Article 2

Journal of Managerial Psychology
The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership practices: A cross-

cultural study of academic leaders in Taiwan and the USA
Hui-Wen Vivian Tang Mu-Shang Yin Darwin B. Nelson
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hui-Wen Vivian Tang Mu-Shang Yin Darwin B. Nelson, (2010),"The relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership practices", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 Iss 8 pp. 899 - 926
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089143
Downloaded by University of Reading At 11:02 23 December 2014 (PT)
Downloaded on: 23 December 2014, At: 11:02 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 107 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4199 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Robert Kerr, John Garvin, Norma Heaton, Emily Boyle, (2006),"Emotional intelligence and leadership
effectiveness", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 265-279 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610666028
Benjamin Palmer, Melissa Walls, Zena Burgess, Con Stough, (2001),"Emotional intelligence and
effective leadership", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 5-10 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730110380174
Céleste M. Brotheridge, Raymond T. Lee, Ronald E. Riggio, Rebecca J. Reichard, (2008),"The emotional
and social intelligences of effective leadership: An emotional and social skill approach", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 169-185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810850808
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 289728 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
Emotional
The relationship between intelligence and
emotional intelligence and leadership
leadership practices
899
A cross-cultural study of academic leaders in
Taiwan and the USA Received September 2008
Revised June 2009
Hui-Wen Vivian Tang Accepted October 2009
Department of Applied English, Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

Mu-Shang Yin
Department of Business Administration, Hsing-Wu College, Taipei,

Taiwan, ROC, and
Darwin B. Nelson
Forum for Emotional Intelligence Learning (FEIL) Mumbai, India
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to explore the relationship between the emotional intelligence (EI) and
transformational leadership practices of academic leaders in Taiwan and the USA. It aims to
investigate whether cross-cultural differences exist in academic leaders’ EI, leadership practices, and
the relationship between them.
Design/methodology/approach – The study employs a casual-comparative approach to draw
cross-cultural comparisons. Convenience samples of 50 academic leaders in Taiwan and 50 in the USA
were selected as two comparison sample groups. Two instruments were selected to measure emotional
intelligence and leadership effectiveness.
Findings – Results of the correlational analyses indicate that Taiwanese participants’ overall EI was
found to be positively correlated in a statistically significant manner with all five areas of leadership
practice. The US participants were found to have statistically significant positive relationships
between overall emotional intelligence and all areas of leadership practice except Challenging the
process, and Inspiring a shared vision. ANOVA results reveal that significant differences exist in
distinct areas of EI and distinct areas of leadership practice as a function of cultural difference.
Research limitations/implications – An important limitation of the present study is the
probability of response bias resulting from self-reported data.
Originality/value – The study has significance in three aspects. First, it investigates a less
understood and explored issue: cross-cultural differences in the relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership practices. Second, findings of the study make contributions to the body of
research in a number of related disciplines, such as leadership effectiveness, emotional intelligence,
cross-cultural research on leadership, and cross-cultural studies of emotional intelligence. Third, the
results of the study bring significant insights into the field of cross-cultural leadership development in
the academic context. Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 25 No. 8, 2010
Keywords Transformational leadership, Emotional intelligence, National cultures, pp. 899-926
United States of America, Taiwan, Uncertainty management q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/02683941011089143
JMP Introduction
25,8 The study of emotional intelligence (EI) has become a topic of considerable interest in
leadership research. The overriding focus has been on whether EI is an important
factor that determines leadership behavior, practices and values. Many studies have
found positive effects of emotional intelligence on leadership effectiveness, leadership
emergence (e.g., Hayashi, 2005; Higgs and Aitken, 2003; Wolff et al., 2002), and
900 organizational outcomes (e.g., Carmeli, 2003; Ozcelik et al., 2008). Several studies also
support the notion that leaders with high emotional intelligence are associated with
transformational leadership (Barbuto and Burbach, 2006; Mandell and Pherwani, 2003;
Prati et al., 2003; Riggio and Riechard, 2008). With regard to school leaders’ emotional
intelligence, research shows that when school leaders demonstrate high levels of
emotional intelligence, teachers’ attitudes are positive and students’ academic
performances are better. Moreover, emotional intelligence has a positive effect on the
leadership performance of school principals (Cook, 2006; Hartley, 2004; Heiken, 2007).
Despite the significance of EI in the literature on leadership, little is known about
the relationship between EI and educational leadership across cultures. Although some
significant cultural or regional differences between high performers and low
performers were discussed in a study involving 358 managers globally within the
Johnson and Johnson Consumer & Personal Care Group (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002).
The need for self-awareness as a component of emotional intelligence and its relation
with managerial behavior does seem to vary from culture to culture (Shipper et al.,
2003).
Given increasing interest in exploring the relevance of EI to leadership, a major
purpose of this study is to examine whether similarities and differences exist between
academic leaders in the USA and Taiwan with regard to their self-perceptions of
leadership practices and emotional competencies. A further purpose is to explore
whether the concept of emotional intelligence has significance for leadership practices
across cultures.
Leadership and EI differences across the two comparison cultures were analyzed
using the visionary approach to transformational leadership developed by Kouzes and
Posner (1995), and Nelson and Low’s (2003) skill-based EI model in order to examine if
emotional intelligence, the practices of transformational leadership, and the links
between them varies between the two cultures. Knowledge of how EI, measured as a
set of competencies, relates to self-perceived leadership practices might lead to
significant advances in intercultural communication training and development
programs for academic leaders, and to better criteria for selecting culturally intelligent
leaders capable of leading within culturally diverse communities in their home
countries and overseas.
Theoretical backgrounds and research questions

Taiwan and the USA were chosen as comparison cultures in this study because
evidence could be found in the existing literature about cross-cultural discrepancies
between Taiwan and the USA. Taiwan and the USA differ greatly on two of Hofstede’s
five dimensions of cultural differences – individualism-collectivism continuum, and
long-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001; Spector et al., 2001). For example, previous
studies show that the USA routinely ranked the highest on the dimension of
individualism among all countries under investigation (Ardlchille and Kuchinke, 2002;
Fernandez et al., 1997). In contrast to the individualism in the USA, Campbell et al. Emotional
(1993) provided empirical evidence that most East Asian societies, such as Japan, intelligence and
Taiwan, and South Korea, adhere to the central theme of groupism or collectivism.
Further evidence of similarities and differences between the two comparison leadership
cultures comes from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness
(GLOBE) program. Expanded from Hofstede’s dimensions paradigm, nine dimensions
of cultural practices identified by GLOBE were placed into bands in such as way that 901
countries’ scores within the same band were not significantly different statistically
from each other (House et al., 2004). The quantitative scores for Taiwan and the USA
on the GLOBE and Hofstede cultural dimensions are displayed in Table I.
Consistent with Hofstetde’s findings, the GLOBE study categorized Taiwan as an
extremely collectivistic culture compared to the USA Managers from Taiwan and the
USA all gave very similar ratings of importance on seven of the GLOBE cultural
practice dimensions. Marked differences were found, however, with regard to Taiwan
and the US managers’ ratings of in-group collectivism, and institutional collectivism –
the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their
organizations or families, and the degree to which societal institutional practices
encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action (House
et al., 2004).
The GLOBE measures of the two cultures in regard to future orientation were in
sharp contrast to the Hofstede dimensions. The typology of “future orientation” in
GLOBE was derived from “long-term orientation” in Hofstede. People with short-term
orientation (low future orientation) expect to get things done effectively and obtain
quick results. Long-term orientation (high future orientation) is the opposite, and thrift
and perseverance are values associated with long-term orientation (high future
orientation) (Hofstede, 2006; McCrae et al., 2008). In comparison to the USA, Taiwan, a
relatively long-term oriented culture in Hofstede’s study, turned out to be low in future
orientation in the GLOBE study. However, the difference between the GLOBE and
Hofstede results may due to different operationalizations of the future orientation
dimension (Hofstede, 2006).
Taiwan USA
GLOBE (Hofstede) GLOBE band Hofstede GLOBE band Hofstede
Power distance 5.18 b 58a 4.88 b 40a

Uncertainty avoidance 4.34 b 69a 4.15 b 46a
Gender egalitarianism 3.18 b 3.34 b
Assertiveness 3.92 b 4.45 a
Masculinity – Femininitya 45a 62a
Future orientation 3.96 b 4.15 b
Long-term orientationa 87a 29a
In-group collectivism 5.59 a 4.25 c
Institutional collectivism 5.15 a 4.17 c Table I.
Individualism-collectivisma 17a 91a GLOBE’s cultural
Humane orientation 4.11 c 4.17 c practices scores v.
Performance orientation 4.58 b 4.49 b Hofstede’s cultural
dimension scores for
Note: a Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural differences and quantitative scores Taiwan and the USA
JMP Studies of cultural evolution in Taiwan explain that Taiwan’s cultural
25,8 transformation from deep-rooted traditional Confucius values to having its own
cultural identity over the past 50 years is the result of its high level of exposure to
the Western world, its political confrontation with China, democratization, and
continuous globalization. Taiwan has recently been characterized as having lower
power distance, and relatively lower collectivistic culture than in Hofstede’s findings
902 (Wu, 2006). Taiwan was also found to have developed a unique culture with certain
traits such as anxiety, insecurity, flexibility, a short-term focus and greater
sensitivity (Fu et al., 2004).
In the era of globalization, serious concerns have been raised about how to broaden
leaders’ competencies, including emotional skills and intercultural communication
competencies, in order to lead effectively in multinational organizations (Gabel et al.,
2005; Karim, 2003; Saner and Yiu, 2000; Schyns and Meindl, 2006). The definitions of
emotional skills and intercultural communication competencies have potential for

conceptual overlap. They both emphasize the abilities needed to perform appropriately
when interacting with others and to adapt effectively to change while also maintaining
personal wellbeing (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Mosakowski, 2005). Existing
research also indicates that emotional intelligence and intercultural consciousness
have positive connotations that lead to effective cross-cultural leadership (Gabel et al.,
2005; Karim, 2003). It is therefore critically important to compare empirically the links
between emotional intelligence and leadership practices across cultures. It is also
important to examine whether the subtle yet important differences on the
individualism-collectivism continuum and other dimensions of cultural differences, if
any, shape academic leadership practices, emotional intelligence and the relationships
between them in Taiwan and the USA.
Culturally contingent v. universal transformational leadership behaviors

Whether leadership behaviors are culturally specific or universal, or whether there are
universally desirable leadership attributes, has been a focus of cross-cultural
leadership studies (Den Hartog and Dickson, 2004; Scandura and Dorfman, 2005;
Spreitzer et al., 2005). In exploring the nature of leadership across cultures, a significant
range of cross-cultural leadership studies have followed Hofestede’s framework of
cultural dimensions. This is in order to identify and evaluate culturally specific
perceptions regarding organizational effectiveness, time management, decision
making, and tactics, as well as transformational leadership behaviors from a
cross-cultural perspective (e.g. Ardlchille and Kuchinke, 2002; Chang, 2003; Leong,
2006; Nonis et al., 2005; Redpath and Nielsen, 1997; Yukl, 2003).
Despite the popularity of culturally contingent views of leadership, theoretical
discussions and empirical evidence have been presented to support the view that
transformational leadership would be universally accepted and preferred. It has been
claimed that charismatic/transformational leadership behavior would facilitate leaders
in different cultures to lead effectively by inspiring shared vision and creating
exceptional performance (Bass and Avolio, 1990; Boehnke et al., 2003). The findings of
the GLOBE program suggest that the characteristics of transformational leadership,
such as foresight, encouraging, communicative, trustworthy, dynamic, positive,
confidence builder, and motivational, appear to be generalizable across 61 cultures
(Grachev, 2009; House et al., 2004). The GLOBE program also identified culturally
contingent charismatic/transformational leadership attributes such as enthusiasm, Emotional
risk taking, ambition, uniqueness, sacrifice, sincerity, sensitivity, compassion, and intelligence and
willfulness (House et al., 2004).
Contrary results were also found in recent studies speculating on the leadership
generalizability of transformational leadership. Strong arguments were made
claiming that certain personality traits positively correlated to transformational
leadership behavior in the USA context were not evident in Chinese societies including 903
Taiwan (Shao and Webber, 2006). Similarly, in a study examining the relationship
between transformational leadership and Hofstede’s dimensions across cultures, some
aspects of transformational leadership were found to be universal, whereas others were
cultural-specific (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Nevertheless, none of the above attributes or
characteristics, culturally contingent or universal have been empirically examined in
educational leadership or compared between Taiwan and the USA.
In order to assess the generalizability of transformational leadership behaviors of

academic leaders in Taiwan – a collectivist society – this study employs a casual-
comparative approach to test if transformational leadership developed in the West is
perceived equally importantly in Taiwan. Components of transformational leadership
examined in this study are the five exemplary leadership practices by Kouzes and
Posner (1995):
(1) Challenging the process. Leaders search out challenging opportunities, question
the status quo, and experiment.
(2) Inspiring a shared vision. Leaders envision a future and en others to pursue that
future.
(3) Enabling others to act. Leaders foster collaboration, empower and strengthen
others
(4) Modeling the way. Leaders set the example and plan small wins
(5) Encouraging the heart. Leaders give positive feedback, recognize individual
contributions and celebrate team accomplishments (Kouzes and Posner, 1995).
Paternalistic leadership has been long practiced in Confucian societies, such as China,
Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Paternalistic leadership and transformational leadership
have some things in common, and may have cultural-specific components that are not
easily transplanted to other cultural settings. Research studies further suggest that the
relationship-oriented behaviors of transformational leadership would overlap with
some concepts in Chinese paternalistic leadership, such as promoting cooperation,
providing individual support, and acting as an exemplar to subordinates. These are
also preferred behaviors in collectivism cultures. In contrast, less relationship-oriented
components (such as risk taking, vision building, intellectual stimulation) are
transformational leadership behaviors not seen in paternalistic leadership (Chen and
Farh, 1999; Cheng et al., 2004). Prior research also offers theoretical arguments
suggesting that cultural values of collectivism and low uncertainty avoidance matters
more for relationship-oriented leadership behavior, whereas the values of
individualism and high uncertainty avoidance matters more for task-oriented
behavior leadership (Yeh, 2006).
Studies which have used LPI-Self to examine transformational leadership
practices between the USA and collectivist countries, such as Slovenia, Nigeria,
JMP Argentina and Mexico report conflicting findings. It was found that managers from
25,8 Slovenia, Nigeria and Argentina scored significantly higher on the
relationship-oriented leadership behaviors of Modeling the way, and Enabling
others to act. While overall, US managers had lower scores on all leadership
practices, including the task-oriented behaviors Challenging the process, and
Inspiring a shared vision, although the differences were not significant (Aimar and
904 Stough, 2007; Zagoršek et al., 2003). Contrarily, Slater et al. (2002) found that US
superiors scored significantly higher than Mexican superiors on all five of Kouzes
and Posner’s leadership practices.This raises the question of the universality of
transformational leadership across cultures. Although there have been studies on
cultural differences in Slovenia, Nigeria, Argentina and Mexico, unknown is whether
leadership practices found to have significance in collectivist cultures (such as
Modeling the way, and Enabling others to act) would be important to Taiwanese
academic leaders. Or if leadership practices less relevant to relationship-oriented

behaviors (such as Challenging the process, and Inspiring a shared vision) would be
less important to Taiwanese academic leaders than their US counterparts. It is
therefore the aim of this study to investigate cross-cultural differences and
similarities between Taiwan and the USA in academic leaders’ transformational
leadership practices:
RQ1. Is there a significant difference between Taiwanese and US academic
leadership practices?
Emotional intelligence and cultures

Constructs for EI have been generalized into two competing models: the ability-based
model and the trait-based model (Conte, 2005; Day et al., 2002). The ability-based model
conceptualized by Mayer and Salovey defines emotional intelligence as a type of
intelligence reflecting the ability to process emotional information in four areas:
(1) perceiving emotion;
(2) using emotion to facilitate thought;
(3) understanding emotion; and
(4) managing emotion.
The trait-based model of emotional intelligence endorsed by Goleman and Bar-On

defines emotional intelligence as a set of non-cognitive attributes, encompassing
components from personal traits such as empathy, optimism, adaptability, warmth,
and motivation (Conte, 2005; Van der Zee and Wabeke, 2004).
Although the majority of researchers follow the two models of EI referred to above,
the present study suggests that there is a third model of EI – Nelson and Low’s
emotional learning system. Nelson and Low (2003) developed the Emotional Skills
Assessment Process (ESAP) to help fill a gap in the literature by offering a
psychologically sound yet practical sequential emotional intelligence measure
appropriate for leadership and management development. Emotional intelligence, as
defined by Nelson and Low, is a learnt ability through a transformative learning
process to identify, experience, understand, and express human emotions in healthy
and productive ways. This definition leads to a practical, comprehensive, and
skills-based approach to developing the emotional abilities of:
.
knowing and valuing self; Emotional
.
building and maintaining a variety of strong, productive, and healthy intelligence and
relationships; leadership
.
getting along and working well with others in achieving positive results; and
.
effectively dealing with the pressures and demands of life and work (Nelson and
Low, 2003). 905
Factor analytic studies in the United States and China make it evident that
interpersonal skills, leadership skills, self-management skills, and intrapersonal skills
are distinct factors provided by ESAP (Nelson et al., 2002). There are ten specific
emotional intelligence skills that contribute to these factors:
(1) Assertion;
(2) Comfort (social awareness);

(3) Empathy;
(4) Decision making;
(5) Positive influence (leadership);
(6) Drive strength (goal setting);
(7) Commitment ethic (personal responsibility);
(8) Time management;
(9) Self esteem; and
(10) Stress management.
In addition, ESAP also includes three problematic areas: Aggression, Deference, and
Change orientation. Aggression and Deference are patterns of interpersonal
communication that need to be converted to the emotional skills of Anger
control/management, and Fear control/management, while Change orientation refers
to the degree to which a person is motivated for change and this needs to be converted
into the emotional skill of Positive personal change.
Relationship-oriented emotional skills grouped as interpersonal skills and
leadership skills are:
.
Assertion;
.
Anger control/management;
.
Fear control/management;
.
Comfort;
.
Empathy; and
.
Positive influence (leadership).
The rest of the emotional skills tend to be less relevant to relationship-oriented

behaviors (Nelson et al., 2002).
As noted earlier, Americans and Taiwanese vary on the dimension
individualism-collectivism (Ali et al., 2005; Yan and Hunt, 2005). The GLOBE
program further distinguished cultural variations between institutional collectivism
and in-group collectivism. Taiwan, with high scores on both institutional collectivism
JMP and in-group collectivism, has tendencies of fostering group harmony, cohesion and
25,8 cooperation, emphasizing groups over individuals, displaying high commitment, pride
in and loyalty to organizations, and emphasizing responsibilities to and support from
one’s in-group (House et al., 2004). People in the USA, based on both GLOBE and
Hofstade’s individualism, stress the pursuit of personal needs over group goals, and do
not ordinarily feel bound to complete group work regardless of circumstances
906 (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004).
The cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism could be used to illustrate
cross-cultural differences in expressing emotions. Kang et al. (2003) offered a
generalization about emotional displays in different cultures that indicated that
emotional expression is more important than emotional differentiation (a determinant
of interpersonal sensitivity) in interpersonal relations in individualistic cultures,
whereas emotion differentiation is more important than emotional expression or both
are of equal importance in collectivistic societies.

The above findings by Kang et al. (2003) suggested that emotion differentiation
serves as one of the qualities that help Asians to maintain good interpersonal
relationships because it allows members of collectivistic societies to be sensitive to
each others’ feelings rather than focusing on the expression of their own feelings. North
Americans tend to maximize experiencing positive emotions and minimize
experiencing negative emotions. This tendency is relatively weaker in Asian
societies (Kang et al., 2003).
It is important to note that meanings attached to some emotional skills may vary
from culture to culture. One instance is “assertion”. In collectivistic cultures, people are
more likely to display a non-confrontational, indirect attitude towards conflict, and
conflicts occur because group expectations and harmony are violated. However, in
individualistic cultures, the occurrence of conflicts is mainly due to the violation of an
individual’s expectation of appropriate behavior, and people show a tendency to use
confrontation with a direct attitude toward conflict (Hall, 1977). The definition of
assertion or assertiveness, therefore, may swing toward a more negative direction in
cultures where interpersonal harmony and group goals are highly valued (Chang, 2004;
Leong, 2006). However, existing literature comparing upward and downward influence
tactics of leaders in different cultures found that people in Chinese cultures were more
likely than those from the USA to use assertiveness as an influence tactic in a
downward direction. Assertive behaviors used by leaders in Chinese societies were
fundamentally associated with the hierarchical attributes of a high power distance
culture (Schermerhorn and Bond, 1991; Fu and Yukl, 2000; Fu et al., 2004).
The values Chinese people place on collectivism and long-term orientation would
imply that academic leaders in Taiwan are more likely to emphasize
relationship-oriented emotional skills than their US counterparts. It was
hypothesized that commitment ethic, drive strength and non-confrontational
communication patterns (deference) would be critically important in Taiwan, where
loyalty to groups and group harmony are highly valued. The tendency to high power
distance may mean that academic leaders in Taiwan are more likely to perceive
assertive or even aggressive behavior as a downward influence tactic than their US
counterparts.
To either support or reject the claim that significant differences exist between the Emotional
two cultures regarding emotional intelligence, the following research question was intelligence and
asked:
leadership
RQ2. Is there a significant difference between Taiwanese and US academic
leaders’ emotional intelligence?
Links between emotional intelligence and leadership

907
Previous leader trait research focused mainly on cognitive abilities, personality,
motivation and social capacities as key attributes differentiating leaders from
non-leaders (Zaccaro et al., 2004; Yukl, 2002). More recently, an approach to studying
leadership traits and skills has been the use of emotional intelligence constructs to
assess traits, behaviors or competencies of leaders.
In a study using Goleman’s emotional intelligence framework, superior leaders
demonstrating higher levels of emotional intelligence lead more effectively than those
with lower levels of emotional intelligence (Watkin, 2000). Van der Zee and Wabeke
(2004) also looked at the trait-based emotional intelligence of leaders using the Bar-On
Emotional Quotient Inventory. Top managers were found to obtain higher scores on EI
dimensions compared with the general population. Using the ability-based model,
Carmeli (2003) found that senior managers’ emotional intelligence was related to both
positive work attitudes and work effectiveness. A significant range of literature has
provided evidence to support the proposition that transformational leadership style
could be predicted from trait-based emotional intelligence (Barbuto and Burbach, 2006;
Brown and Moshavi, 2005; Mandell and Pherwani, 2003, Hayashi, 2005; Sosik and
Megerian, 1999). In addition, others have asserted the significant role played by
ability-based emotional intelligence in transformational leadership literature (Daus and
Ashkanasy, 2005; Coetzee and Schaap, 2004; Walter and Bruch, 2007).
However, contrasting views do exist questioning the empirical evidence for the
necessity of EI in leadership effectiveness. Opponents argue that more data based on
defensible methodologies are needed to prove the validity of the EI/leadership link
(Antonakis, 2003; Locke, 2005). Weinberger (2003) also found that ability-based EI has
no significant correlation to perceived styles of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership or laissez-faire leadership. To address the above criticisms
of the field of EI, continued conceptual and empirical contributions made by Low and
Nelson’s skill-based EI model have provided clear and compelling cases for the
significance of the transformative learning process to college success, academic
achievement, retention, personal health, and leadership. Through transformative
learning, individuals are able to improve themselves and their performance in life and
throughout their careers (Elkins and Low, 2004; Low and Nelson, 2004). Furthermore,
Nelson and Low’s skilled-based EI provides a reliable and valid measure of EI
construct consistent with humanistic-existential theory that educational and
counseling practitioners can use for professional and leadership development (Cox
and Nelson, 2008).
Despite much interest in the importance of EI to effective leadership, only two
studies were found that aimed at exploring the links between these two constructs
from a cross-cultural perspective. These were conducted in two different multinational
corporations utilizing leadership measures other than those based on transformational
leadership theory (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Shipper et al., 2003).
JMP Inconsistent findings regarding the links between emotional intelligence and
25,8 leadership, and limited prior research exploring these links from a cross-cultural
perspective in school settings leads to the third research question:
RQ3. What is the relationship between Taiwanese and US academic leaders’
emotional intelligence and their leadership practices?
908
Method
Samples
Convenience samples of academic leaders in Taiwan and the USA were selected from
the two cultures. The population of the study included school principals, presidents,
academic deans, student deans and department chairs at all levels of schooling. Since
the samples were not randomly selected, any differences between the groups would be
used for illustrative purposes only. A sample size of 50 from each educational setting
was based on the recommendation by Gall et al.(2003) and Gay and Airasian (2000).
Accordingly, a minimum of 30 participants is needed to establish the existence or
non-existence of a relationship (Gall et al., 2003; Gay and Airasian, 2000).
Through personal contacts, there were a total of 50 out of 70 possible academic
leaders in Taiwan and a total of 52 out of 66 possible academic leaders in the United
States who agreed to participate in the study and were included in the final data
analysis. The total response rate was 75 percent (102 out of 136 returned their surveys).
No invalid cases were found in the 50 Taiwanese respondents; two out of the 52 data
received from the US participants were invalid; therefore, the total valid response rate
was 73.5 percent.
The Taiwanese sample was comprised of 50 academic leaders evenly distributed in
northern, middle and southern parts of Taiwan. They were elementary/secondary
school principals and assistant principals (14 percent), college/university presidents (10
percent), deans/directors of academic units (48 percent), and department chairs (28
percent), with an average age of 39 (SD ¼ 2:07), and an average duration of 14 years as
academic leaders (SD ¼ 3:60). Females constituted 34 percent of the group. Up to 52
percent of participants in the sample had master’s degrees and 30 percent had doctoral
degrees at the time of the survey. The US sample was comprised 50 academic leaders
in Texas, Florida, California, Iowa and New Jersey. They were elementary/secondary
school principals and assistant principals (8 percent), college/university presidents (4
percent), deans or directors of academic units (20 percent), and department chairs (58
percent), with an average age of 40.5 (SD ¼ 4:49), and an average duration of 13 years
as academic leaders (SD ¼ 5:24). Females constituted 45 percent of the group. Up to 60
percent of participants in the sample had master’s degrees and 16 percent had doctoral
degrees at the time of the survey.
Measures
In addition to a demographic questionnaire, two instruments selected to measure
leadership effectiveness and emotional intelligence were Kouzes and Posner’s
Leadership Practice Inventory-Self (LPI-Self) and Nelson and Low’s Emotional Skills
Assessment Process (ESAP). The two instruments were selected for two reasons: First,
they are comprehensive in nature. Second, both instruments have sound psychometric
properties in the USA and Chinese cultures.
For the purpose of assessing leaders’ self-perception of leadership practices, the first Emotional
instrument used to measure leadership practices was the Leadership Practices intelligence and
Inventory-Self (LPI-Self). LPI was developed based on transformational leadership
theory. Through a triangulation of qualitative and quantitative research approaches, leadership
as well as in-depth interviews regarding individuals’ best leadership experiences,
Kouzes and Posner generated the conceptual framework of five practices for exemplary
leaders: Modeling the Way, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Challenging the Process, 909
Enabling Others to Act, Encouraging the Heart (Kouzes and Posner, 1995). The LPI
contains 30 items – six items for measuring each of the five key exemplary leadership
practices. Each item is case on a five-point Likert scale: Rarely; Once in a while;
Sometimes; Fairly often; Very frequently.
The LPI was examined of having good internal reliability, test-retest reliability,
concurrent validity and discriminate validity (Kouzes and Posner, 1995). In addition,
the high degree of structural equivalence of LPI suggests that the instrument is a
reliable measurement for cross-cultural leadership studies (Zagoršek et al., 2006).
Academic leaders’ emotional intelligence was measured using Nelson and Low’s
emotional skills assessment process (ESAP). ESAP is a self-assessment instrument
containing 213 items providing three-point Likert scale measures of ten emotional
skills and three problem indicators. The ten emotional skills measured by ESAP
include Assertion, Comfort, Empathy, Decision making, Leadership, Drive strength,
Time management, Commitment ethic, Stress management, and Self esteem. The
problem indicators measured by ESAP are Aggression, Deference, and Change
Orientation (Low and Nelson, 2004). The three-point Likert scale used to measure EI
competencies are:
(1) Least like or descriptive of you.
(2) Sometimes like or descriptive of you, sometimes not.
(3) Most like or descriptive of you.
Sample items of ESAP clustered into the “interpersonal skills” and relevant to
collectivistic behaviors are “when I make an important request/demand of another
person, I usually behave comfortably and straightforwardly in making the request”
(Assertion); “when I make an important request/demand of another person, I usually
behave pushy and sometimes overpowering in making the request” (Aggression);
“when I make an important request/demand of another person, I usually think that I
really should not be imposing on or bothering them” (Deference); “I am confident in my
ability to be comfortable and effective in communicating with other people” (Comfort);
“I feel the emotions of others as they feel them” (Empathy).
The ESAP has been proven to be a valid and reliable measurement of emotional
intelligence by researchers in the USA and in Southeast China. In Nelson et al.’s study
(2002), factor analyses and regression analyses provided strong support for both the
construct and concurrent validity of ESAP. Internal reliabilities for emotional skills
and problems are more than accepted and are consistent over time. Major findings
concerning the reliabilities of ESAP by Nelson et al. (2002) are summarized below:
.
The reliability coefficient (coefficient alpha) of the thirteen sub-tests were above
0.70 with the exception of assertion (0.60). The reliability of the whole assessment
was 0.91.
JMP .
Split-half coefficient for all the sub-tests exceeded 0.60 and 0.70 for the whole set.
25,8 .
Stability coefficients (test-retest) over a two months period (n ¼ 50) exceeded
0.60, which indicated acceptable levels of scale stability.
Validity and reliability studies conducted using samples with high school students
(Stottlemyre, 2002) and with college students (Vela, 2003) in the USA supported that
910 the structural validity of ESAP was consistent across cultures, indicating sub-tests of
ESAP to be significant indicators of high achievement, personal wellbeing, and
leadership.
Procedure and design

In addition to the selection of instruments, sampling equivalence and translation of the
instruments are two critical issues that would result in incorrect data, finding and
conclusions in cross-cultural leadership studies (Thomas, 2007). To avoid these

potential faults, this current study adopted the most recommended translation
procedure: forward and backward translations of the two instruments into Chinese
language used in Taiwan (Peter and Passchier, 2006). In addition, Chi square analyses
of demographic breakdowns were conducted to ensure sampling equivalence before
concluding the data collection procedure.
The US sample group and the Taiwanese sample group were investigated as two
sample groups in order to appropriately draw cross-cultural comparisons. To address
the first research question, one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were conducted
to test if significant differences exist in the five leadership practices and thirteen areas
of ESAP between the two cultures. Pearson Correlation Analyses were conducted to
determine if relationships existed between variables of LPI and variables of ESAP.
Results
Chi-square analyses of demographics
Since the issue of sampling equivalence had been a primary concern in this study,
similarity of demographic characteristics of the two convenience sample groups should
be considered in order to result in useful data for cross-cultural comparisons (Thomas,
2007). According to Gall et al. (2003), in selecting comparison groups, one might take
sampling comparability into consideration and recommended the use of inferential
statistics to define conveniences samples. Chi-square analysis was used in the study to
solve possible problems caused by lacking sampling comparability or sampling bias
resulting from using convenience sampling strategies. The computation of chi-square
analyses was to examine the sampling equivalence from populations of the two cultures
on extraneous variables, such as gender, age, educational levels, supervising positions,
etc. Results of Chi-square analyses are shown in Table II. When setting a lower a at 0.01
to spotlight potentially important differences, results of Chi square analyses indicate
that the two comparison samples were not significantly different from each other on a
majority of extraneous variables except years of teaching experience.
ANOVAs based on two levels

To answer the first research question, ANOVAs were computed among the total and
the distinct areas leadership practices to determine whether academic leaders in the
two cultures differ significantly in those LPI variables. Results of ANOVAs were
summarized in Table III. Means and strand deviations for cross-cultural comparisons Emotional
were presented in Table IV. intelligence and
RQ1. Is there a significant difference between the Taiwanese and the US leadership
academic leaders’ leadership practices?
Significant difference was found in total LPI scores between cultures. The US
participants, on average, perceived themselves as more effective leaders than their 911
Taiwanese counterparts. When examining distinct areas of LPI, the ANOVA showed
that the US academic leaders in the study outperformed their Taiwanese counterparts
on two of the task-oriented leadership behaviors of Inspiring a Shared Vision and
Pearson x 2 p value (two-sided) Cramer’s V

Gender 1.051 0.305 0.103

Age 8.392 0.078 0.290
Education 2.845 0.241 0.169
Position 13.850 0.037 * 0.415
School level 8.682 0.034 * 0.394
Years supervising 4.599 0.100 0.214 Table II.
Years teaching 15.606 0.001 * * 0.386 Chi-square result for
demographic
Notes: *p 0.05; * *p 0.01 breakdowns by country
LPI Components F Sig. h2
Total LPI 7.967 0.006 * * 0.075

Model 4.480 0.037 * 0.044
Inspire 15.400 0.000 * * 0.136
Challenge 80.367 0.000 * * 0.451 Table III.
Enable 0.889 0.348 0.009 One-way ANOVA
Encourage 0.440 0.509 0.004 summary for five LPI
components between
Notes: *p 0.05; * * p 0.01 cultures
Five LPI components Culture M SD
Total LPI Taiwan 120.18 11.563

USA 126.30 10.068
Model Taiwan 25.36 3.343
USA 23.82 3.911
Inspire Taiwan 22.96 3.481
USA 25.38 2.626
Challenge Taiwan 21.42 3.459
USA 26.76 2.404 Table IV.
Enable Taiwan 25.78 3.145 Means and standard
USA 25.20 3.003 deviations for
Encourage Taiwan 24.66 3.799 comparisons of five LPI
USA 25.14 3.429 components
JMP Challenging the Process. The Taiwanese academic leaders, on the other hand, scored
25,8 higher on one of the relationship-oriented leadership practices – Modeling the way.
Academic leaders in both cultures placed a similar importance to the two
relationship-oriented leadership practices of Enabling others to act and Encouraging
the heart.
In an attempt to understand the role played by cultural differences in self perceived
912 emotional intelligence competencies, general-linear model ANOVAs were utilized to
address second research question, as well as to detect significant differences in distinct
areas of emotional intelligence between the US and the Taiwanese academic leaders.
RQ2. Is there a significant difference between the Taiwanese and the US
academic leaders’ emotional intelligence?
The ANOVA results for comparisons of EI variables are seen in Table V. Table VI
summarized means and standard deviations for comparisons of EI variables between

cultures. An ANOVA was conducted to identify if mean total EI scores differed
between the Taiwanese and the US academic leaders. The ANOVA revealed no
significant difference with regard to overall EI between academic leaders in the two
comparison cultures.
Based on the ANOVA results presented in Tables V and VI, it was concluded that
the US participants, on average, scored significantly higher on the
relationship-oriented emotional skill of Assertion, and the task-oriented emotional
skills of Decision making and Time management than their Taiwanese counterparts.
Taiwanese participants, on average, scored significantly higher on the
relationship-oriented emotional skills of Comfort and Commitment Ethic than the US
academic leaders. No significant differences were found with regard to total EI skills
and relationship-oriented emotional skills of Empathy, Leadership, and task-oriented
emotional skills of Drive Strength, Self Esteem, and Stress Management. It was also
EI variables F Sig. h2
Total EI score 7.967 0.126 0.075

Total 10 EI skills 0.136 0.714 0.002
Assertion 4.040 0.047 * 0.040
Comfort 6.632 0.012 * 0.063
Empathy 2.113 0.147 0.021
Decision making 4.879 0.030 * 0.047
Leadership 0.315 0.576 0.003
Drive strength 0.351 0.555 0.004
Time management 26.742 0.000 * * 0.214
Commitment ethic 5.203 0.025 * 0.050
Self esteem 1.740 0.190 0.017
Stress management 1.134 0.290 0.011
Total 3 EI problems 15.330 0.000 * * 0.135
Aggression 29.316 0.000 * * 0.230
Table V. Deference 4.593 0.035 * 0.045
One-way ANOVA Change orientation 0.537 0.465 0.005
summary for EI variables
between cultures Notes: *p # 0.05; * * p # 0.01
Emotional
EI variables Culture M SD
intelligence and
Total EI score Taiwan 278.60 36.213 leadership
USA 290.80 42.717
Total 10 skills Taiwan 222.66 29.633
USA 225.40 35.206
Assertion Taiwan 21.48 4.812 913
USA 23.58 5.606
Comfort Taiwan 20.44 4.385
USA 18.10 4.696
Empathy Taiwan 20.08 3.832
USA 18.98 3.689
Decision making Taiwan 15.60 4.695
USA 17.70 4.812
Leadership Taiwan 16.94 4.177

USA 17.44 4.713
Drive strength Taiwan 38.00 8.548
USA 37.08 6.904
Time management Taiwan 15.78 4.460
USA 19.68 2.924
Commitment ethic Taiwan 20.36 3.874
USA 18.44 4.518
Self esteem Taiwan 32.90 8.011
USA 30.76 8.213
Stress management Taiwan 21.08 9.118
USA 23.30 11.585
Total 3 EI problems Taiwan 39.06 11.989
USA 29.26 13.019
Aggression Taiwan 13.54 6.142
USA 7.06 5.822 Table VI.
Deference Taiwan 17.04 5.862 Means and standard
USA 14.30 6.882 deviations for
Change orientation Taiwan 8.68 4.766 comparisons of EI
USA 7.90 5.825 variables
revealed that the Taiwanese participants, on average, scored significantly higher on EI

problem indicators of Aggression and Deference than their US counterparts. Moreover,
Taiwanese participants, on average, scored significantly higher on Total score of
problem indicators than their US counterparts.
Correlation analysis
Pearson product-moment correlation was used to evaluate the relationships among the
13 EI components and five leadership practice scores obtained from academic leaders in
the USA and Taiwan. Decisions concerning statistical significance of Pearson r are made
at a given level of probability based on sample size (Gay and Airasian, 2000, p. 610).
Thus, for a sample of 50 in the study and p ¼ 005, a coefficient of 0.273 is required.
Statistical significance and strength used in the study can be interpreted as follows:
.
strong relationship: r-values . 0.443, p ¼ 0:001;
.
moderate relationship: r-values . 0.354 but , 0.443, p ¼ 0:01; and
.
weak relationship: r-values . 0.273 but , 0.354, p ¼ 0:05.
JMP It is important to note that before creating a meaningful overall EI score,
25,8 reverse-scaling the three problem indicators were needed because they were in the
opposite direction of the other ten EI skills. This stage of the data analysis was to
establish the relationships between EI and leadership practices in the two sample
groups of academic leaders. Pearson’s correlation coefficients given in Table VII are
results from the US academic leaders and the Taiwanese academic leaders.
914 RQ3. What is the relationship between academic leaders’ emotional intelligence
and their transformational leadership practices in the two comparison
cultures?
Results of the correlational analyses shown in Table VII indicate that the Taiwanese
participants’ overall EI was found to be positively correlated in a statistically significant
manner with all the five areas of leadership practices; the US participants were also
found to have statistically significant positive relationships between overall emotional

intelligence and three relationship-oriented leadership practices, whereas task-oriented
behaviors of Challenging the Process and Inspiring a Shared Vision were without any
significant associations with the US participants’ overall leadership practices.
The next step was to examine the relationships between specific areas of emotional
intelligence and total LPI scores of academic leaders in the two cultures. The results
summarized in Table VII show that the US participants who scored high on overall
leadership practices tended to perform better in almost all areas of emotional
intelligence except Empathy and Drive strength.
Taiwanese participants who performed more effectively as leaders tended to
perform better in all areas of emotional intelligence except Stress management. As for
the three problem indicators, no significant correlations were found between overall
LPI and any of the three problem EI areas in the US sample; Change orientation was
negatively correlated with Taiwanese academic leaders’ overall LPI in a statistically
significant manner.
The correlations between specific areas of emotional intelligence and specific areas
of leadership practices were also presented in Table VII. For the US participants, as
their self esteem increased, all areas of their leadership effectiveness increased except
the area of Challenging the process. EI skill areas of Assertion, Commitment ethic and
Stress management linked significantly to the three relationship-oriented leadership
components: Modeling the way, Enabling others to act and Encouraging the heart.
Two EI skill areas that had no connection with any of the leadership components were
Empathy and Drive strength. Further, the less they were having problems with Change
Orientation, the more they were able to seek positive changes and challenge the
status quo.
For Taiwanese participants, the more emotionally intelligent they were, the more
they would focus on the three relationship-oriented leadership practices: encouraging
the hearts of followers (Encouraging the heart), motivating people to carry out
missions (Enabling others to act), and setting an example for their followers in order to
gain respect and commitments (Modeling the way); the more aggressive they were, the
more they were able to communicate a unity of purpose for the organization (Inspiring
a shared vision). If Taiwanese academic leaders in the study were better at anxiety
management, they would be more able to encourage the heart of followers and
challenge the existing norms; the more they were able to seek positive changes in their
Variables Cultures Model Inspire Challenge Enable Encourage Overall LPI
Assertion USA 0.328 0.198 –0.044 * * * 0.295 * 0.410 * * 0.396 * *

Taiwan 0.186 0.216 0.484 * * * 0.369 * * 0.453 * * * 0.513 * * *
Comfort USA 0.420 * * 0.182 20.135 0.278 * 0.222 0.337 *
Taiwan 0.455 * * * 0.076 0.086 0.549 * * * 0.404 * * 0.462 * * *
Empathy USA 0.110 0.150 0.218 0.159 0.063 0.203
Taiwan 0.382 * * 20.027 0.150 0.484 * * * 0.375 * * 0.402 * *
Decision making USA 0.316 * 0.166 0.168 0.325 * 0.189 0.368 * *
Taiwan 0.601 * * * 0.294 * 0.273 * 0.494 * * * 0.397 * * 0.609 * * *
Leadership USA 0.200 0.291 * 0.318 * 0.112 0.444 * * * 0.414 * *
Taiwan 0.454 * * * 0.325 * 0.338 * 0.570 * * * 0.498 * * * 0.649 * * *
Drive USA 20.063 20.095 0.070 0.044 0.248 0.065
Strength Taiwan 0.454 * * * 0.325 * 0.338 * 0.570 * * * 0.498 * * * 0.649 * * *
Time management USA 0.247 0.083 0.117 0.165 0.292 * 0.294 *
Taiwan 0.160 0.316 * 0.377 * * 0.104 0.483 * * * 0.441 * *
Commitment ethic USA 0.329 * 0.128 20.103 0.380 * * 0.320 * 0.359 * *
Taiwan 0.548 * * * 0.202 0.159 0.561 * * * 0.361 * * 0.538 * * *
Self esteem USA 0.496 * * * 0.309 * 20.062 0.354 * * 0.392 * * 0.497 * * *
Taiwan 0.437 * * 0.260 20.013 0.357 * * 0.305 * 0.398 * * *
Stress management USA 0.360 * * 0.243 0.116 0.279 * 0.378 * * 0.443 * * *
Taiwan 20.122 0.082 0.137 20.185 20.109 20.056
Aggression USA 0.083 0.047 20.008 20.208 20.080 20.047
Taiwan 20.083 0.292 * 0.037 20.189 20.002 0.023
Deference USA 20.079 20.180 20.076 20.172 0.016 20.142
Taiwan 0.024 20.134 20.362 * * 0.032 20.367 * * 20.253
Change orientation USA 20.102 20.060 20.346 * 20.012 20.244 20.224
Taiwan 20.600 * * * 20.073 0.024 20.517 * * * 20.179 20.387 * *
Overall EI USA 0.406 * * 0.270 0.141 0.392 * * 0.467 * * * 0.538 * * *
Taiwan 0.612 * * * 0.289 * 0.380 * * 0.624 * * * 0.583 * * * 0.739 * * *
EI skills USA 0.036 0.506 * * * 0.280 * 0.027 0.372 * * 0.578 * * *
Taiwan 0.639 * * * 0.374 * 0.402 * * 0.647 * * * 0.608 * * * 0.793 * * *
EI problem USA 20.613 * * * 20.050 20.101 20.198 20.189 20.196
Taiwan 20.269 0.053 20.154 20.286 * 20.258 20.270
Notes: * * *r-values .0.443; p ¼ 0.001 (two-tailed); * *r-values .0.354 but ,0.443; p ¼ 0.01 (two-tailed); *r-values .0.273 but ,0.354, p ¼ 0.05 (two-tailed)
leadership
Pearson correlation
Emotional
intelligence variables
and emotional
between LPI variables
intelligence and
Table VII.
915
JMP lives and careers, the more they were effective in leading by setting a good example for
25,8 subordinates. Most importantly, for samples of academic leaders in both cultures, as
overall EI and overall EI skill areas increased, their overall leadership effectiveness
increased.
Discussion and conclusion

916 From a comparative cross-cultural perspective, several important results have
emerged after answering the three research questions. First, differences in academic
leaders’ self-perception of leadership practices and EI between the two comparison
cultures suggest culturally specific interpretations. However, the results of correlation
analyses demonstrate a major degree of uniformity across the two cultures with regard
to significant relationships between overall emotional intelligence and specific areas of
leadership practice. Academic leaders in both cultures were found to demonstrate
moderate to strong correlations between their emotional intelligence and the

relationship-oriented leadership practices of Modeling the way, Enabling others to act,
and Encouraging the heart. The result implies that high emotional intelligence is
required for academic leaders in both cultures when relationship-oriented leadership
practices are exercised. This also confirms previous studies on the importance of
socio-emotional skills as a set of cross-cultural communication competencies for
today’s leaders (Garf and Harland, 2005; Morand, 2001; Riggio and Riechard, 2008).
A major purpose of this study was to examine whether there were significant
differences between Taiwanese and US academic leadership practices and emotional
intelligence. The results of this study are consistent with a conceptual framework
differentiating one culture from another. As expected, US academic leaders scored
significantly higher on overall leadership practice scores, whereas Taiwanese
academic leaders significantly outscored US academic leaders on two
relationship-oriented leadership practices, Modeling the way, and Enabling others to
act. With regard to emotional intelligence, Taiwanese academic leaders tended to use a
less assertive and indirect communication style to maintain group harmony. In
contrast to their US counterparts, they also demonstrated greater commitment to the
organizations they belonged to. The US participants, on the other hand, were better at
time management and task-oriented behavior than their Taiwanese counterparts.
These results are in line with previous studies and suggest that traditional values of
long-term orientation and collectivism remain significant in the Taiwanese academic
setting (Chen and Farh, 1999; Cheng et al., 2004; Yeh, 2006). However, the study also
questions the universal applications of transformational leadership practices (Shao and
Webber, 2006; Slater et al., 2002).
The second purpose of this study was to explore whether academic leaders in the
two comparison cultures differ significantly in their links between leadership practices
and emotional intelligence. In comparison with the sample of Taiwanese academic
leaders, the US sample’s overall emotional intelligence did not correlate significantly
with Challenging the process. A possible explanation for this is the role of uncertainty
avoidance as a cultural dimension in both the Hofstede and GLOBE frameworks for
national differences (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede and McCrae, 2004). In the Hofstede and
the GLOBE studies, Taiwan scored slightly higher on the dimension of uncertainty
avoidance than the USA, though the difference was not significant statistically. High
uncertainty avoidance cultures have a low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity;
thus, it is likely to be distrustful of challenging existing assumptions and values Emotional
(Hofstede and McCrae, 2004; House et al., 2004). Violations of existing norms and intelligence and
regulations would be upsetting; followers would expect their leader to act according to
traditional accepted ways and risk-taking decisions would tend to reduce followers’ leadership
trust in the leadership. In such a society, it may not be advisable to try to change things
or alter the status quo because it may mean a violation of followers’ trust in the
organization (Chen and Farh, 1999; Yeh, 2006). 917
A controversial issue for contemporary Taiwan within the global economy relates
to the balance between the cultural and utilitarian functions of education. International
competition arising from market globalization since the 1970s has forced Taiwanese
people to re-think their education from elementary school to high school (Lin, 2003).
Furthermore, multi-faceted challenges in the area of globalization and a
knowledge-based economy has forced Taiwan to shift the focus of education from
producing high quality manual or technical workers to cultivating a pool of knowledge

workers who are able to think innovatively and are willing to take risks in their career
development (Mok, 2002). In the midst of change, challenging existing norms and
taking risks are inevitable, and those who commit themselves to changing the status
quo may require a high level of emotional intelligence in order to be able to realize
changes successfully without bringing feelings of uncertainty to their followers. On the
other hand, academic leaders in a low uncertainty avoidance society like the USA may
find it easier to exercise leadership that matches the cultural expectations of
challenging the status quo. Therefore, emotional intelligence may not correlate so
closely with Challenging the process in low uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Hofstede’s dimensions of long-term orientation could be used to explain why there is
a significant relationship between Taiwanese academic leadership practices and Drive
strength, while there is a lack of such a relationship for US academic leaders. As stated
above, Confucian societies have been categorized as of long-term orientation, whereas
North American countries exhibit a cultural tendency to short-term orientation (Chen
and Farh, 1999; Cheng et al., 2004). The implications for leadership practice means that
in the Taiwan academic setting, leaders emphasize thrift and perseverance
(persistence), and maintain a long-term orientation. In Chinese culture, individuals
tend to identify with the vision of the group and the organization, demonstrate high
levels of loyalty and commitment to the leader and the group to which they belong, and
usually maintain long-term relationships with the organization (Hofstede, 2001).
The strongly significant relationship between Challenging the process and
Taiwanese academic leaders’ EI skill of assertion found in this study seems to be in
accordance with previous cross-cultural studies on influence tactics (Chang, 2004; Fu
and Yukl, 2000; Fu et al., 2004; Leong, 2006). Different cultures might imbue assertion
with different meanings and it is therefore argued that people in the USA hold a high
belief in fate control and self-responsibility and thus feel the use of gentle and rational
strategies to be more acceptable. In contrast, power-based strategies, such as
contingence punishment, exchange of benefits, and assertiveness were found to be
more effective in cultures with a downward command structure. Power-based
influence tactics, rather than evoking self-responsibility, would be perceived as
effective in fatalistic cultures, especially when compliance with challenging and
risk-taking behaviors are required from people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures
(Chang, 2004; Fu et al., 2004; Leong, 2006).
JMP One puzzling finding of the study was that the US participants outperformed
25,8 Taiwanese participants in the EI skill area of Assertion, while the Taiwanese
participants were more aggressive than the US participants. The finding was
surprising initially because it is hard to understand why academic leaders in Taiwan
could be less assertive while more aggressive. According to Nelson and Low (2003),
there are many reasons why people do not demonstrate assertive behaviors; one
918 explanation is that such people confuse firm assertion with aggression. In the GOLBE
survey of 61 societies (House et al., 2004), Taiwanese gave the highest scores to
“conflict inducer”, while those from other Chinese cultures scored low on this scale.
This was an unexpected result in a culture where Confucianism and relationship
preservation has been valued. However, it is consistent with the current political
culture in Taiwan (Li et al., 2000).
In summary, Taiwanese academic leaders in the study emphasized maintaining the
status quo, demonstrating high levels of loyalty, and commitment to the organization.
They also exhibited high level of concern about the moral aspect of leadership. These
characteristics are in sharp contrast to those of an individualistic and short-term
oriented culture, such as the USA. US academic leaders demonstrated a high sense of
self-responsibility, employed direct, assertive and confrontational communication
styles and emphasized innovation and risk taking. Furthermore, academic leaders in
both cultures placed similar importance on some areas of relationship-oriented
leadership practices. Another interesting finding of this study was that the political
environment in Taiwan might have caused changes in academic leaders’ emotional
displays.
It was also proven that some components of leadership practice were culturally
specific for the academic leaders in the study. The strong correlation between overall
EI and overall leadership practices reveals that despite differences between the two
comparison cultures, emotional intelligence was perceived as an underlying
competency for effective academic leadership in both cultures. In order to lead
effectively, high emotional intelligence is required to leverage a sense of self awareness,
to manage their own emotions and those of others, and to lead in accordance with the
cultural expectations of their organizations.
Limitations
An important limitation of the present study is the probability of systematic bias or
self-reported bias. For example, the collection of LPI and ESAP as self-reported data
not in a multi-rater or 3600 mode limited the ability to compare how those academic
leaders perceived their leadership practices to the perceptions of their colleagues and
subordinates. Respondents might give their responses based on socially desirable EI or
leadership behaviors and understate those behaviors that were less socially acceptable
(Goffin and Gellatly, 2001). A response bias would occur because instruments
developed in North American are not easily translated into Chinese (Van der Vijver,
and Hambletone, 1996). Although this study adopted the most recommended technique
of forward and backward translation to ensure that the translated Chinese version of
ESAP and LPI were conceptually and meaningfully comprehensible by Chinese
population in Taiwan, the meaning attached to items of the instruments may still vary
from culture to culture.
Implications for research and practices Emotional
There are a number of research directions for future research as a result of the findings intelligence and
of the study. First, further analyses undertaking the comparisons of self and other
ratings on emotional intelligence and leadership practices will provide a deeper and leadership
objective understanding of correlations of emotional competencies and leadership
effectiveness in academic settings. Insights from others who have been interacting
with the leader may allow more usability of the results, as they may be generalized 919
more from others’ perspectives.
Research has generally investigated the differences in male and female leadership
styles, as well as gender comparison of emotional competencies, along the bi-polar
dimensions, such as feminism versus masculinity and task-oriented versus
relation-oriented leadership styles (Mandell and Pherwani, 2003; Lyusin, 2006;
Petrides and Furnham, 2006). One recommendation for future research would be to
compare emotional competencies and leadership styles in relation to gender role norms
across cultures. It is worthwhile to examine whether male leaders are more
tasked-oriented and female leaders are more relation-oriented around the globe.
Further research can also examine whether academic leaders in masculinity cultures
are more task-oriented and if those in feminine cultures are more relation-oriented.
Without examining the psychometric characteristics of the target-language versions
of instruments used, the lack of precision in cross-cultural research will not be resolved
(Peter and Passchier, 2006; Van der Vijver and Hambleton, 1996). Therefore, another
opportunity for future studies is to conduct psychometric testing of Chinese versions of
the instruments used in this study. The purpose is to develop validated measures of
leadership practices and emotional intelligence for the Chinese population.
Results of this study support the notion that emotional intelligence is an underlying
competence for being an effective academic leader in the two comparison cultures.
Future research would be profitably directed to exploring the associations of leadership
behaviors and EI in other countries, how culturally inherited cognitive styles influence
emotional learning and, in particular, the issue of how current research on EI and
leadership can be used to enhance the performance of academic leaders within their own
cultural contexts, in culturally diverse communities, or for cross-cultural missions.
Existing literature has proposed that emotional intelligence and cultural knowledge
are among the essential factors predicting leadership success in global assignments
(Garf and Harland, 2005; Gabel et al., 2005; Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1999). The present study
bolsters the above statement supporting the importance of cross-cultural understanding
and emotional competencies for educational leadership training and selection. Research
thus far has linked cultural competence and emotional intelligence to internationalized
business curriculum (Blackmore, 2005; Cant, 2004), multicultural education to school
administration (Escobar-Ortloff and Ortloff, 2003), intercultural competence and
emotional intelligence to educational leadership training programs (Fullan, 2002;
Webber and Robertson, 2003), and emotional intelligence to internationalized curriculum
(Ornstein and Nelson, 2006). To fostering competences in identifying and responding
properly to others’ cultural and emotional needs, cross-cultural understanding and
emotional intelligence may be incorporated into the internationalized curriculum for
academic leaders in Taiwan and the USA. It is also proposed that EI assessment be used
in the selection of internationally assigned leaders or emotionally intelligent leaders
capable of leading in culturally diverse communities.
JMP References
25,8 Aimar, C. and Stough, S. (2007), “Leadership: does culture matter? Comparative practices
between Argentina and United States of America”, Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 9-43.
Ali, A.J., Lee, M., Hsieh, Y.C. and Krishnan, K. (2005), “Individualism and collectivism in
Taiwan”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3-16.
920 Antonakis, J. (2003), “Why ‘emotional intelligence’ does not predict leadership effectiveness:
a comment on Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley”, The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, pp. 355-61.
Ardlchille, A. and Kuchinke, K.P. (2002), “Leadership styles and cultural values among managers
and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union,
Germany, and the US”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 99-117.
Barbuto, J.E. and Burbach, M.E. (2006), “The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders:
a field study of elected officials”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 146 No. 1, pp. 51-64.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), “The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development”, Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, pp. 231-72.
Blackmore, P. (2005), “Education development and leadership in higher education: developing an
effective institutional strategy”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 389-92.
Boehnke, K., Bontis, N., DiStefano, J. and DiStefano, A.C. (2003), “Transformational leadership:
an examination of cross-national differences and similarities”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Brown, F.W. and Moshavi, D. (2005), “Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence:
a potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 867-71.
Campbell, D.J., Bommer, W.H. and Yee, E. (1993), “Perceptions of appropriate leadership style:
participation versus consultation process across two cultures”, Asia Journal of
Management Singapore, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Cant, D.G. (2004), “Internationalizing the business curriculum: developing intercultural
competence”, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 177-83.
Carmeli, A. (2003), “The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
behavior and outcomes: an examination of senior managers”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 788-811.
Cavallo, K. and Brienza, D. (2002), “Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson
& Johnson: the emotional intelligence and leadership study”, available at: www.
eiconsortium.org/ (accessed 10 November 2005).
Chang, C.L. (2003), “An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: using Hofstede framework”,
Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 567-70.
Chang, J. (2004), “The study of subordinate’s acceptance of supervisor’s influence tactics”,
Master’s thesis, Institute of Human Resource Management, National Sun Yat-Sen
University, Kaoshing.
Chen, X. and Farh, J. (1999), “The effectiveness of transformational leader behaviors in Chinese
organizations: evidence from Taiwan”, paper presented at the National Meetings of the
Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., Wu, T.Y., Huang, M.P. and Farh, J.L. (2004), “Paternalistic leadership and Emotional
subordinate response: establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations”, Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 89-117. intelligence and
Coetzee, C. and Schaap, P. (2004), “The relationship between leadership styles and emotional leadership
intelligence”, paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Sandton.
Conte, J.M. (2005), “A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures”, Journal of 921
Cook, C.R. (2006), “Effects of emotional intelligence on principals’ leadership performance”,
International Abstracts International, Vol. 67, pp. 1-42.
Cox, J.E. and Nelson, D.B. (2008), “Quantifying emotional intelligence: the relationship between
thinking patterns and emotional skills”, Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and
Development, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 9-25.
Daus, C.S. and Ashkanasy, J. (2005), “The case for the ability-based model of emotional
intelligence in organizational behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 453-66.
Day, A., Newsome, S. and Catano, V.M. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and leadership”, CFLI
Contract Research Report No. CR01-0078, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, Kingston,
available at: www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/research/pdf/07.pdf (accessed April 2005).
Den Hartog, D.D. and Dickson, M.W. (2004), “Leadership and culture”, in Antonakis, J.,
Cianciolo, A.T. and Sternberg, R.I. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 249-76.
Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures,
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2005), “Cultural intelligence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82
No. 10, pp. 139-46.
Elkins, M. and Low, G.R. (2004), “Emotional intelligence and communication competence:
research pertaining to their impact upon the first-year experience”, paper presented at the
2004 First Year Experience Conference, Addison, TX, February 23.
Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R. and Temirbekova, Z. (2007), “Transformational leadership: its relationship
to cultural value dimensions”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 703-24.
Escobar-Ortloff, L.M. and Ortloff, W.G. (2003), “A cultural challenge for school administrators”,
Intercultural Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 255-61.
Fernandez, D.R., Carlson, D.S., Stepina, L.P. and Nicholson, J.D. (1997), “Hofstede’s country
classification 25 years later”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 1, pp. 43-54.
Fu, P.P. and Yukl, G. (2000), “Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and
China”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 251-66.
Fu, P.P., Peng, T.K., Kennedy, J. and Yukl, G. (2004), “Examining the preferences of influence
tactics in Chinese societies: a comparison of Chinese managers in Hong Kong, Taiwan and
mainland China”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 32-46.
Fullan, M. (2002), “The change leader”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 59 No. 8, p. 1620.
Gabel, R.S., Dolan, S.L. and Cerdin, J.L. (2005), “Emotional intelligence as predictor of cultural
adjustment for success in global assignments”, Career Development International, Vol. 10
No. 5, pp. 395-6.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. and Borg, W.R. (2003), Educational Research: An Introduction, 7th ed.,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle Creek, NJ.
JMP Garf, A. and Harland, L.K. (2005), “Expatriate selection: evaluating the discriminant convergent,
and predictive validity of five measures of interpersonal and intercultural competence”,
25,8 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 46-62.
Gay, L.R. and Airasian, P. (2000), Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Application, 6th ed., Merrill, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Goffin, R.D. and Gellatly, I.R. (2001), “A multi-rater assessment of organizational commitment:
922 are self-report measures biased?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 437-51.
Grachev, M.V. (2009), “Russia, culture, and leadership: cross-cultural comparisons of managerial
values and practices”, Problems of Post-communism, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Hall, E.T. (1977), Beyond Culture, Anchor Press, Garden City, NY.
Hartley, D. (2004), “Management, leadership and the emotional order of the school”, Journal of
Education Policies, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 583-94.
Hayashi, A. (2005), “Emotional intelligence and outdoor leadership”, Journal of Experimental

Education, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-5.
Heiken, S.E. (2007), “The perceived relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership
effectiveness in school leaders: a comparison of self ratings with those of superiors and
reports”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 68 No. 1.
Higgs, M. and Aitken, P. (2003), “An exploration of the relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership potential”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 814-23.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2006), “What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’
minds”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 882-96.
Hofstede, G. and McCrae, R.R. (2004), “Personality and culture revisited: linking traits and
dimensions of culture”, Cross-cultural Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-88.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Vipin, P. (2004), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kang, S., Shaver, P.R., Sue, S., Min, K. and Jing, H. (2003), “Culture-specific patterns in the
prediction of life satisfaction: roles of emotion, relationship quality, and self-esteem”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, pp. 1596-608.
Karim, A.U. (2003), “A developmental progression model for intercultural consciousness:
a leadership imperative”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 34-9.
Kouzes, O. and Posner, B. (1995), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1999), “The distinction between stable and dynamic cross-cultural
competencies: implications for expatriate trainability”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 709-25.
Leong, J.L.T. (2006), “Perceived effectiveness of influence strategies in the United States and
three Chinese societies”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 101-20.
Li, J., Fu, P.P., Chow, I. and Peng, T.K. (2000), Reconsider Cross-cultural Differences in Leadership
Behaviors: A Perspective of Institutional Symbiosis, Hong Kong Baptist University.
Lin, C.C. (2003), “Political indoctrination in the curriculum during four periods of elementary
school education in Taiwan”, The Social Studies, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 134-9.
Locke, E.A. (2005), “Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept”, Journal of Organizational Emotional
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 425-31.
Low, G. and Nelson, D. (2004), “Emotional intelligence: effectively bridging the gap from high
intelligence and
school to college”, Texas Study of Secondary Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 7-10. leadership
Lyusin, D.B. (2006), “Emotional intelligence as a mixed construct: its relation to personality and
gender”, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 54-68.
McCrae, R.R., Terracciano, A., Realo, A. and Allik, J. (2008), “Interpreting GLOBE societal 923
scores”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 805-10.
Mandell, B. and Pherwani, S. (2003), “Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: a gender comparison”, Journal of Business & Psychology,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 387-404.
Mok, K.H. (2002), “From nationalization to marketization: changing governance in Taiwan’s
higher-education system”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration,
and Institutions, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 137-59.

Morand, D.A. (2001), “The emotional intelligence of managers: assessing the construct validity of
a nonverbal measure of ‘people skills’”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 21-33.
Nelson, D.B. and Low, G.R. (2003), Emotional Intelligence: Achieving Academic and Career
Excellence, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Nelson, D.B., Jin, Y. and Wang, X.H. (2002), Reliability and Validity Parameter for the Chinese
Version of the Emotional Skills Assessment Process, East China Normal University,
Shanghai.
Nonis, S.A., Teng, J.K. and Ford, C.W. (2005), “A cross-cultural investigation of time management
practices and job outcomes”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 409-28.
Ornstein, S. and Nelson, T. (2006), “Incorporating emotional intelligence competency building
into the preparation and delivery of international travel courses”, Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Ozcelik, H., Langton, N. and Aldrich, H. (2008), “Doing well and doing good: the relationship
between leadership practices that facilitate a positive emotional climate and organizational
performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 186-203.
Peter, M. and Passchier, J. (2006), “Translating instruments for cross-cultural studies in headache
research”, Headache, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 82-91.
Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2006), “The role of trait emotional intelligence in a
gender-specific model of organizational variables”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 552-69.
Prati, L.M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G.R., Ammeter, A.P. and Buckley, M.R. (2003), “Emotional
intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes”, The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 21-30.
Redpath, L. and Nielsen, M. (1997), “A comparison of native culture, non-native culture and new
management ideology”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 327-39.
Riggio, R.E. and Riechard, E.J. (2008), “The emotional and social intelligences of effective
leadership: an emotional and social skill approach”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 169-85.
Saner, R. and Yiu, L. (2000), “Challenges of the 21st century for leadership qualifications:
reflections and responses”, Asian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
JMP Scandura, T. and Dorfman, P. (2005), “Leadership research in an international and cross-cultural
context”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 277-307.
25,8
Schermerhorn, J.R. and Bond, M.H. (1991), “Upward and downward influence tactics in
managerial networks: a comparative study of Hong Kong Chinese and Americans”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 147-58.
Schyns, B. and Meindl, J.R. (2006), “Emotionalizing leadership in cross-cultural contexts”,
924 Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 4, pp. 39-58.
Shao, L. and Webber, S. (2006), “A cross-cultural test of the five-factor model of personality and
transformational leadership”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 936-44.
Shipper, F., Kincaid, J., Rotondo, D.M. and Hoffman, R.C. (2003), “A cross-cultural exploratory
study of the linkage between emotional intelligence and managerial effectiveness”,
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 171-91.
Slater, C.L., Boone, M., Price, L. and Martinez, D. (2002), “A cross-cultural investigation of
leadership in the United States and Mexico”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 197-209.
Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L.E. (1999), “Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-90.
Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L. and Sparks, K. (2001), “An international study of the psychometric
property of Hofstede’s value survey module 1994: a comparison of individual and
country/province level results”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 269-81.
Spreitzer, G.M., Perttula, K.H. and Xin, K. (2005), “Traditionality matters: an examination of the
effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan”, Journal of
Stottlemyre, B.G. (2002), “A conceptual framework for emotional intelligence in education:
factors affecting student achievement”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University, Kingsville, TX.
Thomas, A. (2007), “Self-reported data in cross-cultural research: issues of construct validity in
questionnaires for quantitative research in educational leadership”, International Journal
of Leadership in Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 211-26.
Van der Vijver, F. and Hambleton, R.K. (1996), “Translating tests: some practical guidelines”,
European Psychologist, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 89-99.
Van der Zee, K. and Wabeke, R. (2004), “Is trait-emotional intelligence simply or more than just a
trait?”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 243-63.
Vela, R.H. Jr. (2003), “The role of emotional intelligence in the academic achievement of first year
college students”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University – Kingsville,
Kingsville, TX.
Walter, F. and Bruch, H. (2007), “Leadership: the role of leaders’ positive mood and emotional
intelligence”, in Härtel, C.E.J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Zerbe, W.J. (Eds), Research on
Emotion in Organizations, Vol. 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 55-85.
Watkin, C. (2000), “Developing emotional intelligence”, International Journal of Selection
& Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 89-92.
Webber, C.F. and Robertson, J.M. (2003), “Developing an international partnership for
tomorrow’s educational leaders”, International Studies in Educational Administration,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 15-32.
Weinberger, L.A. (2003), An Examination of the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence, Emotional
Leadership Style and Perceived Leadership Effectiveness, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN. intelligence and
Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. and Druskat, V. (2002), “Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership
leadership emergence in self-managing teams”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 505-22.
Wu, M.Y. (2006), “Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 30 years later: a study of Taiwan and the 925
United States”, Journal of International Studies, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Yan, J. and Hunt, J.G. (2005), “A cross cultural perspective on perceived leadership effectiveness”,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-66.
Yeh, R.S. (2006), “On Hofstede’s treatment of Chinese and Japanese values”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 149-60.
Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Yukl, G. (2003), “Cross-cultural differences in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for

initiating or resisting changes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 68-82.
Zaccaro, S.J., Kemp, C. and Bader, P. (2004), “Leader traits and attributes”, in Antonakis, J.,
Cianciolo, A.T. and Sternberg, R.L. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 101-24.
Zagoršek, H., Jaklič, M. and Stough, S.J. (2003), “Cultural contingency of leadership: comparing
leadership practices between Slovenia, Nigeria and United States”, paper presented at the
2003 International Conference Enterprise in Transition, Split, May 22-24.
Zagoršek, H., Stough, S.J. and Jaklič, M. (2006), “Analysis of the Leadership Practice Inventory in
the item response theory framework”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 180-91.
Further reading
Bono, J.E. and Ilies, R. (2006), “Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 317-34.
Den Hartog, D.D., House, R.J., Hanges, P.L. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. (1999), “Cultural specific
and cultural generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of
transformational/transactional leadership universally endorsed?”, Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-56.
Donohue, R. and Stevenson, L. (2006), “The relationship between emotional intelligence and
individual advancement and the mediating role of transformational leadership”,
paper presented at the HRM, Performance and Worker Well-being Stream of the
ACREW Conference, Prato Centre, Tuscany.
Frederick, J., Stephan, J. and McCarthy, M.J. (1963), Sampling Options, John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
New York, NY.
Gardner, L. and Stough, C. (2002), “Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional
intelligence in senior level managers”, Leadership Organizational Development, Vol. 23
Nos 1/2, pp. 68-79.
Soares, A.M., Farhangmehr, M. and Shoham, A. (2007), “Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in
international marketing studies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 277-85.
Yukl, G. and Falbe, C.M. (1999), “Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and
lateral influence attempts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 132-40.
JMP About the authors
Hui-Wen Vivian Tang received a doctoral degree in educational leadership and counseling from
25,8 Texas A&M University-Kingsville in August 2007. She also holds a Master of Education degree
from Oregon State University. She is currently an Associate Professor at Ming-Chuan University
in Taiwan. Her research focuses are on leadership development, globalization process, emotional
intelligence, and cross-cultural study. Hui-Wen Vivian Tang is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: kshvt00@hotmail.com
926 Mu-Shang Yin received a doctoral degree in educational leadership and counseling from
Texas A&M University, Kingsville in August 2007. He also holds a Master of Computer Science
from the University of Detroit. He is currently an Associate Professor at Hsing-Wu College in
Taiwan. His research focuses on leadership development, multiple attribute decision making,
and computer mediated communication.
Darwin B. Nelson, PhD, Consulting Psychologist and Patron, Forum for Emotional
Intelligence Learning (FEIL), Mumbai, India. He is co-creator with Gary R. Low, PhD, of the
transformative theory of emotional intelligence and author. He has developed emotional
intelligence assessment instruments and emotional learning systems that are used world-wide in
corporate and educational settings.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Syahrina Hayati Md. Jani, Siti Asiah Md. Shahid, Mary Thomas, Peter Francis. 2015. The Predictors of
Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness for Public and Private Universities in Malaysia. International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity 5, 384-388. [CrossRef]
2. Narehan Hassan, Syahrina Hayati Md. Jani, Rohana Mat Som, Nur Zainie Abd Hamid, Nor Azmaniza
Azizam. 2015. The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Teaching Effectiveness among
Lecturers at Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam, Malaysia. International Journal of Social Science
and Humanity 5, 1-5. [CrossRef]
3. Siti Asiah Md. Shahid. 2015. The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Teaching
Effectiveness of Lecturers in Public and Private Universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Social
Science and Humanity 5, 408-412. [CrossRef]
4. Sittichai Meesrichan, Wanno Fongsuwan. 2014. An Analysis of Thai Commercial Banks Branch
Expansion Factors Including Leadership, Location, Cost and Economics. Research Journal of Business
Management 8, 552-565. [CrossRef]

5. Stephen Carter, Amy Chu-May Yeo. 2014. Developing undergraduate social and emotional competencies:
a UK/Malaysian comparison. International Journal of Educational Management 28:2, 152-172. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
6. Ishizaka and Ashraf Labib Alessio, Vivian Tang Hui-Wen, Yin Mu-Shang. 2013. Prioritizing emotional
intelligence training needs using optimal globalization grey relational analysis. Journal of Modelling in
Management 8:3, 320-338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Jennifer Min, Kua-Hsin Peng. 2012. Ranking emotional intelligence training needs in tour leaders: an
entropy-based TOPSIS approach. Current Issues in Tourism 15, 563-576. [CrossRef]
8. Jennifer C.H. Min. 2012. A short-form measure for assessment of emotional intelligence for tour guides:
Development and evaluation. Tourism Management 33, 155-167. [CrossRef]

Article 2

Enviado por

Dados do documento

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

Article 2

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Managerial Psychology

The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership practices: A cross-

Downloaded on: 23 December 2014, At: 11:02 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Department of Applied English, Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

Department of Business Administration, Hsing-Wu College, Taipei,

Theoretical backgrounds and research questions

Power distance 5.18 b 58a 4.88 b 40a

emotional skills and intercultural communication competencies have potential for

Culturally contingent v. universal transformational leadership behaviors

In order to assess the generalizability of transformational leadership behaviors of

academic leaders. Or if leadership practices less relevant to relationship-oriented

Emotional intelligence and cultures

The trait-based model of emotional intelligence endorsed by Goleman and Bar-On

(2) Comfort (social awareness);

The rest of the emotional skills tend to be less relevant to relationship-oriented

are of equal importance in collectivistic societies.

Links between emotional intelligence and leadership

Procedure and design

conclusions in cross-cultural leadership studies (Thomas, 2007). To avoid these

ANOVAs based on two levels

Pearson x 2 p value (two-sided) Cramer’s V

Gender 1.051 0.305 0.103

LPI Components F Sig. h2

Total LPI 7.967 0.006 * * 0.075

Five LPI components Culture M SD

Total LPI Taiwan 120.18 11.563

summarized means and standard deviations for comparisons of EI variables between

Total EI score 7.967 0.126 0.075

Leadership Taiwan 16.94 4.177

revealed that the Taiwanese participants, on average, scored significantly higher on EI

found to have statistically significant positive relationships between overall emotional

Variables Cultures Model Inspire Challenge Enable Encourage Overall LPI

Assertion USA 0.328 0.198 –0.044 * * * 0.295 * 0.410 * * 0.396 * *

Discussion and conclusion

moderate to strong correlations between their emotional intelligence and the

producing high quality manual or technical workers to cultivating a pool of knowledge

Hayashi, A. (2005), “Emotional intelligence and outdoor leadership”, Journal of Experimental

and Institutions, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 137-59.

Yukl, G. (2003), “Cross-cultural differences in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Management 8, 552-565. [CrossRef]

Você também pode gostar