constructs that tap this behavior
utes much-needed empirical evidence in support of more directly than extraversion; emotional expres
one aspect of emotional intelligence and its rela sivity (e.g., Gross & John, 1997; King & Emmons,
tionship to transformational leadership behavior. 1990) may be one such construct.
Leaders in this study who were better able to rec As mentioned above, although we focused pri
emotion accurately in others were rated
ognize marily on transformational leadership behavior, we
more highly on transformational leadership behav wanted to heed calls to study antecedents of trans
ior. Additionally, emotion recognition was not pre formational leadership behavior, but not to the ex
dictive of contingent reward behavior in the clusion of transactional behavior. The present
These results theoretical ar
present study. support study showed that transformational leadership be
guments that leaders who perform transformational havior and contingent reward behavior (the proto
sen
leadership behavior are more interpersonally typical transactional behavior) were correlated at a
sitive than leaders who might engage in solely con level =
moderately high (r .58), suggesting overlap
tingent reward behavior. Thus, emotion recogni
ping constructs. Yet a comparison of the regression
tion could represent an important point of results showed that only agreeableness was a sig
divergence for understanding and predicting trans nificant predictor of contingent reward behavior.
formational leadership behavior as opposed to
Thus, although contingent reward behavior and
other forms of leader behavior. transformational behavior often
leadership may
Perhaps the most important contribution is that or
produce similar outcomes, the pathways to, gen
leader emotion recognition can interact with extra
esis of, contingent reward behavior may be quite
version in a way that significantly and positively
different from that of transformational leadership
influences leader performance of transformational
behavior. For example, our findings for an interac
leadership behavior. High extraversion provided a
tion between emotion recognition and extraversion
clear benefit to leaders who also possessed the abil
support previous theory contending that perfor
ity to accurately recognize emotion. Conversely, mance of transformational behavior re
low extraversion and high leadership
leaders who possessed
quires management of emotion, which in turn pro
emotion recognition abilities did not seem to reap
duces employee empowerment, growth, and
the benefits of their emotion recognition ability. In
change. Contingent reward behavior, which pro
fact, leaders high in extraversion and low in emo
duces order and stability, may not require such
tion recognition ability may be at a greater disad
management of emotion.
vantage than those low in extraversion but high in this study has promising results and
Although
emotion recognition ability. For example, high-ex some positive methodological
leaders may be strengths (e.g., mul
traversion/low-emotion-recognition
as "all talk" and as insensitive, tiple data sources, a large organizational sample,
perceived lacking a
multiple raters of behavior), few limitations de
the ability to read employees' emotional cues indi
serve specific mention. First, this study employed a
cating their needs. Thus, although extraversion
does not seem to have a direct effect on transfor
cross-sectional design and, thus, the direction of
causality is impossible to decipher. Second, the
mational leadership behavior, it does have an indi
rect effect and should not be discounted as an im leaders were selected from a single organization. In
addition, participation was voluntary, making it
portant leadership trait. Further, transformational
that selection effects were present in
leadership behavior by nature is focused on sub quite possible
as a clear vision, leader ratings. Although the subordinate participa
stance, such providing setting
tion rate was less than ideal, it is consistent with
group goals, and setting high performance expecta
tions. Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper rates in previous transformational leadership be
(2001)
found that transformational behavior havior research (Bono & Judge, 2003) and is not
leadership
was related to the overall strength of a leader's necessarily an indication of nonresponse error
vision and noted that personality characteristics (Krosnick, 1999). Further, the descriptive statistics
a for transformational behavior
might play role. Our results suggest that emotion leadership closely
recognition may be a necessary but insufficient approximated previous research, with good vari
of transforma that biases were not
ability involved in the performance ability, indicating systematic
tional leadership behavior. Together, emotion rec likely present in subordinate ratings. Third, our
model contained a small number of predic
ognition, strong substance (e.g., vision content), only
and expressiveness may very well differentiate tors, which may have increased the chances for
leaders' performance of transformational leader model misspecification. These factors may threaten

both the internal and external validity of the study. Bass, B. M. 1999. Two decades of research and develop
ment in transformational leadership. European
Important to future research is an attempt to un
derstand the full process? both individual differ Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 8:
9-32.
ences and contextual circumstances?leading to
the performance of transformational leadership be Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. 2003.
havior. At the individual level, further inquiry into Predicting unit performance by assessing transfor
interactions between emotion and personality mational and transactional leadership. Journal of
would be productive. These include explanations Applied Psychology, 88: 207-218.

of the mechanism for how these antecedents con Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. 2001.
tribute to transformational leadership behavior. For The relationship between vision strength, leadership
style, and context. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 53-73.
example, emotional regulation may be an impor
tantmeans by which leaders are able to adjust their Bono, J. E., &
Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance at
emotions to be situationally work: toward understanding themotivational effects

appropriate. Further,
of transformational leaders.
explorations are needed to understand how a lead Academy of Manage
ment Journal, 46: 554-571.
er's context influencesleadership transformational
behavior. These W. R. & T. T. 2004.
types of studies may ultimately Bommer, H., Rubin, S., Baldwin,
provide support to organizations looking to in Setting the stage for effective leadership: Anteced
ents of transformational behavior. Lead
crease the prevalence of transformational leader leadership
ership Quarterly, 15: 195-210.
ship behavior.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. 1995. Further
assessments of the Bass (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational Jour
leadership.
REFERENCES nal of Applied Psychology, 80: 468-478.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Carney, D. R., & Harrigan, J.A. 2003. It takes one to know
one: Interpersonal sensitivity is related to accurate
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
assessments of
Park, CA: Sage. others' interpersonal sensitivity.
Emotion, 3: 194-200.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the
D. & Salovey,
workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48: 97 J. D.
Caruso, R., Mayer, P. 2002. Emotional
126. intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E. Rig

N. M., & Tse,
gio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J.Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple
B. 2000. Transformational lead
intelligences and leadership: 54-74. Mahwah, NJ:
Ashkanasy,
as of emotion: A re
ership management conceptual Erlbaum.
view. In N. M. C. E. J. H?rtel, & W. J.
Ashkanasy,
Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in theworkplace: Research, Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. 1987. Toward a behavioral
theory, and practice: 221-235. Westport, CT: Quo theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
rum Books. settings. Academy of Management Review, 12:
637-647.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & H?rtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. 2002.
Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organi Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. Emotion
and attribution of intentionality in leader-member
zational behavior research. Journal ofManagement,
28: 307-338. relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 615-634.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1974.

L. & Yammarino, F. Detecting deception
Atwater, E., J. 1993. Personal at
as
from the body or face. Journal of Personality and
tributes predictors of superiors' and subordinates'
Social Psychology, 29: 288-298.
perceptions ofmilitary academy leadership. Human
Relations, 46: 645-656. Elfenbein, H. A., & N. 2002. work
Ambady, Predicting
outcomes from the to on
place ability eavesdrop
Avolio, B. J. 1994. The "natural": Some antecedents to
feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 963
transformational leadership. International Journal 971.
of Public Administration, 17: 1559-1581.
Elfenbein, H. A., Marsh, A. A. & Ambady, N. 2002. Emo
Avolio, B. J. 1999. Full leadership development: Build
tional intelligence and the recognition of emotion
ing the vital forces in organizations. Thousand
from facial expressions. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey
Oaks, CA: Sage.
(Eds.), The wisdom of feeling: Psychological pro
Bass, B. M. 1990. From transactional to transformational cesses in emotional and so
intelligence?Emotions
leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organiza cial behavior: 37-59. New York: Guildford Press.
tional Dynamics, 18(3): 19-31. G. L. A. & Hochwarter, W. A. 2001.
Ferris, L., Witt,
Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership. Indus Interaction of social skill and general mental ability
trial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied
NJ: Erlbaum. Psychology, 86: 1075-1082.

Fox, S., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. 2001. The power of Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of per
emotional appeals
in promoting organizational
formance evaluation decisions. Academy of Man
Exec agement Journal, 36: 80-105.
change programs. Academy of Management
utive, 15(4): 84-95. T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of
Judge,
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. 2000.
Relationship of emotional personality and transformational leadership. Jour
nal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751-765.
intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelli
gence, and trait affectivitywith interview outcomes: Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Hies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002.
It's not all just "g." Journal of Organizational Be
Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quan
havior, 21: 203-220 titative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:
765-780.
George, J.M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 107 Keller, T. 1999. Images of the familiar: Individual differ
116. ences and implicit leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 10: 589-607.
George, J.M. 1991. State or trait:Effects of positive mood
on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychol King, L. A., & Emmons, R. A. 1990. Conflict over emo
ogy, 76: 299-307. tional expression: Psychological and physical corre

lates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol
George, J.M. 1995. Leader positive mood and group
ogy, 58: 864-877.
The case of customer service. Journal
performance.
Social Psychology, 25: 778-794. Krosnick, J. A. 1999. Survey research. In J. T. Spence,
of Applied
J.M. Darley, & J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of
George, J.M. 1996. Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy
psychology, vol. 50: 537-567. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
(Ed.). Individual differences and behavior in or Reviews.
145-171. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ganizations:
Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How
George, J.M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of followers respond to negative emotional expression
emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53:1027 of male and female leaders. Journal of Organiza
1055.
tional Behavior, 21: 221-234.
Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwith, public-domain, Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., &
McCauley, C. D.
personality inventorymeasuring the lower-level fac 1987. Explanations of success and derailment in up
I. Mervielde,
per-level management positions. Journal of Busi
ets of several five-factor models. In I.
Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personal ness & Psychology, 2: 199-216.
itypsychology in Europe, vol. 7: 7-28. Tilburg, The Lord, R. G, & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and infor
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
mation processing: Linking perceptions and per
Graen, G B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based formance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
approach to leadership: Development of leader
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G, & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996.
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
25 years: a multi-level multi-domain per
Applying transactional A meta-analytic review of
leadership:
spective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247. theMLQ literature. Leadership 7: 385
Quarterly,
Gross, J. J.,& John,O. P. 1997. Revealing feelings: facets
425.
of emotional in peer rat D. & P. Emo

expressivity self-reports, Mayer, J. D., Caruso, R., Salovey, (1999).
ings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and So tional intelligence meets traditional standards for an
cial Psychology, 72: 435-448. intelligence. Intelligence, 27: 267-298.
Howell, J.M., & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. 1993. The intelligence of
charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17: 433-442.
and Human Decision Processes, 43: 243-269.
J. D., P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitaremos, G
Mayer, Salovey,
Howell, J.M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that 2001. Emotional intelligence as a standard intelli
bind: The of leader-member trans gence. Emotion, 1: 232-242.
impact exchange,
formational and transactional leadership, and dis Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitaremos, G
tance on follower
predicting performance. Journal 2003. Measuring emotional intelligence with the
of Applied Psychology, 84: 680-694. MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3: 97-105.
Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intel
Murphy, K. R. (Ed). 1996. Individual differences and
ligence, and radical change. Academy of Manage behavior in San Francisco:
organizations. Jossey
ment Review, 24: 325-345. Bass.
L. R., Demaree, R. G, & Wolf, G 1984.

James, Estimating Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. The role of
within-group interrater reliability with and without affect and affective congruence in perceptions of
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: leaders: An experimental study. Leadership Quar
85-98. terly, 13: 601-614.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. 2001. Nonverbal receptivity: APPENDIX

The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy
Scale Items of Study Variables
(DANVA). In J.A Hall & F. J.Bernieri (Eds.), Inter
personal sensitivity theory and measurement: Transformational Behavior
183-198. Leadership
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pawar, B., & Eastman, K. K. 1997. The nature and 1. Is always seeking new opportunities for the unit/
impli
cations of contextual influences on transformational department/organization.
2. Paints an interesting picture of the future for our
leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of
Review, 22: 80-109. group.
Management
3. Has a clear of where we are
understanding going.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. 2003.
4. Inspires others with his/her plans for the future.
transformational trust, and
Personality, leadership, 5. Is able to get others committed to his/her dream of
the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. Leadership Quar the future.
14: 161-192.
terly, 6. Fosters collaboration among work groups.
Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B. C, & Chan, K. Y. 2001. Exploring 7.

Encourages employees
to be "team
players."
relations between typical and maximum perfor 8. Gets the group towork together for the same goal.
mance ratings and the five factormodel of personal 9. Develops a team attitude and spirit among his/her
ity.Personnel Psychology, 54: 809-843. employees.
10. Acts without considering my feelings.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H.
11. Shows respect formy personal feelings.
1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substi
12. Behaves in a manner that is thoughtful of my
tutes for leadership as determinants of employee
personal needs.
satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational 13. Treats me without my feel
considering personal
citizenship behaviors. Journal ofManagement, 22:
ings.
259-298.
14. Shows us that he/she a lot from us.
expects
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & 15. Insists on the best
only performance.
Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors 16.Will not settle for second best.
and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satis 17. Leads by "doing" rather than simply by "telling."
faction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. 18. Provides a good model to follow.
Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142. 19. Leads
by example.
20. Has provided me with new ways of looking at
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber,
V. L. 1984. Situational moderators of leader reward thingswhich used to be a puzzle forme.
21. Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some of
and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organi
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: my own ideas I have never questioned before.
22. Has stimulated me to think about old problems in
21-63.
new ways.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. 1994.
Employee
outcomes at the
Contingent Reward Behavior
positive emotion and favorable
Science, 5: 51-71.
workplace. Organization
M.
1. Always gives me positive feedback when I perform
Tejeda, J. 2001. The MLQ revisited: Psychometric well.
properties and recommendations. Leadership Quar 2. Gives me when is very
special recognition my work
12: 31-52.
terly,
good.
Thomas, J. L., Dickson, M. W., & Bliese, P. D. 2001. 3. Commends me when I do a better than average job.
Values leader in the U.S. 4. me when I do
predicting performance Personally complements outstanding
army reserve officer assessment cen work.
training corps
ter: Evidence for a model. 5. Frequently does not acknowledge my good perfor
personality-mediated
Leadership Quarterly, 12: 181-196. mance.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & A. 1988.

Tellegen, Develop
ment and validation of brief measures of positive Agreeableness
and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of 1. I have a soft heart.
Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070. 2. I take time out for others.
3. I feel others' emotions.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. 2002. The effects of leader and
follower emotional on 4. I am not interested in other
intelligence performance and people's problems.
attitude: An 5. Imake people feel at ease.
exploratory study. Leadership Quar
13: 243-274.
terly,
Extraversion
Yukl, G 1999. An evaluation of the conceptual weak
nesses in transformational and charismatic leader 1. I don't like to draw attention tomyself.
ship theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 285-305. 2. I am quiet around strangers.

858 Academy Journal October
ofManagement
3. I start conversations. M
4. I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
5. I do not mind being the center of attention.
Robert S. Rubin (rrubin@depaul.edu) is an assistant pro
fessor in theManagement Department at DePaul Univer
Positive Affectivity
sity's Kellstadt Graduate School of Business. He received
"Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, his Ph.D. in organizational psychology from Saint Louis
that is, how you feel on average:" His current research interests include trans
University.
1. Interested formational/transactional leadership, leadership cyni
2. Excited cism, social and emotional individual differences, and
3. Strong management pedagogy.
4. Enthusiastic
David C. Munz (munzdc@slu.edu) is a professor of psy
5. Proud
6. Alert chology at Saint Louis University. He received his Ph.D.
in industrial-organizational psychology from theUniver
7. Inspired
sity of Oklahoma. His research interests include work
8. Determined
9. Attentive place affect, stress, and the design and evaluation of
workplace interventions. He has published and pre
10. Active
sented extensively and is a Fellow ofAPA and a charter
member of APS.
Negative Affectivity
William H. Bommer (w.bommer@csuohio.edu) is an as
1. Distressed sociate professor in theManagement and Labor Relations
2. Upset
Department at Cleveland State University's Nance Col
3. Guilty
lege of Business. He received his Ph.D. in organizational
4. Scared
behavior from Indiana University. His research interests
5. Hostile include transformational/transactional leadership, organ
6. Irritable izational citizenship, leadership development, and re
7. Ashamed search methods.
8. Nervous
9. Jittery
10. Afraid /&


Leading From Within The Effects of Emotion

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Leading From Within The Effects of Emotion

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Leading from within: The Effects of Emotion Recognition and Personality on

Transformational Leadership Behavior

This content downloaded from 103.26.197.23 on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 06:58:12 AM