娀 Academy of Management Journal

2005, Vol. 48, No. 5, 845–858.

LEADING FROM WITHIN: THE EFFECTS OF EMOTION

RECOGNITION AND PERSONALITY ON
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
ROBERT S. RUBIN
DePaul University

DAVID C. MUNZ
Saint Louis University

WILLIAM H. BOMMER
Cleveland State University

This study of 145 managers of a large biotechnology/agricultural company examined

how leaders’ emotion recognition ability and personality characteristics influenced
performance of transformational leadership behavior. Emotion recognition, positive
affectivity, and agreeableness positively predicted such behavior. In addition, extra-
version moderated the relationship between emotion recognition and transformational
leadership. We also provided construct validity evidence for transformational leader-
ship behavior by showing differing effects of these antecedents on contingent reward
behavior. The study provides empirical support for the contribution of emotion and
personality to transformational leadership behavior.

The past two decades have witnessed a great deal
of scholarly attention to transformational leader-
ship behavior, which is currently the most widely
accepted leadership paradigm (Tejeda, 2001). Inter-
est in transformational leadership behavior contin-
ues, largely bolstered by Avolio and Bass’s “full
range leadership theory” (Bass, 1998; Avolio,
1999). In this theory, leader behavior has three
broad categories: transformational, transactional,
and nontransactional (laissez-faire). These catego-
ries describe leader behavior ranging from, at the
best, the active and effective, to—at the worst—
passive and ineffective (Avolio, 1999). The most
passive and ineffective form of leadership, laissez-
faire, is characterized by a complete abdication or
avoidance of leadership. The transactional form of
leadership is characterized by leaders’ engaging in
an exchange process with followers whereby the
leader rewards or punishes followers on the basis
of follower performance. This exchange process
A previous version of this manuscript was presented at
the 2003 Academy of Management meeting in Seattle.
The authors would like to thank Tom Lee and three
anonymous reviewers for their guidance and collegiality.
In addition, we would like to thank Cathy Daus, Jill
Kickul, and Ray Coye for their helpful comments on
drafts. Special recognition goes to Pam Carrafa and Leslie
O’Brien for their assistance in data collection and site
coordination.
845
can be both constructive and corrective. Corrective
exchanges involve leader behavior whereby leaders
actively seek to correct mistakes before or after they
occur. Constructive exchanges take the form of con-
tingent rewards whereby leaders promise rewards
for satisfactory performance and deliver the re-
wards when performance is achieved.
Transformational leadership behavior represents
the most active/effective form of leadership, a form
in which leaders are closely engaged with follow-
ers, motivating them to perform beyond their trans-
actional agreements. Podsakoff and colleagues ex-
tensively reviewed seven conceptualizations of
transformational leadership behavior and found
that it included articulating a vision of the future,
fostering group-oriented work, setting high expec-
tations, challenging followers’ thinking, supporting
followers’ individual needs, and acting as a role
model (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
1990). As Avolio (1999) noted, every leader dis-
plays behavior that can be characterized as trans-
formational, transactional, and nontransactional;
however, effective leaders more often display trans-
formational leadership behavior and contingent re-
ward behavior and less frequently display more
passive and ineffective behaviors.
In order to demonstrate transformational leader-
ship behavior’s relative effectiveness among leader-
ship behaviors, much research has been concerned
with outcomes of transformational leadership be-
846 Academy of Management Journal
havior (e.g., employee attitudes, performance, and
so forth). Indeed, to say that transformational lead-
ership behavior is predictive of positive individual
and organizational outcomes is somewhat axiom-
atic (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
One unintended consequence of the literature’s
rather primary focus on transformational leader-
ship’s outcomes has been a relative lack of empha-
sis concerning the underlying basis of this leader-
ship behavior (Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004;
Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001). Put simply, research-
ers know very little about why some leaders engage
in transformational leadership behavior and others
do not.
Although little is known about transformational
leadership behavior antecedents, they have not
been totally neglected in the literature. More spe-
cifically, some conceptual work suggests that cer-
tain macro-organizational work contexts (e.g., or-
ganizational structure) will be more conducive to
this behavior than others (Pawar & Eastman, 1997).
Further, empirical research has examined leaders’
biographies (Avolio, 1994) and personal character-
istics (Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Judge & Bono,
2000; Pillai, Williams, Lowe, & Jung, 2003).
The vast majority of transformational leadership
behavior research, however, focuses upon media-
tion (Podsakoff et al., 1990) or moderation (Howell
& Hall-Merenda, 1999) of leader effectiveness. Re-
cently, many have called for greater consideration
of individual and contextual antecedents of trans-
formational leadership behavior (Bass, 1998; Bass,
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bommer et al., 2004;
Pawar & Eastman, 1997). As Bass astutely asked,
“Can the tendency to be more transformational be
accurately predicted? If so how?” (1998: 117). The
purpose of this study was to investigate this
question.
Undoubtedly, this question can be approached
from many angles. In order to conduct a focused
investigation, we began with the influence of indi-
vidual differences, since we could draw on both
theoretical and empirical support for such influ-
ence. The impact of individual differences on be-
havior has been a core area of study in organiza-
tional science. As Murphy remarked, “[individual
differences] profoundly affect our behavior; an ex-
amination of the role of individual differences pro-
vides an important starting point for understanding
human behavior in organizations” (1996: xvi).
Given the extensive literature, we narrowed our
investigation to two important individual differ-
ences domains, namely, emotional intelligence and
personality traits, thereby contributing directly to
October
recent calls to incorporate both emotion (Ashforth
& Humphrey, 1995; George, 2000) and personality
(Pillai et al., 2003) into studies of leadership and
transformational behavior.
Beyond exploring these two antecedent domains,
we wanted to address some recent concerns regard-
ing transformational leadership behavior research.
Specifically, some have argued that conceptual am-
biguity exists among the components of transfor-
mational and transactional leadership (Yukl, 1999).
Theoretically, these two forms of leader behavior
are linked, as transactional exchanges form the ba-
sis upon which transformational leadership behav-
ior is performed (Avolio, 1999: 42). Empirically,
the two constructs tend to be highly correlated and
to predict similar outcomes (Bycio, Hackett, &
Allen, 1995), indicating that, indeed, little may dis-
tinguish the two forms of behavior. Bass (1999)
articulated a need for research that could contrib-
ute to this discussion, noting that little is known
about the differences in the perceptions of transfor-
mational and transactional leaders.
From an antecedent perspective, it is unclear
whether the genesis of transformational leadership
behavior differs significantly from that of transac-
tional behavior. Avolio argued that “such ex-
changes [transactional leadership] are only the base
to build on, however, rather than the ceiling for the
leader’s efforts” (1999: 42). Thus, it would be rea-
sonable to assume that while the antecedents of
transformational and transactional behavior are
likely to be somewhat similar, transformational
leadership behavior may require additional or
unique antecedents. However, research has yet to
fully explore how antecedents might differently
affect transformational and transactional leader
behavior. Although the primary focus of our hy-
pothesis development is on transformational lead-
ership behavior, we include in our study the pro-
totypical and constructive form of transactional
leadership— contingent reward behavior—to pro-
vide construct validity data and contribute to the
nomological network for future antecedent work.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Though multiple perspectives exist on the nature
of emotions, it seems clear that emotions play an
important role in organizational research and prac-
tice. Recent research suggests that a focus on emo-
tion and transformational leadership behavior
would be productive (Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Daus,
2002). Huy (1999) argued that emotion at the indi-
vidual level is critical in creating radical change
(i.e., paradigm shifts). Huy’s arguments are highly
2005 Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
consistent with descriptions of transformational
leadership behavior whereby leaders attempt to
evoke change by appealing to followers’ emotional
states to motivate personal adaptation. Similarly,
Fox and Amichai-Hamburger (2001) argued that
persuasion of employees to support organizational
change is most successful through affective rather
than cognitive appeals. Supporting this view, Ash-
kanasy and Tse (2000) described transformational
leadership behavior as the management of leader
and follower emotion, suggesting that emotional
abilities are critical in accomplishing this task.
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational
Leadership Behavior
Many of the connections between transforma-
tional leadership behavior and emotion are predi-
cated on the notion that individuals differ consid-
erably in their ability to understand and utilize
emotional stimuli in productive ways. More re-
cently, theories of emotional intelligence have be-
gun to more fully explicate these differences. Ac-
cording to Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, “Emotional
intelligence refers to an ability to recognize the
meanings of emotions and their relationships, and
to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them”
(1999: 267). Thus, emotional intelligence describes
differences among individuals with regard to un-
derstanding and solving problems with and about
emotions. Specifically, Mayer, Salovey, Caruso,
and Sitarenios (2003) proposed that emotional in-
telligence consists of four skill dimensions: (1) per-
ceiving emotion (i.e., ability to identify emotions in
faces, pictures, music, etc.), (2) facilitating thought
with emotion (i.e., ability to harness emotional in-
formation in one’s thinking), (3) understanding
emotion (i.e., ability to comprehend emotional in-
formation), and (4) managing emotion (i.e., ability
to manage emotions for personal and interpersonal
growth). These skills are hierarchically arranged in
such a way that perceiving emotion correctly is pri-
mary to facilitating thought, understanding emotion,
and managing emotion (Mayer et al., 2003). Ashka-
nasy and his colleagues (2002) argued that the com-
ponents of emotional intelligence are highly con-
sistent with transformational leadership behavior.
Within emotional intelligence, perceiving emo-
tions may be particularly important for the perfor-
mance of transformational leadership behavior. As
Ashkanasy and Tse commented, “Transformational
leaders are sensitive to followers’ needs. . .they
show empathy to followers, making them under-
stand how others feel” (2000: 232). Bass argued that
transformational leaders “meet the emotional
847
needs of each employee” (1990: 21). George (2000)
contended that creation of follower excitement and
enthusiasm stems from appraisal of followers’ au-
thentic feelings. A prerequisite for meeting follow-
ers’ emotional needs, then, is accurate assessment
of how followers feel. According to the literature on
emotional intelligence, these authentic feelings are
primarily communicated through facial expres-
sions and nonverbal behavior (Ekman & Friesen,
1974; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001).
Thus, a leader’s ability to accurately recognize
emotions in followers opens as a window to follow-
ers’ authentic feelings. Emotion recognition in-
volves the ability to accurately decode others’ ex-
pressions of emotions communicated through
nonverbal channels (i.e., the face, body, and voice).
This ability is positively linked to social compe-
tence and interaction since nonverbal behavior is a
dependable source of information on others’ emo-
tional states (Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Elfenbein and
Ambady commented that emotion recognition is
the most “reliably validated component of emo-
tional intelligence” and linked to a variety of pos-
itive organizational outcomes (2002: 963; for an
extensive review, see Elfenbein, Marsh, and Am-
bady [2002]).
Caruso, Mayer, and Salovey (2002) argued that
accurately recognizing emotion in others is critical
to leaders’ capacity to inspire and build relation-
ships. Indeed, prior research in the area of emotion
recognition has demonstrated that facial recogni-
tion ability is integral to maintaining successful
social and work interactions, including successful
marriages, managerial status, and strong clinical
and leadership skills (Carney & Harrigan, 2003; Elf-
enbein & Ambady, 2002). Within the context of
leadership, successful interpersonal interactions
are not trivial matters. For instance, some research
has shown that managerial derailment is heavily
influenced by managers’ inability to understand
others’ perspectives, a limitation that makes them
insensitive to others (Lombardo, Ruderman, & Mc-
Cauley, 1987). Further, leaders who engage more
frequently in transformational leadership behavior
are often found to have higher-quality leader-mem-
ber relationships than those engaging more fre-
quently in transactional forms of leadership (Graen
& Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Since leader-follower relationships are critical to
successful leadership, and the ability to recognize
emotion is important for building strong leader-
follower relationships, it stands to reason that
transformational leaders who build strong relation-
ships do so in part through understanding follow-
ers’ emotions. The ability to accurately recognize
848 Academy of Management Journal
emotions via nonverbal expressions is, then, criti-
cal to this relationship-building process. Further, if
emotional appeals are an effective means of chal-
lenging the status quo (Fox & Amichai-Hamburger,
2001), then transformational leaders must be highly
attuned to the emotional feedback they receive
when delivering appeals. In view of the above re-
search, we contribute to the literature by offering a
direct test of the emotion recognition and transfor-
mational leadership behavior relationship.
Hypothesis 1. Leader emotion recognition abil-
ity is positively associated with leader transfor-
mational leadership behavior.
Personality Traits and Transformational
Leadership Behavior
With respect to personality traits and transforma-
tional leadership behavior, Bass remarked, “When
it comes to predicting transformational leadership
and its components, there is no shortage of person-
ality expectations. However, the empirical support
has been spotty” (1998: 122). One possible expla-
nation for this mottled support may be the employ-
ment of multiple personality frameworks within
transformational leadership behavior research. Uti-
lizing the well-known five-factor model (FFM) as a
framework for examining personality and transfor-
mational leadership behavior may reduce the in-
consistent findings. Ployhart and colleagues noted
this: “Organizing this literature [on transforma-
tional leadership behavior] around the FFM of per-
sonality provides some structure to this process”
(2001: 814). Although the jury is still out, a growing
consensus that the FFM traits encapsulate many of
the important aspects of personality exists (Judge,
Bono, Ilies, & Gehardt, 2002).
Recent research has demonstrated that certain
traits of the FFM may be more relevant than others.
Specifically, Judge and Bono (2000) found that of
the five traits, only agreeableness was a strong and
consistent predictor of transformational leadership
behavior. Extraversion and openness to experience
did show a significant correlation with the focal
behavior, and extraversion was marginally predic-
tive. In another recent study, Ployhart and col-
leagues (2001) found a strong relationship between
extraversion and transformational leadership be-
havior in both typical and maximum performance
situations. Conscientiousness, though predictive of
leader emergence (Judge et al., 2002) and in some
cases leader effectiveness, does not seem to be pre-
dictive of transformational leadership behavior
(Judge & Bono, 2000). Similarly, mixed results for
the trait of openness exist (Judge & Bono, 2000;
October
Ployhart et al., 2001). Bass (1998) noted, for in-
stance, that emotional stability is often shown to be
more predictive of lower forms of leader behavior,
such as laissez-faire leadership. The extant studies
indicate that narrowing the FFM to agreeableness
and extraversion may be most useful, while other
FFM traits may play a less important role. We do
not mean to imply however, that other FFM traits
are unequivocally unimportant for transforma-
tional leadership behavior, but rather, that agree-
ableness and extraversion seem to be traits that
play a unique role in transformational leadership
behavior.
Extraversion and agreeableness are viewed as key
traits enabling an individual to engage others and
to allow for others to engage him or her. For exam-
ple, behaviors often identified as being “transfor-
mational” (e.g., articulating a vision, providing in-
tellectual stimulation) all require a leader to
communicate values and ideas and to engage fol-
lowers in social interactions. Extraversion allows
for the requisite assertiveness and gregariousness
needed to perform such transformational leader-
ship behavior. For example, Thomas, Dickson, and
Bliese (2001) found that extraversion significantly
predicted human relations aspects of military cadet
leader performance.
Transformational leadership behavior also re-
quires leaders to build trusting, warm relationships
with employees through honest engagement, the
hallmark of an agreeable personality. Keller (1999)
found that agreeableness was significantly related
to ratings of leader sensitivity. Atwater and Yam-
marino (1993) found that warmth was a significant
predictor of transformational leadership behavior.
In view of the available research and above logic,
we offer the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a. Leader agreeableness is posi-
tively associated with leader transformational
leadership behavior.
Hypothesis 2b. Leader extraversion is posi-
tively associated with leader transformational
leadership behavior.
Another important personality trait likely to
strongly influence transformational leadership be-
havior is positive affectivity (PA). Individuals with
high PA are likely to experience positive emotion
and moods. George commented that these individ-
uals “tend to have an overall sense of well-being
and to be positively engaged in the world around
them, in terms of both achievement and interper-
sonal relations” (1996: 146). Positive affectivity has
been associated with prosocial behavior (George,
1991), performance (Wong & Law, 2002), work
2005 Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
achievement (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994), indi-
cators of leader effectiveness (George, 1995), and
the ability to develop and maintain workplace re-
lationships (Staw et al., 1994). These findings are in
line with the view that PA could be an antecedent
of transformational leadership behavior.
Transformational leaders are described as cham-
pions of change and as likely to manifest important
social values (Bass et al., 2003). These leaders are
also likely to utilize emotion to communicate vi-
sion and motivation to followers (Lewis, 2000). In-
dividuals with high PA search for and get pleasure
from social relations (George, 1996). Since affect
may be strongly tied to social perceptions in organ-
izations (Lord & Maher, 1991), it follows that PA
would be an important component of eliciting pos-
itive social interaction and change. Further, indi-
viduals considered high in PA often perceive pos-
itive events as more likely to occur (Mayer &
Salovey, 1993). Thus, leaders who are character-
ized by a high degree of PA may be more willing to
perform transformational leadership behavior as a
change mechanism since they are likely to believe
change is possible. Some research has supported
this link. For example, Howell and Frost (1989)
found that effective visions are tied to emotional
expression and nonverbal communication. Fox and
Spector (2000) found that PA was positively related
to leader-follower liking and perceived similarity.
Further, Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) showed
that leader positive affect resulted in higher lead-
ership ratings. Given the above research and logic,
we propose:
Hypothesis 3. Leader positive affectivity is pos-
itively associated with leader transformational
leadership behavior.
Communication from leader to follower is often
laden with emotional content (George, 2000). For
example, Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) con-
tended that leadership necessarily involves dis-
playing and arousing emotion in others. Similarly,
Conger and Kanungo (1987) argued that leaders
utilize emotions to arouse certain feelings and mo-
tivation in followers. Thus, leadership naturally
involves recognition of others’ emotions and ex-
pressiveness. Leaders who can more effectively di-
rect these two abilities toward productive transfor-
mational leadership behavior should be effective in
influencing employees (Dasborough & Ashkanasy,
2002). Therefore, in addition to the associations
hypothesized above, an interaction between emo-
tion recognition and extraversion is also likely.
Specifically, extraversion may strengthen the re-
lationship between emotion recognition and trans-
formational leadership behavior. According to the
849
emotional intelligence literature, accurate recogni-
tion of follower emotion plays an important role in
directing leaders’ attention toward the most pro-
ductive courses of action. In the case of transforma-
tional leadership behavior, recognizing emotion
and appropriately responding to followers’ emo-
tion is essential for effective influence and main-
taining the leader-follower relationship (Caruso et
al., 2002; George, 2000). For example, it is one
ability for a leader to recognize a follower is angry;
it is entirely another ability for the leader to express
recognition of that emotion to the follower, thereby
recognizing the employee’s needs and worth (e.g.,
“Bob, I see you are angry about this decision, per-
haps you would like to talk specifically about how
it impacts you?”). Extraverted individuals have a
strong inclination toward this expressiveness
(Judge & Bono, 2000). Thus, extraversion may allow
a leader to utilize his or her emotion recognition
ability more effectively. Much as highly intelligent
individuals who lack requisite social skills are per-
ceived as relatively ineffective in social situations
(i.e., as solely “book smart”; Ferris, Witt, and
Hochwarter [2001]), leaders who possess strong
emotion recognition ability but lack expressiveness
may not profit from their emotion recognition ability
in terms of performing transformational leadership
behavior. Consequently, we tested this premise via
the following:
Hypothesis 4. Leader extraversion moderates
the relationship between leader emotion recog-
nition and transformational leadership behav-
ior. Specifically, increased levels of leader ex-
traversion will strengthen the relationship
between leader emotion recognition and trans-
formational leadership behavior.
METHODS
Participants and Procedures
A large, Midwest-based, global biotechnology/
agricultural company agreed to provide access to
234 managers and their 1,400 subordinates from
five organizational units. We use the term “leader”
to refer to these managers, who were the focus of
this study. In addition, the term “subordinate” is
used to refer to a leader’s “direct report.” As an
incentive to participate, leaders were informed that
they would receive a timely feedback report on
their leadership behavior consistent with the com-
pany’s ongoing efforts to develop self-aware lead-
ers. A total of 177 leaders (76 percent of the total)
volunteered to take part in the study.
850 Academy of Management Journal
To be included in the study, a leader had to
satisfy three criteria: (1) the leader had to have two
or more subordinates rate his or her leadership
behavior, (2) at least two subordinates who com-
pleted the leadership measures had to have re-
ported directly to the leader for at least three
months, and (3) the leader him-/herself had to com-
plete measures assessing the variables examined in
this study. Of the 177 participating leaders, 145 met
the above inclusion criteria. The leaders averaged
43.3 years of age and 12.9 years of company tenure.
Over three-fifths (62%) were male, and all had at
least a college degree (64% held graduate degrees).
A total of 480 subordinates (of a possible 1,078)
provided responses for an average of 3.31 respon-
dents per leader (min. ⫽ 2; max. ⫽ 11) and a 45
percent subordinate participation rate.
Leaders attended a 75-minute survey session to
complete all surveys. Multiple levels of leaders
were recruited to participate in the study; thus,
only the subordinates reporting to first-line leaders
were not themselves also leaders. These nonleader
subordinates who volunteered attended a 30-
minute survey session solely to rate their direct
leaders’ leadership behavior. To avoid leaders and
subordinates being in the same survey session
room, we had leaders attend sessions with other
leaders at similar hierarchical levels. The first au-
thor conducted all survey sessions and reiterated
the purpose, confidentiality, and voluntary nature
of the study. Paper-and-pencil surveys were used to
collect the data.
Measures
The measure of transformational leadership be-
havior used in this study was developed by Podsa-
koff and colleagues (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bom-
mer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &
Fetter, 1990) and was rated by focal leaders’ subor-
dinates. That is, each subordinate rated his or her
direct leader only. The measure consisted of 22
items pertaining to six dimensions: articulating a
vision, providing a role model, communicating
high performance expectations, providing individ-
ualized support, fostering the acceptance of group
goals, and providing intellectual stimulation. This
measure was soundly developed via appropriate
classical test theory construction. Further, it repre-
sents a shared conceptualization of transforma-
tional leadership behavior since it is explicitly a
collection of behaviors used by other theories to
capture the behaviors expressed by “transforma-
tional” leaders. However, this measure excludes
October
ratings of charisma, which are found in Bass’s
widely used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
and focuses directly on leader behavior, rather than
on behaviors and attributions of leadership. Previ-
ous research has shown a correlation between cha-
risma and aspects of the FFM (Keller, 1999). Thus,
we believed the Podsakoff et al. (1996) measure
would provide a less biased assessment of transfor-
mational leadership behavior, given our study’s in-
tent. Podsakoff and his colleagues (1996) found
internal consistencies ranging from .82 to .90.
The prototypical constructive transactional be-
havior, contingent reward behavior, was measured
with five items from Podsakoff and colleagues’ con-
tingent reward scale (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, &
Huber, 1984). Podsakoff et al. (1984) reported a
high coefficient alpha for this scale (␣ ⫽ .93).
Leaders’ agreeableness and extraversion were
measured with items from Goldberg’s (1999) Big
Five Inventory. Both scales contain five items and
utilize a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not
at all descriptive of me”) to 5 (“very descriptive of
me”). Goldberg (1999) reported average scale reli-
abilities between .75 and .85 and high correlations
with other known measures of the five-factor model
(.94 with NEO-PI-R).
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PA-
NAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to
measure leader positive and negative affect. Nega-
tive affect was included in the analyses as a control
and for purposes of construct validity. Both scales
contain ten adjectives assessing positive and nega-
tive trait affect. Respondents were asked to indicate
the extent to which they they generally experi-
enced each feeling on a five-point scale (1, “not at
all”; 5, “extremely”). The PANAS is widely used in
organizational research, and the PA (␣ ⫽ .88) and
NA (␣ ⫽ .87) scales have shown acceptable internal
consistency (Watson et al., 1988).
The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy
(DANVA) was used to measure leaders’ emotion
recognition. The DANVA is a performance-based
measure that assesses individuals’ ability to cor-
rectly identify the basic emotions of happiness,
sadness, anger, and fear in 24 photographs of adult
facial expressions at an equal number of high and
low intensities (Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Specifi-
cally, the DANVA tests stimuli that both children
and adults would recognize at least 80 percent of
the time as a particular emotion. Nowicki and Duke
(2001) reported an internal consistency of .78 for
the facial recognition test. The DANVA has been
widely used in clinical/social psychological and
organizational studies (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002).
2005 Rubin, Munz, and Bommer 851

Although the DANVA is scored as the number in-
correct, we recoded to reflect more conventional
scoring, so that a score of 24 (not 0) represents a
perfect score in our results.
As an additional control variable, we measured
leaders’ span of control. Since larger spans of con-
trol can diminish a leader’s ability to influence, it is
likely that a wide span of control would lead to
fewer resources allocated across employees. Simi-
lar arguments have been made with respect to em-
ployee performance ratings (e.g., Judge & Ferris,
1993). Much as professors who teach large sections
have less time to devote to individual student
needs, leaders with wider spans of control also
have less time to engage employees with transfor-
mational leadership behavior such as providing in-
dividualized support or intellectual stimulation.
During the survey session, leaders indicated the
number of subordinates they managed directly.
Wide-ranging spans of control were reported by
leaders (range ⫽ 2–56); the average was 7.3 subor-
dinates per leader.
RESULTS
Because our hypotheses are concerned with
transformational leadership behavior in a general
sense, and not its specific manifestations, we col-
lapsed the measure into a single construct. This
procedure appears to have been empirically justi-
fied by the single measure’s high reliability (␣ ⫽
.92) and the correlations among the dimensions
(i.e., the average correlation was .43). In addition,
we wanted to aggregate subordinate ratings for each
leader. Previous research suggests that a measure of
within-group agreement provides sufficient justifi-
cation for aggregating subordinates’ ratings into a
single leader transformational leadership behavior
and contingent reward behavior score. Following
George’s (1990) suggestion and previous transfor-
mational leadership behavior research (e.g., Bass et
al., 2003; Bommer et al., 2004), we computed a
measure of within-group agreement (rwg) taken
from James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) for each
leader’s group. For each leader’s transformational
leadership behavior and contingent reward behav-
ior ratings, the mean rwg’s were .93 and .94 respec-
tively. In both cases less than 4 percent (contingent
reward behavior) and 1 percent (transformational
leadership behavior) of the rwg calculations fell be-
low the acceptable .70 cutoff. On the basis of these
data, we aggregated subordinate ratings.
Hypothesis Testing
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,
and correlations for all study variables. As ex-
pected, wider spans of control were significantly
associated with less transformational leadership
behavior (r ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⬍ .01) and contingent reward
behavior (r ⫽ ⫺.27, p ⬍ .01). Negative affectivity
was not significantly related to either transforma-
tional leadership behavior or contingent reward
behavior.
To ensure the appropriateness of regression anal-
ysis, we examined the data with respect to the
underlying assumptions of regression. A thorough
analysis of the data suggested that all of the as-
sumptions of ordinary least squares regression
were met. As the regression results in Table 2 in-
dicate, the four predictor and two control variables
included in this study accounted for 26 percent of
the variance in transformational leadership behav-
ior and 17 percent of the variance in contingent
reward behavior. A closer examination of the rela-

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for all Study Variablesa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Transformational leadership
1. Behavior 3.69 0.41 (.92)
2. Contingent reward behavior 3.77 0.62 .58** (.91)
3. Span of control 7.32 6.98 ⫺.24** ⫺.29**
4. Agreeableness 3.91 0.49 .30** .25** ⫺.12 (.67)
5. Extraversion 3.14 0.83 .07 .04 ⫺.07 .32** (.78)
6. Positive affectivity 3.92 0.45 .29** .12 .11 .24** .40** (.84)
7. Negative affectivity 1.83 0.37 .00 ⫺.03 ⫺.06 ⫺.10 ⫺.29** ⫺.18* (.75)
8. Emotion recognitionb 18.92 2.70 .17* .17* ⫺.15 .11 .03 ⫺.13 ⫺.03 (.68)

a
n ⫽ 145. Alpha coefficients appear on the diagonal in parentheses.
b
A K-R 20 reliability assessment was used to calculate alpha for emotion recognition.
* p ⬍ .05
** p ⬍ .01
852 Academy of Management Journal October

TABLE 2
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Transformational
Leadership Behavior and Contingent Reward Behavior

Transformational Leadership Behavior Contingent Reward Behavior

Variable b s.e.b ␤ b s.e.b ␤

Step 1
Constant 3.79*** .18 4.12*** .27
Span of control ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.26* ⫺.03 .01 ⫺.29***
Negative affectivity ⫺.04 .10 .01 ⫺.09 .15 ⫺.05
R2 .06 .09
Step 2
Constant 1.47*** .46 1.88** .75
Span of control ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.25** ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.27***
Negative affectivity .05 .09 .04 ⫺.06 .15 ⫺.03
Agreeableness .19 .07 .23** .26 .11 .20*
Extraversion ⫺.07 .04 ⫺.14 ⫺.08 .07 ⫺.11
Positive affectivity .32 .08 .36*** .22 .12 .16
Emotion recognition .03 .01 .18* .03 .02 .13
R2 .26 .17
⌬R2 .20*** .08*
Step 3
Constant 1.36*** .45 1.78** .75
Span of control ⫺.02 .00 ⫺.29*** ⫺.03 .01 ⫺.29***
Negative Affectivity .06 .09 .06 ⫺.04 .15 ⫺.02
Agreeableness .21 .07 .26** .28 .11 .22*
Extraversion ⫺.08 .04 ⫺.16 ⫺.08 .07 ⫺.11
Positive affectivity .33 .07 .37*** .23 .12 .17
Emotion recognition .02 .01 .17* .03 .02 .13
Emotion recognition .04 .01 .19* .03 .02 .12
⫻ extraversion
R2 .29 .18
⌬R2 .03* .01

* p ⬍ .05
** p ⬍ .01
*** p ⬍ .001

tionships and specific tests of hypotheses are dis-
cussed below, and results are presented in Table 2.
With respect to emotion recognition, Hypothesis
1 posits that leader emotion recognition ability is
positively associated with leader transformational
leadership behavior. Results supported Hypothesis
1. Leaders who accurately identified emotions from
facial expressions were more likely to engage in
transformational leadership behavior (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍
.05). Emotion recognition was not a significant pre-
dictor of contingent reward behavior.
Regarding leader personality traits, Hypotheses
2a and 2b suggest that agreeableness and extraver-
sion, respectively, are positively associated with
transformational leadership behavior. As seen in
Table 2, only agreeableness (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01) was
a significant predictor, showing support for Hy-
pothesis 2a but not for 2b. Similarly, agreeableness
was also significantly related to contingent reward
behavior (␤ ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01), while extraversion was
not. Thus, leaders who reported being more agree-
able were likely to be rated as engaging in transfor-
mational leadership behavior and contingent re-
ward behavior. Hypothesis 3 states that PA is
positively associated with transformational leader-
ship behavior. Results showed support for Hypoth-
esis 3 in that leaders with high positive affectivity
were more likely to be rated as performing trans-
formational leadership behavior (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .001).
In contrast, PA was not a significant predictor of
contingent reward behavior.
Beyond positing simple “main effects,” Hypoth-
esis 4 asserts that extraversion moderates the rela-
tionship between emotion recognition and transfor-
mational leadership behavior; according to our
hypothesis, increased levels of extraversion posi-
tively strengthen the relationship between emotion
recognition and transformational leadership behav-
ior. To test Hypothesis 4, we created mean-centered
interaction terms for extraversion and emotion rec-
ognition and multiplied them to create a single
interaction term. The interaction term was then
2005 Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
added to step 3 in the hierarchical regression anal-
ysis. Results showed that the interaction was sig-
nificant for transformational leadership behavior
(␤ ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .05), but not for contingent reward
behavior. Following the recommendations of Aiken
and West (1991), we subjected the interaction to a
split-plot analysis to better understand its form.
The form in Figure 1 supports Hypothesis 4, as the
regression for high emotion recognition is signifi-
cant (p ⬍ .05), whereas the regression for low emo-
tion recognition is nonsignificant. Specifically,
leaders high in extraversion and with emotion
recognition ability were rated more highly on trans-
formational leadership behavior than leaders high
in extraversion and low in emotion recognition
ability. For leaders who were low in extraversion,
emotion recognition ability made no statistically
significant difference in their transformational
leadership behavior ratings.1
DISCUSSION
The goal of the present study was to examine the
influence of emotional intelligence and personality
traits on transformational leadership behavior.
1
To assess whether a nonlinear relationship was
present, we tested whether the squared terms of emotion
recognition or extraversion added unique variance. In
neither case was a nonlinear relationship found.
FIGURE 1
Split-Plot Analysis of the Interactive Effects of Emotion Recognition and Extraversion
on Transformational Leadership Behavior
853
Broadly speaking, the results showed that person-
ality traits and emotional recognition were posi-
tively linked to transformational leadership behav-
ior. Overall, over one-quarter of the variance in
transformational leadership behavior could be ex-
plained by a relatively few trait, ability, and control
variables. Although some of the findings reinforce
previous research, others represent more novel dis-
coveries. Moreover, the study results are encourag-
ing as they are free of same-source variance
inflation.
With respect to personality traits, this study rep-
licated previous findings, added new data, and ex-
tended research by including contingent reward
behavior. First, leaders with high positive affect
were more likely to perform transformational lead-
ership behavior but not more or less likely to en-
gage in contingent reward behavior. Second, results
showed that agreeableness, but not extraversion,
predicted transformational leadership behavior
and contingent reward behavior. Our findings are
consistent with Judge and Bono’s (2000) demon-
stration that agreeableness was the strongest pre-
dictor of transformational leadership behavior.
This convergence of findings is encouraging since
the present study and Judge and Bono’s (2000)
study utilized different measures of transforma-
tional leadership behavior and personality.
Much has been written recently regarding the
potential influence of emotional intelligence and
854 Academy of Management Journal
its role in organizational leadership, but little em-
pirical work exists on the topic. This study contrib-
utes much-needed empirical evidence in support of
one aspect of emotional intelligence and its rela-
tionship to transformational leadership behavior.
Leaders in this study who were better able to rec-
ognize emotion accurately in others were rated
more highly on transformational leadership behav-
ior. Additionally, emotion recognition was not pre-
dictive of contingent reward behavior in the
present study. These results support theoretical ar-
guments that leaders who perform transformational
leadership behavior are more interpersonally sen-
sitive than leaders who might engage in solely con-
tingent reward behavior. Thus, emotion recogni-
tion could represent an important point of
divergence for understanding and predicting trans-
formational leadership behavior as opposed to
other forms of leader behavior.
Perhaps the most important contribution is that
leader emotion recognition can interact with extra-
version in a way that significantly and positively
influences leader performance of transformational
leadership behavior. High extraversion provided a
clear benefit to leaders who also possessed the abil-
ity to accurately recognize emotion. Conversely,
leaders who possessed low extraversion and high
emotion recognition abilities did not seem to reap
the benefits of their emotion recognition ability. In
fact, leaders high in extraversion and low in emo-
tion recognition ability may be at a greater disad-
vantage than those low in extraversion but high in
emotion recognition ability. For example, high-ex-
traversion/low-emotion-recognition leaders may be
perceived as “all talk” and as insensitive, lacking
the ability to read employees’ emotional cues indi-
cating their needs. Thus, although extraversion
does not seem to have a direct effect on transfor-
mational leadership behavior, it does have an indi-
rect effect and should not be discounted as an im-
portant leadership trait. Further, transformational
leadership behavior by nature is focused on sub-
stance, such as providing a clear vision, setting
group goals, and setting high performance expecta-
tions. Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper (2001)
found that transformational leadership behavior
was related to the overall strength of a leader’s
vision and noted that personality characteristics
might play a role. Our results suggest that emotion
recognition may be a necessary but insufficient
ability involved in the performance of transforma-
tional leadership behavior. Together, emotion rec-
ognition, strong substance (e.g., vision content),
and expressiveness may very well differentiate
leaders’ performance of transformational leader-
October
ship behavior. Future researchers may want to con-
sider the use of constructs that tap this behavior
more directly than extraversion; emotional expres-
sivity (e.g., Gross & John, 1997; King & Emmons,
1990) may be one such construct.
As mentioned above, although we focused pri-
marily on transformational leadership behavior, we
wanted to heed calls to study antecedents of trans-
formational leadership behavior, but not to the ex-
clusion of transactional behavior. The present
study showed that transformational leadership be-
havior and contingent reward behavior (the proto-
typical transactional behavior) were correlated at a
moderately high level (r ⫽ .58), suggesting overlap-
ping constructs. Yet a comparison of the regression
results showed that only agreeableness was a sig-
nificant predictor of contingent reward behavior.
Thus, although contingent reward behavior and
transformational leadership behavior may often
produce similar outcomes, the pathways to, or gen-
esis of, contingent reward behavior may be quite
different from that of transformational leadership
behavior. For example, our findings for an interac-
tion between emotion recognition and extraversion
support previous theory contending that perfor-
mance of transformational leadership behavior re-
quires management of emotion, which in turn pro-
duces employee empowerment, growth, and
change. Contingent reward behavior, which pro-
duces order and stability, may not require such
management of emotion.
Although this study has promising results and
some positive methodological strengths (e.g., mul-
tiple data sources, a large organizational sample,
multiple raters of behavior), a few limitations de-
serve specific mention. First, this study employed a
cross-sectional design and, thus, the direction of
causality is impossible to decipher. Second, the
leaders were selected from a single organization. In
addition, participation was voluntary, making it
quite possible that selection effects were present in
leader ratings. Although the subordinate participa-
tion rate was less than ideal, it is consistent with
rates in previous transformational leadership be-
havior research (Bono & Judge, 2003) and is not
necessarily an indication of nonresponse error
(Krosnick, 1999). Further, the descriptive statistics
for transformational leadership behavior closely
approximated previous research, with good vari-
ability, indicating that systematic biases were not
likely present in subordinate ratings. Third, our
model contained only a small number of predic-
tors, which may have increased the chances for
model misspecification. These factors may threaten
2005 Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
both the internal and external validity of the study.
Important to future research is an attempt to un-
derstand the full process— both individual differ-
ences and contextual circumstances—leading to
the performance of transformational leadership be-
havior. At the individual level, further inquiry into
interactions between emotion and personality
would be productive. These include explanations
of the mechanism for how these antecedents con-
tribute to transformational leadership behavior. For
example, emotional regulation may be an impor-
tant means by which leaders are able to adjust their
emotions to be situationally appropriate. Further,
explorations are needed to understand how a lead-
er’s context influences transformational leadership
behavior. These types of studies may ultimately
provide support to organizations looking to in-
crease the prevalence of transformational leader-
ship behavior.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the
workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48: 97–
126.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. 2000. Transformational lead-
ership as management of emotion: A conceptual re-
view. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J.
Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research,
theory, and practice: 221–235. Westport, CT: Quo-
rum Books.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. 2002.
Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organi-
zational behavior research. Journal of Management,
28: 307–338.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. 1993. Personal at-
tributes as predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’
perceptions of military academy leadership. Human
Relations, 46: 645– 656.
Avolio, B. J. 1994. The “natural”: Some antecedents to
transformational leadership. International Journal
of Public Administration, 17: 1559 –1581.
Avolio, B. J. 1999. Full leadership development: Build-
ing the vital forces in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M. 1990. From transactional to transformational
leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 18(3): 19 –31.
Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership. Indus-
trial, military and educational impact. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
855
Bass, B. M. 1999. Two decades of research and develop-
ment in transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8:
9 –32.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. 2003.
Predicting unit performance by assessing transfor-
mational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 207–218.
Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. 2001.
The relationship between vision strength, leadership
style, and context. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 53–73.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance at
work: toward understanding the motivational effects
of transformational leaders. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 46: 554 –571.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. 2004.
Setting the stage for effective leadership: Anteced-
ents of transformational leadership behavior. Lead-
ership Quarterly, 15: 195–210.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. 1995. Further
assessments of the Bass (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 80: 468 – 478.
Carney, D. R., & Harrigan, J. A. 2003. It takes one to know
one: Interpersonal sensitivity is related to accurate
assessments of others’ interpersonal sensitivity.
Emotion, 3: 194 –200.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. 2002. Emotional
intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E. Rig-
gio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple
intelligences and leadership: 54 –74. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. 1987. Toward a behavioral
theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings. Academy of Management Review, 12:
637– 647.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. Emotion
and attribution of intentionality in leader-member
relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 615– 634.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1974. Detecting deception
from the body or face. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 29: 288 –298.
Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. 2002. Predicting work-
place outcomes from the ability to eavesdrop on
feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 963–
971.
Elfenbein, H. A., Marsh, A. A. & Ambady, N. 2002. Emo-
tional intelligence and the recognition of emotion
from facial expressions. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey
(Eds.), The wisdom of feeling: Psychological pro-
cesses in emotional intelligence—Emotions and so-
cial behavior: 37–59. New York: Guildford Press.
Ferris, G. L., Witt, L. A. & Hochwarter, W. A. 2001.
Interaction of social skill and general mental ability
on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86: 1075–1082.
856 Academy of Management Journal
Fox, S., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. 2001. The power of
emotional appeals in promoting organizational
change programs. Academy of Management Exec-
utive, 15(4): 84 –95.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. 2000. Relationship of emotional
intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelli-
gence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes:
It’s not all just “g.” Journal of Organizational Be-
havior, 21: 203–220
George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 107–
116.
George, J. M. 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood
on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 76: 299 –307.
George, J. M. 1995. Leader positive mood and group
performance. The case of customer service. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 778 –794.
George, J. M. 1996. Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy
(Ed.). Individual differences and behavior in or-
ganizations:145–171. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, J. M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of
emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53: 1027–
1055.
Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwith, public-domain,
personality inventory measuring the lower-level fac-
ets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.
Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personal-
ity psychology in Europe, vol. 7: 7–28. Tilburg, The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based
approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain per-
spective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219 –247.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. 1997. Revealing feelings: facets
of emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer rat-
ings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 72: 435– 448.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of
charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 43: 243–269.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that
bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, trans-
formational and transactional leadership, and dis-
tance on predicting follower performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84: 680 – 694.
Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intel-
ligence, and radical change. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 24: 325–345.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating
within-group interrater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69:
85–98.
October
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of per-
formance evaluation decisions. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 36: 80 –105.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of
personality and transformational leadership. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751–765.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002.
Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quan-
titative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:
765–780.
Keller, T. 1999. Images of the familiar: Individual differ-
ences and implicit leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 10: 589 – 607.
King, L. A., & Emmons, R. A. 1990. Conflict over emo-
tional expression: Psychological and physical corre-
lates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 58: 864 – 877.
Krosnick, J. A. 1999. Survey research. In J. T. Spence,
J. M. Darley, & J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of
psychology, vol. 50: 537–567. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How
followers respond to negative emotional expression
of male and female leaders. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 21: 221–234.
Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D.
1987. Explanations of success and derailment in up-
per-level management positions. Journal of Busi-
ness & Psychology, 2: 199 –216.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and infor-
mation processing: Linking perceptions and per-
formance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996.
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of
the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385–
425.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emo-
tional intelligence meets traditional standards for an
intelligence. Intelligence, 27: 267–298.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. 1993. The intelligence of
emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17: 433– 442.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G.
2001. Emotional intelligence as a standard intelli-
gence. Emotion, 1: 232–242.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G.
2003. Measuring emotional intelligence with the
MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3: 97–105.
Murphy, K. R. (Ed). 1996. Individual differences and
behavior in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. The role of
affect and affective congruence in perceptions of
leaders: An experimental study. Leadership Quar-
terly, 13: 601– 614.
2005 Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. 2001. Nonverbal receptivity:
The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy
(DANVA). In J. A Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Inter-
personal sensitivity theory and measurement:
183–198. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pawar, B., & Eastman, K. K. 1997. The nature and impli-
cations of contextual influences on transformational
leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of
Management Review, 22: 80 –109.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. 2003.
Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and
the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. Leadership Quar-
terly, 14: 161–192.
Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B. C., & Chan, K. Y. 2001. Exploring
relations between typical and maximum perfor-
mance ratings and the five factor model of personal-
ity. Personnel Psychology, 54: 809 – 843.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H.
1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substi-
tutes for leadership as determinants of employee
satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22:
259 –298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., &
Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satis-
faction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber,
V. L. 1984. Situational moderators of leader reward
and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 34:
21– 63.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. 1994. Employee
positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the
workplace. Organization Science, 5: 51–71.
Tejeda, M. J. 2001. The MLQ revisited: Psychometric
properties and recommendations. Leadership Quar-
terly, 12: 31–52.
Thomas, J. L., Dickson, M. W., & Bliese, P. D. 2001.
Values predicting leader performance in the U.S.
army reserve officer training corps assessment cen-
ter: Evidence for a personality-mediated model.
Leadership Quarterly, 12: 181–196.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Develop-
ment and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. 2002. The effects of leader and
follower emotional intelligence on performance and
attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quar-
terly, 13: 243–274.
Yukl, G. 1999. An evaluation of the conceptual weak-
nesses in transformational and charismatic leader-
ship theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 285–305.
857
APPENDIX
Scale Items of Study Variables
Transformational Leadership Behavior
1. Is always seeking new opportunities for the unit/
department/organization.
2. Paints an interesting picture of the future for our
group.
3. Has a clear understanding of where we are going.
4. Inspires others with his/her plans for the future.
5. Is able to get others committed to his/her dream of
the future.
6. Fosters collaboration among work groups.
7. Encourages employees to be “team players.”
8. Gets the group to work together for the same goal.
9. Develops a team attitude and spirit among his/her
employees.
10. Acts without considering my feelings.
11. Shows respect for my personal feelings.
12. Behaves in a manner that is thoughtful of my
personal needs.
13. Treats me without considering my personal feel-
ings.
14. Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us.
15. Insists on only the best performance.
16. Will not settle for second best.
17. Leads by “doing” rather than simply by “telling.”
18. Provides a good model to follow.
19. Leads by example.
20. Has provided me with new ways of looking at
things which used to be a puzzle for me.
21. Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some of
my own ideas I have never questioned before.
22. Has stimulated me to think about old problems in
new ways.
Contingent Reward Behavior
1. Always gives me positive feedback when I perform
well.
2. Gives me special recognition when my work is very
good.
3. Commends me when I do a better than average job.
4. Personally complements me when I do outstanding
work.
5. Frequently does not acknowledge my good perfor-
mance.
Agreeableness
1. I have a soft heart.
2. I take time out for others.
3. I feel others’ emotions.
4. I am not interested in other people’s problems.
5. I make people feel at ease.
Extraversion
1. I don’t like to draw attention to myself.
2. I am quiet around strangers.
858 Academy of Management Journal October

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