Analysis of Emotional Intelligence Among Management Leaders and Non-Management Leaders in Software Development

ANALYSIS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AMONG MANAGEMENT
LEADERS AND NON-MANAGEMENT LEADERS IN SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT
by
Michael Steven Milillo
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX
August 2009
UMI Number: 3388319
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3388319
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
2009 by Michael S. Milillo
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ABSTRACT
The study compared five emotional intelligence levels of management leaders and non-
management leaders within one company working on software development. The study
found a statistically significant difference in four of the five levels of emotional
intelligence with management leaders having a statistically significant higher score than
non-management leaders. The study showed that, for this population, the possibility
could be that managers select non-management leaders based solely on their technical
expertise and do not consider levels of emotional intelligence. Because of the lack of
attention to emotional intelligence levels of non-management leaders, the benefits of
higher emotional intelligence may not be available for the team leadership situations.
Thus, software development teams may be struggling with non-management leaders that
are not effective in team leadership.

iv
DEDICATION
This dedication is to God whose blessings are constant, my parents whose
guidance was foundational, and to my wife whose support is unending.

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge the support of Dr. DeNigris for his many years of support as my
mentor on this long journey; my committee members, Dr. Burnham and Dr. Clifton for
their encouragement; Dr. Ament who started on my committee and also helped with the
proposal approval. I would like to thank and acknowledge my classroom colleagues,
especially Dr. Grossman, Dr. Przybelinski, Dr. Eberle, and Dr. Oullette. I also
acknowledge Jon Benson for his support of this research and Katy Dickinson who
manages the mentoring program. Joseph Kern and Thomas Skerjanec approved my
pursuit of this degree and I am grateful for the personal support I received from them.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1
Background ........................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 3
Purpose.................................................................................................................. 4
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 5
Nature of the Study ............................................................................................... 6
Research Questions/Hypotheses ........................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 10
Definitions........................................................................................................... 12
Assumptions........................................................................................................ 13
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations ................................................................ 13
Summary ............................................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................. 16
Documentation .................................................................................................... 16
Literature Review................................................................................................ 17
Emotional Intelligence ........................................................................................ 17
Overview...................................................................................................... 18
Model Comparisons ..................................................................................... 22
Emotional Intelligence Measurements ........................................................ 24
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership.................................. 26

vii
Overview...................................................................................................... 27
Affirming the Relationship .......................................................................... 28
Nullifying the Relationship.......................................................................... 30
Promoting EI ................................................................................................ 31
Technical Leadership .......................................................................................... 34
Overview...................................................................................................... 34
Manager as Technical Leader ...................................................................... 35
Non-manager as Technical Leader .............................................................. 37
Team Environment ...................................................................................... 38
Technical Leader Relationships................................................................... 40
Software Engineering .................................................................................. 40
Software Technical Leader .......................................................................... 41
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 42
Summary ............................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3: METHOD .................................................................................... 45
Research Method and Design Appropriateness .................................................. 45
Research Questions ............................................................................................. 48
Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 49
Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale .............. 50
Informed Consent................................................................................................ 50
Sampling Frame .................................................................................................. 51
Confidentiality .................................................................................................... 52
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 52

viii
Instrument ........................................................................................................... 53
Validity Internal and External .......................................................................... 54
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 54
Summary ............................................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................................... 58
Instrumentation, Variables, and Hypotheses of Study ........................................ 58
Population and Data Collection Process ............................................................. 61
Findings............................................................................................................... 62
Descriptive Measures for Study Variables ......................................................... 62
Assumptions for Inferential Analysis ................................................................. 64
Inferential Analysis ............................................................................................. 65
Inferential Analysis as Relates to Hypothesis 1.................................................. 65
Summary ............................................................................................................. 71
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 73
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 74
Hypothesis 1 Conclusion .................................................................................... 75

ix
Discussion of Assumptions and Limitations....................................................... 77
Implications......................................................................................................... 78
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 80
Recommendations for Engineering Managers .................................................... 80
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................. 81
Summary ............................................................................................................. 82
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 84
APPENDIX A: PERMISSION TO USE INSTRUMENT ................................. 95
APPENDIX B: INSTRUMENT SURVEY ........................................................ 96
APPENDIX C: PERMISSION TO USE PREMISES ........................................ 98
APPENDIX D: INTRODUCTORY LETTER ................................................... 99
APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPANTS 18 YEARS AND
OLDER ............................................................................................................. 100
APPENDIX F: SECOND WEB PAGE ............................................................ 102
APPENDIX G: THIRD WEB PAGE ............................................................... 103

x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Descriptive Measures of Central Tendency for Dependent Study
Variables Overall (N = 82) and According to Independent Variable Groups of
Management Leaders (n = 39) and Non-Management Leaders (n = 43) .......... 62
Table 2 Summary of Inferential Analysis Findings vis--vis the Research
Hypothesis (N = 82) ............................................................................................ 70

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Mean Overall EI Scores ...................................................................... 66
Figure 2. Mean SEA Scores ............................................................................... 67
Figure 3. Mean SM Scores ................................................................................. 68
Figure 4. Mean SOA Scores ............................................................................... 69
Figure 5. Mean RM Scores................................................................................. 70

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Goleman (1997) claimed a leaders emotional intelligence (EI) is as important to
the achievement of success as the leaders cognitive intelligence quotient (IQ). A more
recent claim has emotional intelligence causing a 30% improvement in productivity in
personal and team EI skills (Hughes & Terrell, 2007). A third claim declared emotional
intelligence more important than IQ in engineering careers (Goleman, 2000). As
researchers continue to determine the accuracy of these claims, a significant amount of
the research focuses on leaders among an organizations management personnel.
Some organizations select non-management personnel as team leaders and the
selection of non-management leaders for technical leadership is common for software
development teams (Glen, 2003; Weinberg, 1986; Whitehead, 2001). In a team
leadership role, non-management leaders might benefit from high-levels of emotional
intelligence if EI is as important to a leaders success as claimed. The emotional
intelligence levels of non-management leaders may be an important contributor to the
promotion of EI throughout the organization. In order to add to the body of knowledge
concerning the importance of emotional intelligence in non-management leaders, a
quantitative comparison study measured and compared the emotional intelligence of
management leaders with the emotional intelligence of non-management leaders involved
with software development for a selected organization.
Background
Since emotional intelligence has roots in the psychological examination of
personality and social interactions, researchers explore the existence and effects of
emotional intelligence based on measurements designed to identify the level of emotional

2
intelligence in individuals (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007, 2004). At the individual
level, researchers have documented evidence that emotional intelligence helps increase
success (Goleman, 1997, 2000; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Salovey, Brackett,
& Mayer, 2004). As the research on the existence and effects of emotional intelligence
continue to evolve, the study of emotional intelligence has now expanded to study the
benefits of emotional intelligence related to team performance (Druskat, Sala, & Mount,
2006; Dulewicz, Young, & Dulewicz, 2005a; Stubbs, 2005). Emotional intelligence
research at the team level has focused on the emotional intelligence of management;
additional research has included a new focus on non-management personnel (Stubbs,
2005).
The highly task-oriented software development industry provides an opportunity
for assessing the role of emotional intelligence in non-management leaders of task-
oriented teams where the main objective focuses on results. Schedule, cost, and quality
are the yardsticks by which some companies measure technical projects. One study
showed that 25% of 500 technology development projects studied from 1977 through
1999 lasting 25 work-years or more failed to complete the project successfully (DeMarco
& Lister, 1999). Technology teams produced 28% failures and 46% marginal successes
in 1998 including projects delivered late, over budget, and missing planned major
features (Glen, 2003).
Some engineering responses to address these failures include improving the
mechanics of software development tools. Since the nature of performing complex and
creative problem solving inherently includes team communication as a significant
element of the human relationships among the team members, investigators also looked
3
beyond the mechanics of tools. Some investigators directly addressed leadership to
reduce the percentage of failures (Covey, 2004; Glen, 2003; Whitehead, 2001). Other
investigators addressed leadership indirectly within the context of the team (LaRue,
Childs, & Larson, 2004; McKenna & Maister, 2002).
Software development methodology has focused on improving requirements and
institutionalizing development processes. This reaction is predictable since the mindset of
technical workers will usually seek technical solutions to problems (Glen, 2003). Outside
of the technical spotlight, another response favored by software development managers is
to recruit and retain the brightest people in the hopes of achieving a critical mass of talent
to succeed (DeMarco & Lister, 1999). Tool improvements and the collection of talent
both represent the search for more consistently improved results.
Non-management leaders also provide leadership for software development teams
with the communication between non-management leaders and team members occurring
frequently as the team assesses the benefits and costs of alternative ideas. A non-
management leader does not provide the team with performance reviews and task
assignments. Yet, non-management leaders still need to exhibit elements of leadership
within team settings of software development (Glen, 2003). Non-management leaders
may benefit from emotional intelligence. If emotional intelligence does exist within this
task-oriented environment, then it may be important to determine if emotional
intelligence is an element for the selection of non-management leaders.
Problem Statement
The software development industry has not fully embraced the need for EI in non-
management leadership (Glen, 2003; Weinberg, 1986; Whitehead, 2001). If high-levels

4
of emotional intelligence are beneficial to the success of management leaders, then an
organization might benefit from the use of emotional intelligence as a factor in the
selection of their non-management leaders. Conversely, there may be a difference
between the perceived importance of EI for management leaders and the perceived
importance of EI for non-management leaders.
In order to determine if emotional intelligence plays a role in the selection of non-
management leaders, the study compared the emotional intelligence level of management
leaders with the emotional level of the non-management leaders. The population under
study is management leaders and non-management leaders involved with software
development. Given the stated benefits of EI, the lack of EI as a criterion for selecting
non-management leaders may be reducing the success among software development
teams.
Purpose
The purpose is to determine if the theory of emotional intelligence applies to non-
management leaders and management leaders to an equivalent degree. The quantitative
study compared the measurement of EI levels of non-management leaders participating in
a mentoring program to the EI levels of management leaders participating in the same
mentoring program. In order to compare the level of emotional intelligence in
management leaders and non-management leaders, candidates involved with software
development at a United States technology company participate in a mentorship program
created to mentor individuals selected for their leadership potential. The study measured
the EI levels of the participants and determined how the emotional intelligence level of
5
management leaders compares with the emotional level of non-management leaders
within the mentoring program of the selected company.
Significance of the Study
Bill Pheasant, Senior Journalist for The Australian Financial Review, stated,
Technical skills the bricks and mortar of the past century are no longer sufficient,
and the light is fading on the days when command and control leadership was anything
more than a temporary freeze (cited in Newman, 2005, p. ix). In 1997, Goleman
projected 33% of American workforce will be knowledge workers in this century
(Goleman, 1997). The number of knowledge workers continues to increase in the United
States driving the change of the leadership profile. Sparrow and Knight (2006) stated,
The leaders of the future will need to be facilitators leaders who enable others to
develop their own leadership and potential (p. 4). The recommendations for high EI
among leaders conflicts with observations that leaders in the engineering industry focus
more on IQ more than EI (McKenna & Maister, 2002; Whitehead, 2001).
Richards and Pryce (2006) showed emotional intelligence had a significant affect
on job control and work performance. Knowledge gained concerning the relative
importance or unimportance of EI in the selection of non-management leaders within
software knowledge workers may help determine if the EI levels of management leaders
is as important and relevant as the EI levels of non-management leaders. This research
may contribute to the study of EI in non-management positions. If low non-management
EI levels exist, higher EI levels might lead to improvements in successful software
development projects. If high non-management EI levels exist, the probability of EI being
a contributor to greater success of software development projects might decrease.

6
Nature of the Study
The review of technical leadership and team environments applies to all different
forms of engineering. This review of engineering leadership focuses on software as one
specific representative of engineering disciplines. The goal of the study is to determine if
the mentoring program at a single company used management leaders with the same or
different EI levels as non-management leaders. A quantitative comparison study
measured a sample of the EI levels of management leaders and a sample of the EI levels
of non-management leaders in order to perform a statistical analysis of the comparison.
The statistical analysis reveals with statistical significance if the mentoring program
selected management leaders with the same or different EI levels as non-management
leaders.
Neuman (2003) stated that quantitative study begins with a hypothesis to test and
a deductive approach while a qualitative study attempts to discover meaning using an
inductive approach. This study has hypotheses to test by inferring the difference of two
groups using a sampling of the population under study. Salkind (2003) identified
experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental types of quantitative research
methods. Experimental and quasi-experimental require a treatment or a control group
(Salkind, 2003). Experimental type methods are not appropriate to accomplishing the
goals of this study because this study does not attempt to control any of the variables such
as EI levels or include a treatment in the study.
Salkind (2003) stated, The purpose of descriptive research is to describe the
current state of affairs at the time of the study (p. 188). Descriptive quantitative research
includes case studies, developmental studies, and correlational studies (Salkind, 2003).
7
The goal of this study concerns the relationship between the EI related variables of two
groups at the time of the study. The goal does not deal with differences in development
nor require any in-depth information on the people or the organization. A non-
experimental descriptive quantitative study may provide some insight into any actual
differences between the two groups in the study.
Salkind (2003) listed case studies, ethnographies, and historical research as types
of qualitative research. According to Salkind, qualitative methods do not have any pre-
established hypotheses created before the study and attempt to explore a research
question to explain other types of phenomena. A qualitative study might explore the
intentions of those choosing the candidates for the mentoring program. This difference
between qualitative and quantitative research methods makes the quantitative approach
more appropriate for determining if a significant difference does exist in the current
situation at the time of the study.
Management leaders and non-management leaders involved with software
development and participating in the mentoring program qualify for the study. The study
used inferential statistics to infer the results of the smaller sample that respond to the
survey to the mentoring program population. Quantitative analysis for the study used
descriptive statistics to determine the interval measure of central tendency for the survey
scores of the two groups and inferential statistics determined the statistical significance of
any difference. A two-sample t-test of two variables determined any significant
difference in the comparison of the EI levels of both groups. The EI levels of the two
groups provided information on the presence or absence of high EI in the sampled group.
8
The research design accomplished the goals of the study because the sample
population contains leaders from both the management and non-management groups and
the t-test determined any significant difference in the comparison of the EI levels of both
groups based on the sample of the population. The study may be able to determine if the
average EI levels of non-management leaders are statistically the same, higher, or lower
than the EI levels of management leaders within the studied population independent of
the intentions of the program in selecting candidates,.
Research Questions/Hypotheses
The study investigated the following research questions related to emotional
intelligence. The first question addresses the overall level of emotional intelligence, while
the subsequent research questions cover specific elements contained within the area of
emotional intelligence. The first research question is RQ1: Is there a difference in the
level of overall emotional intelligence (EI) between management leaders and non-
management leaders? The second research question addresses self-awareness, one facet
of emotional intelligence, RQ2: Is there a difference in the level of self-awareness
competency (SEA) between management leaders and non-management leaders? Another
facet of emotional intelligence concerns self-management. The third research question is
RQ3: Is there a difference in the level of self-management competency (SM) between
management leaders and non-management leaders?
Moving from questions related to oneself, the next two questions cover the social
facets of emotional intelligence. The fourth research question concerns social awareness,
RQ4: Is there a difference in the level of social awareness competency (SOA) between
management leaders and non-management leaders? Within the social elements of

9
emotional intelligence, the fifth research question covers relationships, RQ5: Is there a
difference in the level of relationship management competency (RM) between
management leaders and non-management leaders?
The hypotheses for these research questions contain a null hypothesis (H0) and an
alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each research question. The null hypothesis for research
question RQ1, H0: The average overall emotional intelligence (EI) score is the same for
management leaders and non-management leaders. The alternate hypothesis for research
question RQ1, Ha: The average overall emotional intelligence (EI) score is not the same
for management leaders and non-management leaders. For research question RQ2, the
null hypothesis H0: The average self-awareness competency (SEA) score is the same for
management leaders and non-management leaders. For research question RQ2, the
alternate hypothesis Ha: The average self-awareness competency (SEA) score is not the
same for management leaders and non-management leaders. The null hypotheses for
research question RQ3, H0: The average self-management competency (SM) score is the
same for management leaders and non-management leaders. The alternate hypothesis for
research question RQ3, Ha: The average self-management competency (SM) score is not
the same for management leaders and non-management leaders.
Research question RQ4 null hypothesis, H0: The average social awareness
competency (SOA) score is the same for management leaders and non-management
leaders. Research question RQ4 alternate hypothesis, Ha: The average social awareness
competency (SOA) score is not the same for management leaders and non-management
leaders. For research question RQ5, the null hypothesis, H0: The average relationship
management competency (RM) score is the same for management leaders and non-
10
management leaders. For research question RQ5, the alternate hypothesis, Ha: The
average relationship management competency (RM) score is not the same for
management leaders and non-management leaders.
Theoretical Framework
The research study used the theoretical framework of emotional intelligence as
the foundational theory to study leadership among management leaders and non-
management leaders. Of the several models and theories concerning the study and
measurement of emotional intelligence, (Bar-On & Parker, 2000; Goleman, 1997, 2000;
Salovey et al., 2004), three models provided the main theoretical framework for this
work: (a) Mayer and Salovey model, (b) Goleman and Boyatzis model, and (c) Bar-on
model.
The original conceptualization of emotional intelligence by Mayer and Salovey
model used three main branches. These branches consisted of (a) appraisal and
expression of emotion, (b) regulation of emotion, and (c) utilization of emotion (Salovey
& Mayer, 1990). The Goleman and Boyatzis model contains capabilities for self-
awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman
et al., 2002). As for the Bar-on model, according to Bar-On, The findings suggested that
emotional and social intelligence is a multifactorial array of interrelated emotional,
personal, and social abilities that influence our overall ability to actively and effectively
cope with daily demands and pressures (Bar-On, 2000, p. 385).
The research fits within the field of emotional intelligence by exploring the
comparison between management leaders and non-management leaders concerning the
average level of competency of emotional intelligence. An important aspect of emotional

11
intelligence has been the benefit emotional intelligence plays in the success of ones
career (Goleman et al., 2002). Within the field of emotional intelligence, much of the
research has focused on management careers since managers, by definition, are leaders of
others (Johnson, 2005). Within a team setting, many other types of leaders emerge that
are not part of the management ranks (Stubbs, 2005).
Bass (1990) observed that managers should be leaders and clarified the separation
of leaders and managers by observing that not all leaders are managers. If leadership
exists within the non-management ranks, then the benefits of emotional intelligence can
apply to the non-management ranks (Stubbs, 2005). The claims of the benefits of
emotional intelligence applied to all areas of human interaction (Goleman, 1997, 2000;
Goleman et al., 2002), yet the claims related to the engineering community might be
more controversial due to the high emphasis on IQ (Glen, 2003; Whitehead, 2001). One
possible area to see the benefits of emotional intelligence within the engineering
community might be in the selection of participants within a mentoring program.
A mentoring program that selects candidates via a selection process that targets
high performance people provides a population of high potential leaders within a
company. An opportunity exists to show the benefits of emotional intelligence within this
population by determining the level of emotional intelligence within a sample of this
population. A research study that compares the management leaders with the non-
management leaders offers an opportunity to explore the level of emotional intelligence
in both groups.
Controversies continue within the study of emotional intelligence between facts
and myths of the existence and benefits of emotional intelligence (Matthews, Zeidner, &
12
Roberts, 2004). Controversies help provide a focus on the need for refinements and
additional research. The opportunity for quantitative exploration of the existence of
emotional intelligence may help provide greater knowledge around these controversies.
The opportunity to explore the application of the benefits of emotional intelligence
among management leaders and non-management leaders allows for a broader
understanding of the presence of emotional intelligence that is not limited by boundary of
management personnel.
Definitions
EI/EQ Emotional intelligence involves the ability to perceive accurately,
appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they
facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the
ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997, as cited in Salovey et al., 2004, p. 35).
Mentor Willems and Smet definition of mentor is The mentor is in most cases
a person with more experience in the organization or in a context (business unit, function,
etc.) of interest to the mentee (2007, p. 108).
Mentee A person receiving mentoring (Willems & Smet, 2007)
Management leaders For this study, people selected from the management ranks
for the mentoring program. Management leaders may be either mentors or mentees.
Non-Management leaders For this study, people selected from the non-
management ranks for the mentoring program. Non-management leaders may be either
mentors or mentees.
13
Assumptions
The research embodied in this study assumes the EI measurement tool can
effectively measure emotional intelligence in the leaders. The validity test of the
questionnaire supports this assumption. The study assumes management leaders and non-
management leaders have answered the questionnaires openly and honestly. The basis for
this assumption is the benefit derived from knowing ones EI level without any threat of
exposing that information to anyone. The presence or absence of high EI levels may
provide information on the significance of high EI within leaders of the selected
community.
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations
This study is limited to subjects who agree to participate voluntarily. This study is
limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct
the survey. The validity of this study is limited to the validity of the instruments used.
This study surveyed management leaders and non-management leaders within one
company who are involved with software development.
The study focused on the emotional intelligence measurement of non-
management leaders and the emotional intelligence of the management leaders in the
selected organization. Potential subjects were management leaders and non-management
leaders selected by the organization to participate in the mentoring program. Subjects not
meeting these criteria were not candidates for the study. The study does not distinguish
participants based on age, seniority within the company, or geographic location. The
mentoring program studied includes participants from many different nations throughout
14
the world. The study did solicit this information as part of the demographics and this data
could provide additional the basis for subsequent analysis.
Given the restrictions of the study to the software development industry within a
single selected company, possibilities might exist to generalize the results to other
companies involved with software development. The results could provide some support
for generalizations that might include other engineering disciplines besides software
development. The results could begin to support some generalizations regarding the
comparison between non-management leaders and management leaders within other
companies.
Summary
The study of emotional intelligence continues to grow as additional research adds
to the knowledge of the subject. The importance of emotional intelligence continues to
accrue both anecdotal and empirical evidence (Goleman, 1997, 2000, Goleman et al.,
2002).This research study attempts to add additional quantitative knowledge related to
the importance of emotional intelligence within the software development field and
includes both management and non-management leaders. If emotional intelligence is
helpful for successful leadership, then the search for a comparison between the emotional
intelligence of management leaders and non-management leaders may show if these
qualities exist in both groups within the selected organization.

15
If EI levels of non-management leaders are lower than management leaders, then
perhaps the relative importance of EI compared to IQ for non-management leaders within
the software development industry should increase. Such an increase may provide a more
effective solution to team success as well as identifying the merits of emotional
intelligence in the selection of non-management leaders. To build the foundation of this
research study, Chapter 2 will provide a literature review that will cover the theoretical
foundations of emotional intelligence, the relationship of emotional intelligence to
transformational leadership, the basis for mentoring, and the current research regarding
the pursuit of technical leaders within the software development community.

16
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The search for a relationship between the emotional intelligence of management
leaders and the emotional intelligence of non-management leaders in software
development covers three major areas of research. The first major area of research is
emotional intelligence and a review of the literature addressing emotional intelligence
provides the theoretical context of this study. The next major area of research explores
the connection between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership addresses the interface between management leaders and
non-management leaders since the management leaders select those for non-management
leadership. Non-management leaders in software development operate within the general
area of technical leadership. This third major area of research addresses the general area
of technical leadership, which is an area of leadership outside the management context
typically used for leadership studies.
Documentation
Information on emotional intelligence is readily available from numerous books
and peer-reviewed articles. The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence
provided a web site for several references. Several dissertations from researchers
studying emotional intelligence contain background on the topic (Brown, 2005; Smith,
2005; Stubbs, 2005). Research examining the relationship between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership is extending the study of emotional intelligence into an
important area of leadership. The review of technical leadership provided the least
information and the sources of information are almost exclusively from a few key books
related to the topic and a few articles on the connection between managers and non-
17
management leaders. The reduced range of references from founding theorists, empirical
research, peer-reviewed articles, books, and journals on technical leadership created a
literature gap within this research study for sufficient material found within the last five
years.
Literature Review
The research for this study involved the area of technical leadership where non-
management leaders typically apply their leadership skills. Within this context, the study
explores the relevance of emotional intelligence to this area of leadership. One factor in
the comparison of emotional intelligence levels is search for a transformation of the
importance of emotional intelligence from management leaders to non-management
leaders. The literature review of emotional intelligence, the relationship between
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, and the specialized dimension of
leadership referred to as technical leadership each contains both historical and current
information and provides the background needed to frame the problem, purpose, and
importance of the study.
Emotional Intelligence
A review of the literature on Emotional Intelligence (EI) begins with a historical
overview of some models of emotional intelligence. Hughes, Patterson, and Terrell
(2005) identified four major measures of EI: (a) Bar-Ons EQ-i, (b) Goleman and
Boyatzis ECI 360, (c) Mayer, Salovey, and Carusos MSCEIT, and (d) Orioli and
Coopers EQ Map. In a different list of four major EI measures, Conte (2005)
substituted MEIS, a precursor to MSCEIT, instead of the EQ Map. From this selection,
the Bar-On EQ-i model, the Goleman and Boyatzis ECI model, and the Mayer, Salovey,
18
Caruso MSCEIT model are representative of the research efforts related to emotional
intelligence and form the framework of this study. The selection begins with the Mayer
and Salovey model since it provides historical background on the groundwork of
emotional intelligence. The selected Goleman and Boyatzis ECI model forms the basis
for the survey instrument used to measure the emotional intelligence of participants in
this study. The Bar-On model selection offers an alternative model to the Goleman and
Boyatzis model for comparison and completeness since the Bar-On model use
competencies for the theoretical foundation. The emotional intelligence literature review
contains a comparison of the three models and a description of the measurement
instruments related to each model.
Overview
Several models relate to the study and measurement of emotional intelligence
(Bar-On & Parker, 2000; Goleman, 1997, 2000; Salovey et al., 2004). The phrase
emotional intelligence achieved formal definition in 1990 partially with the work of
Salovey and Mayer (Salovey et al., 2004). According to Salovey and Mayer, emotional
intelligence is . . . the ability to monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions, to
discriminate among them and to use this information to guide ones thinking and actions
(1990, p. 5). Mayer and Salovey then upgraded this definition in 1997 with
Emotional intelligence involves the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and
express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate
thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the
ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (as cited
in Salovey et al., 2004, p. 35).

19
This definition improved on the previous definition by reducing some of the vagueness
present in the previous definition.
Following the work by Mayer and Salovey (1997), Goleman increased public
awareness of emotional intelligence with two books on the subject (Goleman, 1997,
2000). According to Goleman, the advantages of EI applied equally to all individuals
including those in both management and non-management positions. The study of
emotional intelligence continued to gain momentum with the work related to the Salovey
and Mayer model (Salovey et al., 2004) and the Goleman and Boyatzis model (Goleman
et al., 2002; Stubbs, 2005). Grewal and Salovey (2005) challenged that the popularity of
EI had created claims that exceeded results supportable by research. In an effort to study
the claims by Goleman and others, the goal of the study is to quantify the relative
importance of emotional intelligence in both management personnel and non-
management personnel.
Mayer and Salovey Model. Historically, the original conceptualization of
emotional intelligence by Mayer and Salovey model used three main branches. These
branches consisted of (a) appraisal and expression of emotion, (b) regulation of emotion,
and (c) utilization of emotion (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The model followed from the
1990 definition offered by Salovey and Mayer. With the newer definition in 1997, the
model changed to a four-branch model. The four-branch model consisted of (a) emotional
perception and expression, (b) emotional facilitation of thought (using emotional
intelligence), (c) emotional understanding, and (d) emotional management (Salovey,
Mayer, & Caruso, 2002).

20
Goleman and Boyatzis Model. After Goleman popularized the concept of
emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996, 2000), Goleman et al. (2002) explored the
application of emotional intelligence to the challenge of leadership and discussed
emotional competence as a learned capability. Goleman (2000) provided the emotional
competence framework of the theory, which contained both personal competence and
social competence. Personal competence included self-awareness, self-regulation, and
motivation. Social competence included empathy and social skills.
Empathy involved sensitivity to other peoples emotions and includes
understanding and interest in another persons perspective. Social skills involved the
ability to influence other peoples responses to a situation. Included is this competence
are communication, leadership, conflict management, and team building. Social
competence thus addresses the relationship side of emotional intelligence. Golemans
addition of social competence to the emotional intelligence model provided a bridge from
the emotional intelligence of the individual to the application of emotional intelligence to
the relationships developed by the individual. The bridge extended emotional intelligence
beyond the focus on self to the application of emotional intelligence in dealing with other
people via leadership and team capabilities.
Goleman et al. captured the implications of this extended model stating, In short,
groups are smarter than individuals only when they exhibit the qualities of emotional
intelligence (Goleman, 2002, p. 174). When Goleman et al. applied the Goleman and
Boyatzis model to group leadership, they included capabilities for self-awareness, self-
management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman et al., 2002).
Self-awareness involves emotional self-awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-

21
confidence. Self-management includes self-control, transparency, adaptability,
achievement, initiative, and optimism. Social awareness addresses empathy,
organizational awareness, and service. Relationship management consists of inspiration,
influence, development of others, change catalyst, conflict management, teamwork and
collaboration. Because of the team orientation of the Goleman and Boyatzis model,
Stubbs (2005) concluded their model is more applicable to the workplace.
The application of emotional intelligence to the workplace should leverage the
benefits of emotional intelligence in all forms of leadership since leadership is a
relationship between leader and follower (Burns, 1979). If the benefits of personal
competence and social competence are not restricted to management personnel
(Goleman, 1997, 2000), then non-management personnel involved with technical team
leadership could benefit if management personnel selected non-management leaders with
higher emotional intelligence levels. Since teamwork and collaboration occur in teams
without managers, non-management leaders might benefit if the benefits do apply equally
to both management leaders and non-management leaders.
Bar-On Model. As a alternative approach, according to Bar-On, . . . emotional
and social intelligence is a multifactorial array of interrelated emotional, personal, and
social abilities that influence our overall ability to actively and effectively cope with daily
demands and pressures (Bar-On, 2000, p. 385). In the Bar-On model, 10 factors or
components form the basis of the model. The components are
(1) self-regard (accurate self-appraisal), (2) emotional self-awareness (the ability
to be aware of and understand ones emotions), (3) assertiveness (the ability to
express ones emotions and oneself), (4) empathy (the ability to be aware of and
22
understand others emotions), (5) interpersonal relationship (the ability to form
and maintain intimate relationships), (6) stress tolerance (the ability to manage
emotions), (7) impulse control (self-control), (8) reality testing (the ability to
validate ones thinking and feelings), (9) flexibility (the ability to change), and
(10) problem-solving (the ability to effectively and constructively solve problem
of a personal and social nature). (Bar-On, 2002, p. 385)
Besides these components, facilitators such as optimism, happiness, and independence
supplement the components of the Bar-On model.
Model Comparisons
The Bar-On model and the Goleman and Boyatzis model are models that mix
abilities and competencies while the Mayer and Salovey model is oriented to abilities
(Conte, 2005; MacCann, Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2003). The Goleman and
Boyatzis model lists attributes of emotional intelligence as competencies rather than as
abilities, but Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) believed a significant distinction exists
between models focused on mental abilities only and models that included personality
attributes. Mayer et al. (2000) considered the Bar-On model a mixed model since it
included additional facilitators. Arsenio (2003) favored a mixed model that went beyond
ability to include competency in the study of emotional intelligence in children because
abilities and competencies are distinct and each contributes to a persons social
interactions.
The comparison of the three models provided by Mayer et al. (2000) showed the
Bar-On model contains low-level (biologically related), mid-level (interactive) and high-
level (learned) personality functions, while the Goleman and Boyatzis model contained
23
high-level and mid-level functions. In contrast to the Goleman and Boyatzis model, the
Mayer and Salovey model contains mid-level functions. According to Mayer et al.
(2000), the Bar-On model tried to determine why some individuals are more successful.
Mayer et al. (2000) believed the Goleman and Boyatzis model was attempting to predict
success of highly emotional intelligent people regardless of management or non-
management occupation.
Mayer et al. was skeptical of the predictive claims made by Goleman and
Boyatzis and the power of emotional intelligence. Mayer et al. stated, If there were truly
a single psychological entity that could predict widespread success at such levels, it
would exceed any finding in a century of research in applied psychology (Mayer et al.,
2000, p. 90). Due to the significant difference in these two positions, the purpose of this
study attempted to show any significant difference in the measurement of emotional
intelligence among management leaders and non-management leaders.
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) described the purpose of their model as a
mental ability model that avoided other traits and virtues related to competencies that
contributed to a successful life. Mayer et al. tried to isolate emotional intelligence as a
mental discipline or capability separate from other social competencies. Technical
leadership in the software development industry does contain mental discipline (Glen,
2003; Weinberg, 1986) but not in the application of emotional intelligence. The study
followed the Goleman and Boyatzis model of including social competencies since the
non-management arena for leadership is within the context of the relationships involved
with teamwork (DeMarco & Lister, 1999).

24
Allio (2002) was critical of Goleman et al. (2002) claiming Blake and Mouton
promoted relationships with the Managerial Grid model, although a managerial model
may not apply to non-management leaders. According to Allio, Goleman et al. (2002)
provided only anecdotes instead of scientific evidence. In contrast to Allios criticisms,
Dulewicz, Young, and Dulewicz (2005b) found in their quantitative study that IQ, EQ,
managerial competencies (MQ), and rank correlations of EI related to leadership and
performance at officer levels in the Royal Navy. The authors did not find a significant
correlation between EI and performance below the officer level and such a finding may
be relevant to the investigation of emotional intelligence in non-management leaders.
Another possible interpretation of the lack of correlation at lower levels of management
is from Matthews, Roberts, and Zeidner (2003) who claimed that there might be
competencies not captured by either self-report or performance-based methods.
Emotional Intelligence Measurements
A key element in the creation of a model of emotional intelligence is a
measurement tool for the components of the model. The three models presented in this
study each had a measurement tool related to each model. Mayer and Salovey (2000)
named their emotional intelligence measurement tool the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Goleman and Boyatzis use the Emotional
Competence Inventory (ECI) and the ECI-360 to measure the attributes of their model.
Bar-on (2000) uses the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) to measure
emotional intelligence factors.
The study of emotional intelligence levels of management and non-management
leaders used a self-report mechanism based on the ECI measurement tool of Goleman
25
and Boyatzis (Wolff, 2006). The literature covered the different approaches to EI
measurement and addressed some of the benefits and limitations of self-report
mechanisms. Researchers have established the validity of these measurement tools and
the comparison of the EI levels between management leaders and non-management
leaders offers an opportunity to compare the results between two distinct groups:
management leaders in software development and non-management leaders in software
development. The comparison of EI levels between these two groups may provide
additional data on the use of one of these self-report mechanisms.
The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V2.0 contained 141
items to measure, organized by the four branches of the model (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso,
& Sitarenios, 2003). To establish confidence in the tool, the authors tested the tool for
reliability and validity and demonstrated that people considered experts on emotions
scored higher on the test than members of the general population.
The Goleman and Boyatzis model employs the Emotional Competence Inventory
(ECI) as the measurement tool (Wolff, 2006) where the subject of the assessment and
others familiar with the subject provide the assessment of competencies. The subjects
responses come from the Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) and the responses from
the others come from the 360-degree version known as the External Assessment
Questionnaire (EAQ). The questionnaire groups competencies into clusters of
competencies including self-awareness cluster, self-management cluster, social
awareness cluster, and social skills (Boyatzis, 2007). The validity and reliability of the
ECI tool came from critical input from experts. Conte (2005) reported that researchers
found significant overlap between the ECI and the Big Five personality factors.
26
The EQ-i tool (Bar-On, 2000) performs the measurement of the Bar-On model of
emotional intelligence and the measurement tool helped to formulate the model. The EC-i
comprises 133 items using a five-point Likert scale. This instrument comes in 22
different languages for people 17 years old and older. A youth version named EQ-i:YV
exists (Bar-On, 2000) for adolescents under 17 years old and does not apply to this study
since all participants are 18 or older. Internal consistency results indicate good reliability
with this tool. The EQ-i construct validity examination occurred via comparison with
other measurement tools including MSCEIT. Of the three measurement tools, the Bar-On
model shows the most history and testing. Dulewicz, Higgs, and Slaski (2003) found
overlap between their EIQ questionnaire and the EQ-i questionnaire to help support both
tools.
Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, and Salovey (2006) compared the use of self-
report and performance measures by others to determine differences in the application of
the MSCEIT measurement tool. Within the males of the sample, MSCEIT and self-report
did not correlate, while the MECEIT measurement predicted social competence as well
as correlated with perceived social competence. MacCann et al. (2003) stated that self-
report mechanisms and performance-based mechanisms both have benefits and
drawbacks. Bharwaney (2004) claimed that self-reports provided an inflated sense of self
as well as a lack of self-awareness and that a 360-degree assessment mitigates these
drawbacks.
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
Leban and Zulauf (2004) claimed transactional leadership, transformational
leadership, and laissez-faire leadership covered the full range of leadership styles and
27
their research showed transformational as usually the most effective of the three types.
Researchers are exploring the connection between transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence. Brown and Moshavi (2005) stated that one possibility for the
relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership is that
emotional intelligence might become a preliminary condition for the promotion of
transformational leadership. Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership focus
on relationships, flexibility, and empathy towards others. For management leaders who
select the technical leaders from the non-management ranks, transformational leadership,
and emotional intelligence may empower and motivate non-management leaders to make
a commitment to team goals and pass this commitment to other members of the team.
Overview
Burns (1979) wrote a seminal work on transformational leadership that addressed
the motivations and needs of followers. Burns contrasted transformational leadership
with transactional leadership, which dealt with followers on a more command and control
basis including rewards and sanctions than transformation leadership. Bass (1990)
covered transformational leadership as a key leadership approach. According to Bass,
The transformational leader asks followers to transcend their own self-interests
for the good of the group, organization, or society; to consider their longer-term
needs to develop themselves, rather than their needs of the moment; and to
become more aware of what is really important (p. 53).
Burns considered leaders as either transformational or transactional and Bass extended
Burns model of transformational leadership by claiming that transformational leadership
complemented transactional leadership.

28
Affirming the Relationship
Factors driving the interest in transformational leadership include flatter
organizations, distributed decision-making (i.e. empowerment), diversity, speed, and
capability brought by the information age (Sparrow & Knight, 2006). Newman (2005)
stated, Traditionally, leadership has been linked to vision, problem solving, intelligence,
technical knowledge, and skill. Now, however, there is a great deal of interest in the role
that emotional intelligence plays in leadership (p. 17). The study attempts to carry the
interest in the role of emotional intelligence from management-oriented leadership to
non-management-oriented leadership. The elements identified by Newman are common
to both types of leadership.
Brown and Moshavi (2005) stated, A personal capability that might have the
potential to significantly inform leadership capacity may arise from the emerging
understanding of emotional intelligence (EI) (p. 868). Sivanathan and Fekken (2002)
performed a research study using the Bar-On EQ-i and the multifactor leadership
questionnaire of Bass and Avolio. Sivanathan and Fekken found that transformational
leadership related positively to a leaders reports of emotional intelligence. Sivanathan
and Fekken claimed the greater the emotional intelligence of the leaders the greater the
display of transformational leadership. Hughes et al. (2005) claimed, Emotional
intelligence is well established as a critical aspect of successful leadership (p. 17). The
study continues the investigation into successful leadership by evaluating the role that
emotional intelligence may have in the successful non-management leader.
Leadership is a relationship between leader and follower with power being one
element to that relationship. Sharing power is a key component of building relationships

29
and transforming people (Newman, 2005). Leban and Zulauf (2004) found that emotional
intelligence was a significant factor in helping to motivate others, an important element
of transformational leadership for project managers. For non-management leaders to
succeed, the transformational leadership element of the management leaders may be a
critical factor.
Management leaders and non-management leaders in software development
include both genders. Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found a significant correlation
between transformational leadership and emotional intelligence with no difference in
gender. The study suggested that females in the study had higher emotional intelligence
when compared to the males in the study. Barbuto and Burbach (2006) identified strong
correlations between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership when the
measurement used self-reports instead of using ratings from the leaders members. The
authors believed that empathy is a key common ingredient between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership and that a relationship between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership did exist.
Hayashi and Ewert (2006) found a moderate positive correlation between EI and
transformational leadership in outdoor leaders and Langhorn (2004) found a correlation
between EI and profit performance in business organizations. Leadership in software
development does not include any outdoor activities, but software development does
connect to profit performance in business organizations. Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005)
found that at the executive level, EI correlated with leader effectiveness better than
personality or IQ. Non-management leaders usually do not operate at the executive level
although non-management leaders can be advisors to executives (Glen, 2003). Holt and
30
Jones (2005) advocated EI in consultants and educators and as advisors, non-management
leaders might also be a type of consultant or educator.
Nullifying the Relationship
Humphreys, Weyant, and Sprague (2003) claimed that connections between
transformational leadership and emotional intelligence have been minimal. The authors
did find a relationship between follower commitment and a followers emotional and
practical intellect. The authors claimed that flattened organizations need employee
commitment to help the performance of the organization. Their findings showed that a
leaders emotional intellect and practical intellect did not influence follower commitment.
Findings also showed high EI in followers did not mean that the leaders appeared to be
highly transformational.
At the bottom of the organizational hierarchy are non-management employees.
Within software development teams, non-management leaders may lead those non-
management followers (DeMarco & Lister, 1999). Because of the Humphreys et al
(2003) study, the comparison of the emotional intelligence of management leaders and
the emotional intelligence of non-management cannot determine the presence of
transformational leadership in the management leaders. The presence of the same levels
of emotional intelligence in both groups may offer some insight into any synchronization
of the importance or lack of importance of EI transferred from management leaders in an
organization to non-management leaders in the same organization.
Some research has identified the difficulties involved with the study of leaders
and teams regardless of management or non-management rank. Feyerherm and Rice
(2002) identified the team leader as the one with positional power and discovered a
31
negative correlation between team leader EI levels and team performance according to
team members. The authors concluded the relationship between EI and team performance
is not a simple one. There have been other disagreements concerning the connection of
emotional intelligence and leadership. Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley
(2003a) supported the connection while Antonakis (2004) argued against the connection.
Antonakis (2003) challenged the claims of Prati et al. (2003a) regarding a positive
relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership, and Prati et al. (2003b)
challenged Antonakis critique in turn.
Promoting EI
Sparrow and Knight (2006) identified several ways to apply EI within an
organization including (a) EI evaluations within performance reviews, (b) profiling star
performers, (c) the use of EI factors in the recruitment process, and (d) the use of EI in
the training process (p. 182-183). The methods identified by Sparrow and Knight might
affect the selection of non-management leaders by management leaders in the research
study. Diggins (2004) advocated emotional intelligence to help leader success and
therefore, organizational success. Diggins stated, Self-awareness is the most
fundamental element in developing emotional intelligence (p. 34). Non-management
leaders may participate in organizational success and may benefit from a higher level of
self-awareness, especially in software development where high performing teams are
critical to success (Glenn, 2003).
According to Diggins (2004), leaders need flexibility for high performing teams
and organizations. EI may help people achieve flexibility personally and in their
relationships. Hughes and Terrell (2007) claimed seven skills promoted an emotionally
32
intelligent team. These skills included the emotional awareness needed to accomplish
tasks too complicated for one person. For non-management leaders, the individualistic
tendency might be to pursue more knowledge rather than combine with others into an
emotionally intelligent team. A reaction to this type of approach came from Boyatzis
(2007) who stated, The most common mistake is to think that acquiring more knowledge
will make you better (p.29).
Non-management leaders sometimes exist within a self-managed team since a
self-managed team may imply the absence of a management leader. Druskat and Wheeler
(2003) stated that even self-managing teams require leadership although the concept may
appear paradoxical. Druskat and Wheeler equated leadership with decision responsibility,
and the authors concluded that self-managed teams needed to make decisions. To arrive
at a self-managed team, Druskat and Wheeler (2003) identified four phases for building
self-managed teams: relating, scouting, persuading, and empowering. In their study,
external leaders created an environment for the team to proceed to high-performance
through empowerment.
Ferres and Connell (2004) advocated emotional intelligence as a mechanism to
combat cynicism within the organization especially when dealing with change.
According to Ferres and Connell, EI helped transformational leaders create the
motivation in others needed for the transformation. Leach, Wall, and Jackson (2003)
included self-managed teams within the scope of empowerment and found that
empowerment was a useful strategy for increasing job knowledge. Fuimano (2004)
believed that EI gave a leader the ability to manage how the leader affected the team
members emotionally.
33
Gantt and Agazarian (2004) extended EI from an individual to an organizational
level. Gantt and Agazarian saw that workplace conditions needed help from an
organizational level of emotional intelligence. Gantt and Agazarian (2004) stated, For
managers and leaders, focusing on organizational emotional intelligence or team
emotional intelligence provides new perspectives for leadership and for assessing and
influencing their organizations (p. 165).
The management leaders and the non-management leaders for this study exist
within a mentoring group within the organization under study. To participate in the
mentoring program executives must approve both management and non-management
candidates. Approval into the program confirms the leadership potential of each
candidate. The mentoring/coaching role of the program provides an opportunity for
management leaders to identify and select non-management leaders based on other
factors than technical knowledge such as emotional intelligence.
Johnson (2005) supported a coaching role to help leaders improve emotional
intelligence. Sparrow and Knight (2006) claimed EI could be use for employee selection.
Owen (2004) promoted EI for top executives especially sales executives and the
workshops discussed by van Hauen (2004) aimed at improving leadership effectiveness
for middle management within organizations. Weymes (2003) claimed relationships
formed a more critical element of organizational success and required more emphasis
than leadership. Bar-on, Maree, and Elias (2007) explored emotional intelligence within
the area of coaching as part of the emotional intelligence educational process.
Transformational leadership includes coaching and mentoring as significant elements to
induce the transformation in the follower to improve the followers performance

34
Technical Leadership
Technical leadership, as a proper subset of leadership, involves leading a group of
people in the accomplishment of some specific technical task. According to Weinberg
(1986), many professions require the accomplishment of technical tasks including
programmers, nurses, architects, and travel agents. All these professions can benefit from
good technical leadership to accomplish their tasks, and the software engineering industry
is an example of a task-oriented group of professionals set in an environment requiring a
fast time-to-market response to the accomplishments of tasks (Whitehead, 2001).
Engineering disciplines cover a wide range of different skills and include such disciplines
as electrical engineering, software engineering, and mechanical engineering.
Overview
One factor for consideration in the management of engineering projects may be
the identification of a technical leader. A person providing technical leadership may be in
that position formally or informally. The technical leader may be part of the management
ranks of the organization or may be in a non-management position. The technical leader
may pursue the role with drive and enthusiasm or may accept the role reluctantly if at all.
Another factor for consideration has been the sole emphasis on task. Bass
observed, The technical leader emphasizes a cognitive approach . . . (Bass, 1990, p.
30). As a result, many technical leaders are naturally task-oriented and seldom
relationship-oriented. The technical leader does not typically focus on the teams needs
for interpersonal relationships. Weinberg (1986) claimed successful technical leaders are
a hybrid of two skill sets. Weinberg stated, These leaders were not the pure technicians
produced by the engineering and science schools, nor were they the conventional leaders
35
trained in the schools of management (1986, p. viii). Newman (2005) agreed that leaders
must be more than technically competent to be effective leaders.
Weinberg (1986) provided a basic though somewhat dated set of information on
becoming a technical leader. Whitehead (2001) and Glen (2003) updated information
about technical leadership within the more specific engineering task of software
engineering. A manager or a non-manager can perform the role of technical leader and
each situation has a different approach within the literature. This study compared the
emotional intelligence of management leaders and non-management leaders without the
distinction of whether the management leader or the non-management is acting in the role
of technical leader at the time of the survey.
Holt and Jones (2005) stated, In the age of information and highly specialized
work teams, EI is becoming a vital skill as people must accomplish their work by
collaborating with each other, and their ability to communicate effectively becomes as
critical, if not more critical, as technical skills and capabilities (p. 15). Newman (2005)
believed that passion and inspiration where more important to leadership than technical
knowledge. Newman (2005) claimed, Without passion, your stocks of emotional capital
will quickly run dry and you will fall back on your technical skills in an attempt to drive
your own productivity and the productivity of others (p. 84). The study investigated
quantitatively the level of emotional intelligence in both management leaders and non-
management leaders searching for evidence of these claims.
Manager as Technical Leader
A manager has the choice to determine the assignment of the technical leadership
role. The selection of manager for technical leadership occurs naturally when the
36
manager was previously in a technical position. A variation of this choice occurs when
the manager has not selected anyone to perform the technical leadership role, which is
similar to the manager taking on the role of technical leader. Within software
development teams, technical leadership is a common occurrence (Whitehead, 2001).
When the manager takes on the role of technical leadership, technical leadership
is only one of several roles required by management. Anand, Clark, and Zellmer-Bruhn
(2003) discussed the knowledge differences in a team and the impact of knowledge
differentiation to team performance. The knowledge discussed by the authors is clearly
technical knowledge and the authors considered the leadership of the knowledge-based
team to be a manager, which supported the choice that a manager is the technical leader.
In this case, the manager must go beyond the knowledge issues and deal with the
relationships of the team members where high levels of emotional intelligence may be
beneficial.
Bacon and Blyton (2003) discussed the impact of teams on employees and
discussed the implications of teamwork for managers. The authors showed team members
with higher-grade levels benefited more from teamwork than lower-grade levels. In this
discussion, the leadership of the team was within the management role. Throughout the
literature, the coupling of manager with team leadership is a common assumption
(Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). This study attempts to compare non-management
leaders with management leaders focusing on the element of emotional intelligence
within leadership rather than within management.
Manikutty (2003) stated that managers had to generate and manage emotions to
become a leader of others. The authority of non-management leaders is less powerful and
37
non-management leaders must work with others rather than command them. Manikutty
observed the rapid pace of technology combined with the rapid availability of
information via technology made the understanding of the information more difficult to
attain without the help of others lower in the organization. Manikutty (2003) claimed,
Leadership is a highly demanding activity because of the need to reconcile numerous
dimensions and evolve a holistic, integrated model for oneself (p. 55).
Non-manager as Technical Leader
The literature regarding a non-manager as a technical leader focuses mostly on the
task-oriented goal of team leadership (Weinberg, 1986; Whitehead, 2001). When
discussing technical leadership among non-management leaders, the focus expanded
sometimes to include teamwork and productivity. When discussing technical leadership,
some authors treated the technical leadership role for a non-manager as a separate
element but still included leadership elements that managers must face beyond the
challenge of technical leadership (Glen, 2003; Thamhain, 2004). This overlap shows the
common ground that the manager as technical leader has with the non-manager as
technical leader.
One aspect of a non-manager as technical leader is the connection to self-directed
teams. A self-directed team implies the absence of a formal manager but not the absence
of leadership. Researchers have studied not only successful leaders (Bass, 1990), but also
study successful teams (Druskat & Wheeler, 2004). The expansion of the scope of
leadership from a single person to a complete team acknowledges the important
combination of leader skills and follower skills within the team. Druskat and Wheeler
claimed that 79% of the Fortune 1,000 use self-directed teams. Doyle (2002) discussed
38
the selection of managers for transformational change; however, the ability to transform
is not limited to managers (Glen, 2003; Weinberg, 1986).
When the manager chooses to use a non-manager to perform the duties of a
technical leader, the selection process of the technical leader is an important factor. The
typical choice of a non-manager technical leader is usually the most technically
accomplished member of the team (Whitehead, 2001). Bass (1990) stated that leadership
skills are not restricted to the ranks of management. The selection process for non-
management technical leaders could reasonably follow the same selection process used to
select managers with the same skill set. When empowerment of self-directed teams is a
goal, then the selection process begins to mimic the same process used to select managers
(Druskat & Wheeler, 2004). Newman (2005) stated, Technical people often tend to
focus on the drawbacks (p. 74). According to Newman, a leader must encourage
technical people by elevating the technical peoples belief in their ability to solve
problems with their skills.
Team Environment
Definitions of team and teamwork are not universally established (Gibson &
Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) covered teamwork across
cultures on a both a national level as well as an organizational level. Within this
framework, their study challenged the notion of a single definition for teamwork and
showed differences in definitions via differences in the metaphors used by different
cultures. For a more formal statement on the meaning of team for the context of this
study, Hacker (2000) cited Parkers definition of team: . . . a group of people with a high
39
degree of interdependence, aiming for a goal of the completion of a task (Project team
definition section, 2).
The common element between the manager as technical leader and the non-
manager as technical leader is the team. Sparrow and Knight (2006) claimed that EI
helped different members work together especially the level of EI in the team leader.
According to Sparrow and Knight, . . . if you have an emotionally unintelligent team
leader you are likely to get an emotionally unintelligent and ineffective team (p. 221).
Research on teams and teamwork has shown that teamwork has more to do with team
interaction and leadership than it does with the title of the leader (Hughes & Terrell,
2007).
Stubbs (2005) showed a connection between team leaders and team productivity
in the military. According to Stubbs, the military is a high-performance highly task-
oriented environment. Overlaps between the military environment and the engineering
industry include (a) the search for solutions within schedule objectives and cost
objectives, (b) precision in communications, and (c) hierarchical organization with
separate team identities (Whitehead, 2001; Stubbs, 2005). Referring to leadership in
general, Hughes et al. (2005) stated, The need for emotional intelligence increases with
higher levels of responsibility, such as management or parenthood, and becomes even
more important with groups, such as work teams (p. 1).
Wywick (2003) observed that engineering learning styles converged from designs
to solutions. Wywick claimed that many other learning styles could be useful but conflict
occurred when engineers came quickly to different but right solutions. The author
recommended that engineering managers use patience and listen to other learning styles
40
that build on experience and reflection. Wywick did identify some qualities of emotional
intelligence, but did not discuss technical leaders and did not explore a connection with
emotional intelligence.
Technical Leader Relationships
According to Newman (2005), leaders act like a mirror to the team, reflecting
such elements as optimism and assertiveness. Thamhain (2004) discussed factors
influencing the performance of technical teams from the manager viewpoint and focused
on the environment of the team. Thamhain (2004) stated, Taken together, the effective
team leader is a social architect who understands the interaction of organizational and
behavioral variables and can foster a climate of active participation and minimal
dysfunctional conflict (p. 41). The existence of dysfunctional conflict occurs separately
and is independent of the degree of technical competence found in the technical leader.
DeMarco and Lister (1999) described conditions that inhibit successful teams.
These inhibitors included defensive management, bureaucracy, physical separation,
fragmentation of peoples time, quality reduction of the product, phony deadlines, and
clique control. Weinberg (1986) pointed to the humanness of leaders as an important
element while Whitehead (2001) stated, Teams are held together by a social bond (p.
122). The humanness of leaders and the social elements that exist among team members
are areas addressed by and improved by a higher level of emotional intelligence.
Software Engineering
MacCormack (2001) discussed how internet companies build software and
observed that significant software programs require a team of software developers
working together rather than a single individual working in isolation. A software team
41
typically deals with a complex task that is very schedule driven. MacCormack provided
some insights into the software business in general and the software development process
for internet software companies. To emphasize the claim that results are important,
Scholarios and Marks (2004) provided insight into the problem of a balanced life for the
software developer. Highly rational organizations looking for results drive the hours
worked per employee as the measurement of employee productivity. Other measures of
results include lines of code written and the number of tests passed by the software
program (Whitehead, 2001).
The software industry continues to improve the creation of re-usable software yet
the more typical software development project remains a high creation activity found in
the general area of research and development. Gorla and Lam (2004) looked at software
development teams from the point of view of Myers-Briggs personality tests. This
approach is a transition from hard skills to soft skills advocated by elements of emotional
intelligence.
Software Technical Leader
DeMarco and Lister (1999) described many attributes of technical leadership in
the software area. These attributes included communication and other human interactions
and relationships. DeMarco and Lister underscored the importance of human factors in
the software leadership role when they stated, The major problems of our work are not
so much technological as sociological in nature (p. 4).
Whitehead (2001) discussed the challenges of the new team leader and presented
the team leader as . . . the most experienced engineer on the team. (p. 22). Whitehead
supported the traditional view of a team leader as the best technical person. Weinberg
42
(1986) expanded the technical leader role beyond requirements capture, system analysis,
detailed design, and program testing. According to Weinberg, the technical leader role
enters into the traditional management areas of leading people, dealing with stress,
conflict resolution, and making decisions.
The study by Scholarios and Marks (2004) provided background on the software
worker to help refine the notion of a generic team to the specifics of a software technical
team. Scholarios and Marks stated, Software work is usually conducted in non-
bureaucratic working environments with loose forms of management (Alvesson, 1995;
Kunda, 1992) (p. 55). The nature of the software development involves mainly technical
tasks such as analysis and problem solving, which creates a high task-oriented set of
people and processes (Scholarios & Marks). Hacker (2000) supported the selection of top
performers for team members by showing that a high grade point average for engineering
students correlated with high productivity of the team. A top performer may outperform
the average team player, but the skills for an individuals top performance are not the
same as the skills needed for team leadership (Miller, 2003).
Conclusion
Research on engineering leadership does not typically cover emotional
intelligence (DeMarco, & Lister, 1999; MacCormack, 2001; Scholarios & Marks, 2004;
Thamhain, 2004; Whitehead, 2001). One exception to this statement comes from
Kaluzniacky (2004) who called for an increase in emotional intelligence within the
information technology organizations of todays company. Emotional intelligence has
had a sufficient history to be applicable to technical leadership. Emotional intelligence
has shown to be a contributor to individual success (Goleman, 1997).

43
Within an organization, EI is needed for self-management, relationship
management, and developing others (Sparrow & Knight, 2006). If high emotional
intelligence in non-management leaders becomes another area for research, perhaps the
research can add to the theoretical model and promote the theory of emotional
intelligence further. The determination of emotional intelligence applicability is the
mission of the selected research method.
Summary
Technical leadership, transformational leadership and emotional intelligence are
brought together to provide the context of this study. Emotional intelligence provides a
valuable complement to cognitive intelligence for the individual (Goleman, 1997, 2000;
Goleman et al., 2002). Extending this complementary relationship from engineering
managers to non-management technical leaders may show a form of transformational
leadership that promotes the expansion of emotional intelligence throughout an
organization.
Research is methodically establishing a link between emotional intelligence and
success. Studies of this link have occurred at the individual level and within several
leadership domains (Druskat, Sala, & Mount, 2006). Research has studied the link
between emotionally intelligent managers and emotionally intelligent team leaders and
team productivity (Stubbs, 2005). The expansion of research into the study of
emotionally intelligent non-management leaders in the engineering industry could
provide additional information on the skill set needed by non-management leaders and
change the focus from the technology factors to the social and emotional factors common
to all forms of team leadership.

44
The research method described In Chapter 3 will provide analysis of emotional
intelligence in non-management leaders. The chapter will introduce the design
appropriateness and review the research questions and hypotheses. Population, sampling,
and data collection will describe the subjects of the research. Information on the survey
instrument of the research including the presentation of the validity of the instrument
concludes the chapter.

45
CHAPTER 3: METHOD
The research method is a quantitative comparison study (Neuman, 2003) between
management leaders and non-management leaders. The study compared various levels of
emotional intelligence measured by the instrument. The purpose will be to determine if
the theory of emotional intelligence applies to non-management leaders and management
leaders to an equivalent degree. The quantitative study measured then compared the
measurement of EI levels of non-management leaders selected for a mentoring program
to the EI levels of management leaders selected for the same mentoring program within
one organization doing software development. To accomplish this purpose, this chapter
covers the elements of the research method including design appropriateness, research
questions, hypotheses, sample population, instrument description, and data analysis
method.
Research Method and Design Appropriateness
Based on the literature review, the research on emotional intelligence has
explored the benefits of emotional intelligence for both the individual leader and the team
when the leader has a high level of emotional intelligence. In many cases, these benefits
have centered on the manager as a leader (Burns, 1979; Doyle, 2002, Langhorn, 2004).
Since not all leaders are managers (Bass, 1990), the benefit of emotional intelligence for
non-management leaders has not kept pace with the research on managers (Weinberg,
1986; Whitehead, 2001; Glen, 2003).
When managers select potential non-management leaders for mentoring, the
importance of high emotional intelligence may or may not play a significant role. One
approach to help determine the significance of high emotional intelligence for non-
46
management leaders is to compare the emotional intelligence of management leaders
with non-management leaders. The goal of this study is to determine if the mentoring
program at a single company selected management leaders with the same or different EI
levels as non-management leaders. To achieve this goal, the study used the process of
inference to determine if the sample studied infers any result to the larger population.
A descriptive quantitative study of the emotional intelligence levels of
management leaders and non-management leaders may show if the importance of
emotional intelligence applies equally for both groups. A descriptive quantitative study
may show an unbiased measurement of the role of emotional intelligence for
management leaders and non-management leaders as it currently exists at the time of the
study. A quantitative comparison may identify any significance difference in the role of
emotional intelligence between the two groups. An experimental or quasi-experimental
study does not address the goals of this study because the research attempted to compare
the characteristics of the two groups without measuring any treatment or controlling any
variable of the study. An experiment might also bias the assessment of the current
situation by introducing the Hawthorne effect among the subjects of the study (Cooper &
Schindler, 2003).
Cooper and Schindler (2003) referred to quantitative descriptive studies to
investigate characteristics of a population, which applies to the goal of this study. A
qualitative study does not meet the goals of this study because qualitative methods do not
provide an unbiased assessment of the current situation. A qualitative method might
provide views on the importance of emotional intelligence with the qualification that the
mentoring candidates might not be educated on the background of emotional intelligence,

47
or might become biased if they consider the lack of an emotional intelligent element a
negative flaw in the selection process. Within a qualitative study, management leaders
and non-management leaders might not be open an honest regarding why candidates
where eventually selected by the process. This research study tried to determine the
actual presence or absence of emotional intelligence in the candidates rather than any
subjective attitude about the subject.
Salkind (2003) identified the t-test of independent samples as the appropriate test
to use for a single test of two groups. Salkind stated, The t-test for independent means is
a commonly used inferential test of the significance of the difference between two means
based on two independent, unrelated groups (p. 174). The quantitative method involving
a t-test on the comparison of the emotional intelligence of a sample of management
leaders and a sample of non-management leaders provided an objective measurement of
the level of emotional intelligence in the selection of candidates for the mentoring
program. The survey provided the data for the variables needed for the study. The
interval average called the mean (Salkind, 2003) was used for input into the t-test
inferential statistical test.
The Independent Variable (IV) for this study is the Job Title (JT). The study
measured this variable on a nominal scale with two categories. The study participants
job title was either manager or non-manager. Within the selected leaders of the mentoring
program, managers are management leaders and non-managers are non-management
leaders. Each Dependent Variable (DV) derived from the score of the EI test instrument
and addressed one of the five research questions.

48
The first DV is overall Emotional Intelligence (EI). The study measured this score
on a continuous scale with a range of 1 to 100. Lower scores indicate less emotional
intelligence while higher scores indicate a higher level of emotional intelligence. The
second DV is Self-Awareness (SEA). The study measured this score on a continuous
scale with a range of 1 to 100. Lower scores indicate lower competency in self-awareness
while higher scores indicate higher competency in self-awareness.
The third DV is Self-Management (SM). The study measured this score on a
continuous scale with a range of 1 to 100. Lower scores indicate lower competency in
self-management while higher scores indicate higher competency in self-management.
The fourth DV is Social Awareness (SOA). The study measured this score on a
social awareness while higher scores indicate higher competency in social awareness.
The fifth DV is Relationship Management (RM). The study measured this score on a
relationship management while higher scores indicate higher competency in relationship
management.
Research Questions
This study investigated the five research questions. First research question,
(RQ1), asked is there a difference in the level of overall emotional intelligence (EI)
between management leaders and non-management leaders? Second research question,
(RQ2), asked is there a difference in the level of self-awareness competency (SEA)
between management leaders and non-management leaders? Third, (RQ3), is there a
difference in the level of self-management competency (SM) between management

49
leaders and non-management leaders? Fourth (RQ4), is there a difference in the level of
social awareness competency (SOA) between management leaders and non-management
leaders? Fifth, (RQ5) is there a difference in the level of relationship management
competency (RM) between management leaders and non-management leaders?
Hypotheses
The hypotheses for these research questions contain a null hypothesis (H0) and an
alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each research question. The null hypothesis for research
question RQ1, H0: The average overall emotional intelligence (EI) score is the same for
management leaders and non-management leaders. The alternate hypothesis for research
question RQ1, Ha: The average overall emotional intelligence (EI) score is not the same
for management leaders and non-management leaders. For research question RQ2, the
null hypothesis H0: The average self-awareness competency (SEA) score is the same for
management leaders and non-management leaders. For research question RQ2, the
alternate hypothesis Ha: The average self-awareness competency (SEA) score is not the
same for management leaders and non-management leaders. The null hypotheses for
research question RQ3, H0: The average self-management competency (SM) score is the
same for management leaders and non-management leaders. The alternate hypothesis for
research question RQ3, Ha: The average self-management competency (SM) score is not
the same for management leaders and non-management leaders.
Research question RQ4 null hypothesis, H0: The average social awareness
competency (SOA) score is the same for management leaders and non-management
leaders. Research question RQ4 alternate hypothesis, Ha: The average social awareness
competency (SOA) score is not the same for management leaders and non-management
50
leaders. For research question RQ5, the null hypothesis, H0: The average relationship
management competency (RM) score is the same for management leaders and non-
management leaders. For research question RQ5, the alternate hypothesis, Ha: The
average relationship management competency (RM) score is not the same for
management leaders and non-management leaders.
Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale
There population under study consisted of a collection of mentors and mentees
selected by the company for their leadership abilities and leadership potential. This group
contained both management and non-management leaders who are involved with
software development. The approximate size of the combined mentor and mentee group
is one thousand people. The estimate of the software development related subgroup is
one-half of the total group, or approximately 500 people. Of the software related
subgroup within the mentoring group, 80% are probably non-management and 20% are
management. Approximately 400 are non-management leaders in the software
development area and approximately 100 are management leaders.
Informed Consent
Appendix A provides the permission from TalentSmart, Inc. to use their survey to
measure the level of emotional intelligence. Appendix B provides the list of 28 questions
used to measure the level of emotional intelligence. Appendix C provides the permission
to use the premises for the survey. Appendix D provides the email letter used to inform
the participants of the purpose of the study and the role the participant played in the
study. Appendix E repeats the information needed for informed consent. The participant
51
grants acknowledges informed consent and provides the informed consent by clicking on
the Accept button found at the bottom of the first web page.
Sampling Frame
The sample collected emotional intelligence measurements from 50 non-
management software-related leaders and 50 management software-related leaders. There
was an invitation email sent to the entire group (see Appendix D). The invitation email
contains the purpose of the survey and the information needed for informed consent. The
email contains the URL address for the web site used to participate in the survey.
When the candidate points a web browser to the supplied URL, a web page
appeared that contained a summary of the email invitation and a reiteration of the
informed consent. A representation of this web page appears in Appendix E. The
candidate must click on the Accept button to provide informed consent and continue
with the participation. After the candidate clicked the Accept button, the next web page
appeared (see Appendix F) and provided six demographic questions that are optional.
The user must select either Yes or No for the management question. If the answer to the
management question is yes and less than 50 management leaders responded, then the
web site provided the URL for the emotional intelligence survey along with the required
password (see Appendix G). If the answer to the management question is no and less than
50 non-management leaders responded, then the web site will provide the same URL and
password. When a group attains 50 people and another candidate from the same group
wants to participate, the response to the request indicated that the survey was closed with
respect to that group in order to induce a proper balance of management leaders and non-
management leaders.
52
Confidentiality
The study guaranteed the confidentiality of the participants by using an
anonymous mechanism to connect the participant with the results. As explained in the
invitation email letter (see Appendix D) and in the first web page where the participant
grants consent (see Appendix E), the participant received a password on a first-come
first-serve basis. The researcher did not know the identity of the participant supplying the
answers to the survey that receives a password. The participant supplied the password
when taking the survey and that password provides the key to the results. The research
connected the results with the demographics using solely the password assigned
anonymously.
Data Collection
The power calculations were performed using the PASS 2005 software (PASS
2005 Release: April 2, 2005, NCSS Statistical Software, Kaysville, Utah). Hypotheses 1
through 5 were tested using two-sample t-tests. The dependent variables have a range of
1 to 100. With a normal distribution, 99.7% of the data lie within six standard deviations
of the mean with three standard deviations in the positive direction and three standard
deviations in the negative direction. The estimate for the standard deviation is the range
divided by 6. An estimate of the standard deviation is 99/6 = 16.5. According to Cohen
(1988), a small effect size for a two-sample t-test is d=0.2 while a medium effect size is
d=0.5 and a large effect size is d=0.8.
A sample size of 100 (50 managers and 50 non-management leaders) achieves
80% power to detect a medium effect size of 0.57 with estimated group standard
deviations 16.5 and 16.5 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided
53
two-sample t-test. If the population average EI score for managers were to be 59.3 and
the population average EI score for non-management leaders were to be 50.0, this would
correspond to an effect size of 0.57 and the study has an 80% chance of detecting this
difference at a level of significance of 0.05. A sample size of 100 (50 management
leaders and 50 non-management leaders) is justifiable for detecting a medium effect size
for each of the five hypotheses.
A population of approximately 400 non-management leaders and 100 managers
should be available for the study. Invitations went to all 1000 people in the mentor
program but only candidates in software development could participate. Once 50 non-
management leaders had completed the survey, the survey closed to non-management
leaders. The survey remained open for thee weeks to allow 50 management leaders and
50 non-management leaders to complete the survey. Since less than 50 management
leaders or 50 non-management leaders completed the survey after one week, the group
received reminder letters in an effort to increase the participation rate.
Instrument
The TalentSmart Emotional Intelligence AppraisalTM Me EditionTM instrument
provided the best instrument to meet the demands of this research study. The company
that is the site for this study had two basic requirements for submitting the mentor
program participants to a study. The first requirement was that the instrument must be
available online. The ability for the participants to answer the survey questions online via
a web browser was crucial to the convenience demanded by the company. The
participants of the study had to complete the survey quickly in order to minimize the time
spent on submitting to the research study. Beyond the companys basic requirements, the
54
instrument had to have the validity necessary to meet the qualifications of academic
research. With only 28 questions, an online accessible user interface, and strong validity,
the instrument chosen was the only instrument identified to meet the companys demands
as well as the demands of academic research.
Validity Internal and External
According to studies performed by Bradberry and Greaves to determine the
validity of the instrument they developed:
Two qualified survey authors, with years of subject matter expertise and applied
assessment experience, developed a pool of items for each of the 4 subscales. The
authors used an iterative process of writing draft items and reworking them to fit
what is necessary and sufficient (no more and no less than what covers the
elements of that skill). Once the set of items met the face validity criteria, they
were presented to subject matter experts. Subject matter experts directly involved
with item writing included Ph.D. and Masters trained industrial/organizational
psychology practitioners and MBA level business people with management
experience (Bradberry & Greaves, 2004, p. 5).
Cronbach alpha values for the four scales of the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal MR
Edition ranged from .85-.91 shows the reliability of the survey instrument (Bradberry &
Greaves, 2004).
Data Analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows (SPSS v16.0,
SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). The study sample used the mean, standard deviation, and range
55
for describing continuous scaled variables and the study used frequency and percent for
describing categorical scaled variables. Analyses were two-sided with a 5% alpha level.
Hypothesis 1 test used a two-sample t-test. If the t-test is statistically significant,
the null hypothesis would be rejected and the result would show a difference in the level
of emotional intelligence between management leaders and non-management leaders
exists. The average emotional intelligence score was reported separately for each group
to demonstrate which group had the largest average score.
of self-awareness competency between management leaders and non-management
leaders exists. The average self-awareness competency score was reported separately for
each group to demonstrate which group had the largest average score.
of self-management competency between management leaders and non-management
leaders exists. The average self-management competency score was be reported
separately for each group to demonstrate which group had the largest average score.
of social awareness competency between management leaders and non-management
leaders exists. The average social awareness competency score was reported separately
for each group to demonstrate which group had the largest average score.
56
of relationship management competency between management leaders and non-
management leaders exists. The average relationship management competency score was
reported separately for each group to demonstrate which group had the largest average
score.
Summary
In order to measure objectively the importance of emotional intelligence within
the software development field for management and non-management leaders, a
quantitative comparison research study occurred among management and non-
management personnel within a mentoring program at a selected software-related
company. A quantitative study provides the required objectivity (Neuman, 2003). The
research method identified can fulfill the purpose of the study due to the proper validity,
and the population is consistent with the goals of the research study (Bradberry &
Greaves, 2004). The analysis of the emotional intelligence of the management leaders
and non-management leaders may show if non-management leaders selected for a
mentoring program have a significantly different level of emotional intelligence than the
management leaders selected for the mentoring program. The results of the study may
show if emotional intelligence has the same importance for the selection of non-
management leaders as compared to management leaders.
Chapter 4 will describe the execution of the research study and will identify the
data required for analysis. The chapter contains the data collected by the survey, the
analysis of data, and the findings from analysis applied to the data. The chapter will
57
describe the execution of the study including any problems or obstacles occurring during
the study. The execution description will include information on the attainment of
sampling goals for management leaders and non-management leaders.

58
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to determine if the theory of emotional intelligence
applies to non-management leaders and management leaders to an equivalent degree.
This quantitative study measured then compared the emotional intelligence (EI) levels of
non-management leaders selected for a mentoring program to the EI levels of
management leaders selected for the same mentoring program within one organization
doing software development.
Chapter 3 provided methodology while chapter 4 expands method through data
gathering, analyzing and reporting results of the study. Chapter 4 contains three sections,
(a) presentation of the variables used for inferential analysis with related research and
statistical hypotheses, (b) investigation of assumptions as related to inferential analysis,
and (c) presentation of the results of the inferential analyses according to the hypotheses.
The chapter concludes with a summary table of results. Analysis used SPSS v16.0 to
generate the statistics.
Instrumentation, Variables, and Hypotheses of Study
The study used the TalentSmart Emotional Intelligence AppraisalTM Me
EditionTM instrument, a 28-question survey, to assess emotional intelligence. The
instrument generates scores for five indicators of EI. One indicator is Overall Emotional
Intelligence (EI) measured on a continuous scale with a range of 1 to 100. Lower scores
indicate less emotional intelligence while higher scores indicate a higher level of
emotional intelligence. Another indicator is Self-Awareness (SEA) measured on a
continuous scale with a range of 1 to 100. Lower scores indicated lower competency in
self-awareness while higher scores indicated higher competency in self-awareness. The

59
third indicator is Self-Management (SM) measured on a continuous scale with a range of
1 to 100. Lower scores indicated lower competency in self-management while higher
scores indicated more competency in self-management. Social Awareness (SOA) is
another indicator also measured on a continuous scale with a range of 1 to 100. Lower
scores indicated lower competency in social awareness while higher scores indicated
more competency in social awareness. A fifth indicator is Relationship Management
(RM) measured on a continuous scale with a range of 1 to 100. Lower scores indicated
lower competency in relationship management while higher scores indicated higher
competency in relationship management. The study used these five variable constructs as
dependent variables during inferential analysis.
The independent variable was leader group divided into two categories, (a)
Management leaders, and (b) Non-management leaders. The research questions and their
associated statistical hypotheses are as follows:
Research Question 1: Is there a difference in the level of overall emotional
intelligence (EI) between management leaders and non-management leaders? Null
Hypothesis 1: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean EI scores
between the two independent leader groups of management leaders versus non-
management leaders. Alternative Hypothesis 1: A statistically significant difference does
exist in mean EI scores between the two independent leader groups of management
leaders versus non-management leaders.
Research Question 2: Is there a difference in the level of self-awareness
competency (SEA) between management leaders and non-management leaders? Null
Hypothesis 2: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean SEA scores
60
exist in mean SEA scores between the two independent leader groups of management
Research Question 3: Is there a difference in the level of self-management
competency (SM) between management leaders and non-management leaders? Null
Hypothesis 3: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean SM scores
exist in mean SM scores between the two independent leader groups of management
Research Question 4: Is there a difference in the level of social awareness
competency (SOA) between management leaders and non-management leaders? Null
Hypothesis 4: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean SOA scores
exist in mean SOA scores between the two independent leader groups of management
Research Question 5: Is there a difference in the level of relationship management
competency (RM) between management leaders and non-management leaders? Null
Hypothesis 5: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean RM scores

61
exist in mean RM scores between the two independent leader groups of management
Population and Data Collection Process
The population under study consisted of a collection of mentors and mentees
selected by the company for their leadership abilities and leadership potential. This group
contained both management and non-management leaders who were involved with
software development. The approximate size of the combined mentor and mentee group
was thousand people. An invitation email (see Appendix D) was sent to the entire group.
The invitation email contained the purpose of the survey, the information needed for
informed consent, and a URL address for the web site used to participate in the survey.
When a candidate pointed their web browser to the supplied URL, a web page
appeared that contained a summary of the email invitation and a reiteration of the
informed consent. A representation of this web page appears in Appendix E. The
candidate was required to click on the Accept button to provide informed consent and
continue with the participation. After clicking the Accept button, the next web page
appeared (see Appendix F) and provided six demographic questions for which responses
were optional. The study did not use the demographic information.
A question related to the respondents position in the company (manager versus
non-manager) was asked and the respondent was required to answers either Yes or No for
the management question. If the answer to the management question was yes and less
than 50 management leaders responded, then the web site provided the URL for the
emotional intelligence survey along with the required password (see Appendix G). If the
answer to the management question was no and less than 50 non-management leaders
62
responded, then the web site provided the same URL and password. When a group
attained 50 people and another candidate from the same group wanted to participate, the
response to the request indicated that the survey was closed with respect to that group in
order to induce a proper balance of management leaders and non-management leaders. A
total of 39 management leaders and 43 non-management leaders were acquired for study
(N = 82).
Findings
Descriptive Measures for Study Variables
Table 1 presents the measures of central tendency for each of the five dependent
variable constructs used in this study for the sample overall (N = 82) and according to
each of the independent variable groups of management leaders (n = 39) and non-
management leaders (n = 43).
Table 1
Descriptive Measures of Central Tendency for Dependent Study Variables Overall (N =
82) and According to Independent Variable Groups of Management Leaders (n = 39)
and Non-Management Leaders (n = 43)
Variable M SD Median Sample Range
Overall Emotional
Intelligence (EI)
Overall 74.60 8.56 74.50 54 97
Management leaders 76.74 7.22 79.00 62 90
Non-management leaders 72.65 9.27 73.00 54 97
Self Awareness (SEA)

63
Overall 74.37 10.43 75.00 48 99
Self Management (SM)
Overall 77.56 9.00 77.00 53 98
Social Awareness (SOA)
Overall 72.05 10.76 70.00 45 95
Relationship Management
(RM)
Overall 74.35 9.83 75.00 53 100
Note: Possible score ranges for all constructs are 1 100.
M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Median = Median.
With the exception of the scores on the SOA construct, score ranges for the
overall sample and according to independent group ranged above 50. This indicated that
competency levels were high on the majority of the dependent variable constructs. Mean
values for management leaders were higher than non-management leaders for all five
64
dependent measures. Except for the measure of SM, the standard deviations for the non-
management leaders were higher than the management leaders, indicating a wider spread
of scores for the non-management leader group. The sample ranges confirm this finding.
Assumptions for Inferential Analysis
No records were missing data on the sample retained for study (N = 82). The
dataset was investigated for the independent samples t-test assumptions of absence of
outliers, normality, and equal variances between groups (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Outliers in a dataset have the potential to distort results of an analysis. A check of the
box-plots indicated outliers for the dependent variable constructs of SEA (2 outliers,
2.4%), SM (1 outlier, 1.2%), and SOA (1 outlier, 1.2%). The outliers were not extreme
(not exceeding +/- 3.3 standard deviations). The median and mean values on overall
descriptive (N = 82) for the dependent variables with outliers were close in value (see
Table 1), indicating that the outliers were not adversely affecting the data. Therefore,
since the visual outliers were within the acceptable scores ranges and standardization did
not indicate extreme value, the records were retained for analysis. The outlier assumption
was not violated due to the low percentage and degree of outliers as determined by box-
plot analysis.
Normality for the five dependent variables used during inferential analysis was
investigated with SPSS EXPLORE. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality
(Pallant, 2005) indicated normal distributions (p-value > .05) for all constructs except for
SOA (p = .042) Visual inspection of the histogram and normal Q-Q plot of the SOA
construct indicated normality. Therefore, the assumption of normality was not violated.
Equality of variances between group means for each of the five dependent variable
65
constructs was investigated using Levenes Test of Equal Variances (Pallant, 2005) and
indicated that no violation occurred. Variances were homogenous and therefore, the
assumption of equal variances between the independent variable groups was met.
Inferential Analysis
Inferential analyses involving mean comparisons were performed using
independent samples t-tests (Pallant, 2005). Five tests were performed, all with the
independent grouping variable of management leader versus non-management leader.
The five dependent variables compared between the independent groups included (a)
Overall Emotional Intelligence (EI), (b) Self-Awareness (SEA), (c) Self-Management
(SM), (d) Social Awareness (SOA), and (e) Relationship Management (RM).
Inferential Analysis as Relates to Hypothesis 1
Null Hypothesis 1: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean EI
scores between the two independent leader groups of management leaders versus non-
exist in mean EI scores between the two independent leader groups of management
An independent samples t-test was performed to investigate mean differences
between the groups of management leaders versus non-management leaders as relates to
the dependent variable of EI. Management leaders had statistically significantly higher
mean EI scores (M = 76.74, SD = 7.22) than did non-management leaders (M = 72.65, SD
= 9.27), t(80) = 2.22, p = .03. Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 1 because sufficient
evidence exists to indicate the two leader groups differ on their mean EI scores.
66
Figure 1. Mean Overall EI Scores
Null Hypothesis 2: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean
SEA scores between the two independent leader groups of management leaders versus
non-management leaders. Alternative Hypothesis 2: A statistically significant difference
does exist in mean SEA scores between the two independent leader groups of
management leaders versus non-management leaders.
the dependent variable of SEA. Statistical significance was not indicated, therefore, the
null hypothesis was not rejected. Results indicated the evidence is not sufficient to
indicate the two leader groups differ on their mean SEA scores.
67
Figure 2. Mean SEA Scores
Null Hypothesis 3: A statistically significant difference does not exist in mean SM
scores between the two independent leader groups of management leaders versus non-
exist in mean SM scores between the two independent leader groups of management
the dependent variable of SM. Management leaders had statistically significantly higher
mean SM scores (M = 79.79, SD = 8.81) than did non-management leaders (M = 75.53,
SD = 8.78), t(80) = 2.19, p = .03. Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 3 because sufficient
evidence exists to indicate the two leader groups differ on their mean SM scores.
68
Figure 3. Mean SM Scores
SOA scores between the two independent leader groups of management leaders versus
does exist in mean SOA scores between the two independent leader groups of
the dependent variable of SOA. Management leaders had statistically significantly higher
mean SOA scores (M = 75.05, SD = 8.73) than did non-management leaders (M = 69.33,
evidence exists to indicate the two leader groups differ on their mean SOA scores.
69
Figure 4. Mean SOA Scores
RM scores between the two independent leader groups of management leaders versus
does exist in mean RM scores between the two independent leader groups of
the dependent variable of RM. Management leaders had statistically significantly higher
mean RM scores (M = 77.10, SD = 7.75) than did non-management leaders (M = 71.86,
evidence exists to indicate the two leader groups differ on their mean RM scores.
70
Figure 5. Mean RM Scores
Table 2 presents summary findings for the results of the five independent samples
t-tests vis--vis the individual research hypotheses.
Table 2
Summary of Inferential Analysis Findings vis--vis the Research Hypothesis (N = 82)
Variables in the Hypothesis t-statistic p-value Supported?
H1: Difference in mean scores of overall 2.22 .03 Supported
emotional intelligence (EI) between the
independent groups of management leaders
versus non-management leaders
H2: Difference in mean scores of self 0.585 .56 Not supported
awareness (SEA) between the independent
groups of management leaders versus non-
management leaders
71
H3: Difference in mean scores of self 2.19 .03 Supported
management (SM) between the independent
management leaders
H4: Difference in mean scores of social 2.48 .02 Supported
awareness (SOA) between the independent
management leaders
H5: Difference in mean scores of relationship 2.49 .02 Supported
management (RM) between the independent
management leaders
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine if the theory of emotional intelligence
applies to non-management leaders and management leaders to an equivalent degree.
Chapter 4 began with presentation of the variables used for analysis as well as the
measure of central tendency for the dependent variables constructs as related to the study
sample. Following the report of descriptive measures, there was information presented
and discussed pertaining to required assumptions for the inferential analyses.
Following the descriptive and assumption sections, the study performed
independent samples t-tests on the five dependent variable constructs. The study found
statistically significant results for the dependent variables of EI, SM, SOA, and RM. The
72
manager leaders had significantly higher mean scores on the four tests that returned
significance. With the exception of Hypothesis 2 as related to the construct of SEA, all
research hypotheses were supported.

73
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research problem for this study focused on the importance of emotional
intelligence with respect to non-management leaders. Goleman (1996) claimed a leaders
emotional intelligence (EI) is as important to the achievement of success as the leaders
cognitive intelligence quotient (IQ). Non-management leadership in the software
development industry does not address the need for EI in technical leadership (Glen,
2003; Whitehead, 2001; Weinberg, 1986). If the benefits of EI are accurate, the lack of EI
as a criterion for selecting non-management leaders may be reducing the success of
software development.
The study examined the level of emotional intelligence in software management
leaders and software non-management leaders designated for a mentoring program within
a selected engineering company. The study then compared the levels of EI of
management leaders with the EI levels of non-management leaders within the mentoring
program for those individuals involved with software development. The quantitative
study measured the EI levels of management leaders and the EI levels of non-
management leaders. A t-test statistical analysis of comparison between the mean of the
two groups provided the data for analysis.
company who are involved with software development. This study was limited to
subjects who agreed to participate voluntarily. This study was limited to the number of
subjects surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct the survey. The validity of
this study depended on the validity of the instruments used.

74
The study focused on the emotional intelligence measurement of non-
management leaders and the emotional intelligence of the management leaders in the
selected organization. The study does not distinguish participants based on age, seniority
within the company, or geographic location. The mentoring program studied included
participants from many different nations throughout the world. The study did solicit this
information as part of the demographics and this data could provide additional the basis
for subsequent analysis.
single selected company, generalizing the results to other companies involved with
software development requires more studies at other companies. The results of this study
could provide some support for generalizations that might include other engineering
disciplines besides software development. The results could begin to support some
generalizations regarding the comparison between non-management leaders and
management leaders within other companies across other disciplines.
The Conclusions section provides the interpretation of the data results reflecting
on each result presented in Chapter 4. The Implications section presents the broader
social significance and implications of the data analysis to organizational leadership
within engineering companies and beyond. The Recommendations section presents
recommendations for action by management leaders of software development, and
recommendations for future theory and research.
Conclusions
This section presents and interprets conclusions drawn from the literature review,
the methodology, and the analysis of data. The five dependent variables compared
75
between the independent groups included (a) Overall Emotional Intelligence (EI), (b)
Self-Awareness (SEA), (c) Self-Management (SM), (d) Social Awareness (SOA), and (e)
Relationship Management (RM). Four of these dependent variables, EI, SM, SOA, and
RM showed results that rejected the Null hypothesis. SM was the only dependent variable
that did not have results that could reject the Null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 Conclusion
The results for the first research questions showed sufficient evidence to indicate
the two leader groups differ on their mean EI scores. This is an important result because
the selection of non-management leaders in the mentoring program did not select leaders
with the same level of emotional intelligence as management leaders. The result may be
consistent with the research that shows that managers are the focus for training and
education on emotional intelligence. This result suggests that application of the existing
theory of emotional intelligence is missing non-management leaders in the software
development industry. An alternative explanation of the result might be that management
leaders were more interested in learning their emotional intelligence scores than non-
management leaders. Perhaps non-management leaders who possess higher levels of
emotional intelligence do not perceive the useful of such scores in their leadership
positions.
Results indicated that the evidence is not sufficient to indicate the two leader
groups differ on their mean Self-Awareness (SEA) scores. This result may be important
to understanding the role of self-awareness in the leadership element of the application of
emotional intelligence. The theory of emotional intelligence indicates that factors related
76
to oneself such as self-awareness support other social factors of emotional intelligence
(Goleman, 1996). Self-awareness appears in this study to be independent of leadership
and found in all those successful enough to enter the mentoring program.
This result suggests that the existing theory of emotional intelligence might focus
on overall emotional intelligence and the social factors of emotional intelligence when
applying the theory to leadership situations. Although, self-awareness may be necessary
to improve ones emotional intelligence, it may not be relevant to leadership applications.
A reasonable explanation for the lack of any statistically significant difference between
management leaders and non-management leaders might be that all leadership candidates
for the mentoring program require self-awareness to achieve entry into the program.
Sufficient evidence exists to indicate the two leader groups differ on their mean
Self-Management (SM) scores. Although non-management leaders sampled in the survey
were able to reach the same level of self-awareness as management leaders, the same
participants did not reach an equivalent level in the management of oneself. This result is
important because although Self-Management is an attribute of emotional intelligence
based on oneself, SM still applies to leadership capabilities. The Self-Management
attribute of emotional intelligence applies to leadership since Self-Management deals
with organizational ability albeit within oneself (Goleman, 1996). For followers to
perceive a sense of self-management within leaders may be important. This result is
consistent with the results that self-management is found in successful management
leaders. Application of emotional intelligence to non-management leaders is perhaps not
a focus in the software development industry.

77
Social Awareness (SOA) scores. SOA relates directly to team leadership and the level of
SOA should be equal for both management leaders and non-management leaders. Since a
significant difference in this study exists, the result might indicate that the difference
shows a lack of this attribute in non-management leaders. Such a result is important
because the theory of emotional intelligence might be missing in the selection of non-
management leaders. This possible omission could have a negative effect on team
productivity according to current research (Druskat, Sala, & Mount, 2006; Dulewicz,
Young, & Dulewicz, 2005a; Stubbs, 2005).
Relationship Management (RM) scores. RM also relates directly to team leadership and
the level of RM should be equal for both management leaders and non-management
leaders. The result is important because Relationship Management is consistent with all
of the other factors of emotional intelligence that could possibly benefit leadership skills
for non-management leaders. The results reflect that non-management leaders have not
kept pace with management on the development of these skills within the sampled
population. The results might also show that management has not placed a sufficient
priority on emotional intelligence skills on the selection of non-management leaders.
Discussion of Assumptions and Limitations
company who are involved with software development. Since the study does not
78
distinguish participants based on age, seniority within the company, or geographic
location, the may be other factors involved in the difference of emotional intelligence.
For example, the management leaders may simply be more mature than non-management
leaders from the random sampling. The mentoring program studied includes participants
from many different nations throughout the world. Since the survey was administered n
English, the random sample might be biased to those whose English is sufficient for
answering the survey questions.
single selected company, possibilities to generalize the results to other companies
involved with software development would require future studies. The results could
provide the beginning support for generalizations that might include other engineering
disciplines besides software development. In both cases, limitations may exist on how the
selection on management leaders is performed within other companies and other
industries.
Implications
Organizational leadership within any organization that relies on team productivity
should go beyond management leadership (Bass, 1990). Working teams, especially self-
managed teams, may have non-management leaders who also require leadership skills.
One of the implications of the study to leadership within a software engineering
organization relates to the skill set used to identify non-management leaders. Managers
who select non-management leaders based solely on technical expertise may find that
teams suffer from lack of effective leadership among the team members if the non-
management leaders do not have a sufficient level of emotional intelligence.

79
The global implications of this study to leadership concern the growth of the
number of organizations performing software development. The number of countries
involved with software development is expanding as older industrialized nations
outsource software development nations such as China, India, and Russia. If emotional
intelligence is as important to leadership as claimed by current research (Goleman, 1996),
then emotional intelligence is not constrained by organizational hierarchy, national
borders, or management ranks. The study implies that more training and education might
teach software development organizations around the globe about the benefits of
emotional intelligence among non-management leaders.
This research should inform management leaders of an intended change in the
organization regarding the selection of non-management leaders. For managers of
software development teams, the selection of non-management leaders perhaps should
change because of the results of this study. In any team setting, the communication
between leader and follower requires a relationship foundation that exceeds technical
expertise. The benefits of higher emotional intelligence to this relationship and to team
leadership transcend the job title of management.
The study of leadership should influence the selection of leaders across other
team-oriented organizations that want to achieve the benefits of self-managed teams. In
this company, perhaps the focus of education on emotional intelligence is on managers
because all managers are leaders. The application of higher levels of emotional
intelligence to management leaders is perhaps obvious. The converse that not all leaders
are managers is perhaps not as obvious. If so, then the application of emotional
intelligence is to non-management leaders may also not be obvious. The research

80
promoted by this study needs to continue to probe into the importance of emotional
intelligence for successful non-management leaders in addition to supporting the
promotion of emotional intelligence for successful management leaders.
Recommendations
Engineering managers are the key stakeholders of the selection process for non-
management leaders. To understand more fully the dynamics of non-management leaders
and the role that emotional intelligence has in the success of non-management leaders,
more research has to occur. Towards the promotion of further research, the first section
suggests recommendations for action by engineering managers because of this study.
Recommendations for further study conclude the chapter.
Recommendations for Engineering Managers
When engineering managers select leaders, the first consideration usually is the
technical expertise of non-management candidates. The conclusions and implications of
this study indicate that managers might consider other important factors related to
technical leadership beyond technical expertise. Factors that improve team interactions
could help improve team productivity and lead to improved performance towards
successful completion of team goals, such as the ability to produce working software on
schedule. One of the leadership factors related to team performance should be the level of
emotional intelligence of the candidates for non-management leaders.
If a manager selects a non-management leader other than the best technical
expert, then one challenge for management could be an explanation of the reason for the
selection. Potential non-management leaders need to know before the selection process
occurs that there will be other factors to the selection of technical leaders besides
81
technical expertise. The communication of the importance such non-technical factors as
emotional intelligence could begin at the hiring process of non-management personnel.
Perhaps the hiring process should consider and identify attributes related to high
emotional intelligence in the job description for non-management leadership positions.
Recommendations for Future Research
Demographics collected during this study included gender, age, and geographic
location. This study did not consider such subsets of attributes within either the
management leader group or the non-management leader group. The analysis of the
comparison of levels of emotional intelligence across other demographics could identify
other patterns of emotional intelligence levels across finer-grained subsets of the samples.
Future study of the collected demographics could produce a different result when
analyzed within a specific demographic of the respondents.
The same research study could be performed ay different companies. This study
looked at one company within the software development industry. One study within one
company is only a beginning for understanding the comparison of emotional intelligence
levels among management leaders and non-management leaders. Perhaps the selection of
non-management leaders at a different company will vary from the results discovered at
the selected company. One challenge to performing this study at another company will be
the presence of an equivalent mentoring program. For the selected company, the
existence of a mentoring program identified individuals from the non-management
personnel. There must be an equivalent mechanism to identify the population of non-
management leaders.
82
Future research could also extend the population to other engineering disciplines
besides software development. Non-management leaders within other engineering
disciplines have similar needs for the technical leadership of teams to software
development teams. The close relationship between computer hardware development and
software development suggests that the computer hardware industry might be the next
engineering industry to study. A future study might subdivide the hardware development
group into electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and test engineering.
Additional engineering industries that include technical leadership of teams by non-
management leaders may include civil engineering, industrial engineering, and systems
engineering as examples.
Future research might expand the study beyond the comparison of emotional
levels between management leaders and non-management leaders. Perhaps a future study
could correlate the emotional intelligence of the manager with the technical leaders
selected by the manager. Does a management leader with higher levels of emotional
intelligence select non-management leaders with higher levels of emotional intelligence?
The correlation of the emotional intelligence of the management leader with the
emotional intelligence of the non-management leaders who work directly for the
management leader might indicate a stronger transformational leadership style among
these types of management leaders.
Summary
The study determined the level of emotional intelligence of management leaders
and non-management leaders selected within a mentoring program for high potential
leaders of a selected engineering company. Independent samples t-tests performed on the

83
five dependent variable constructs found statistically significant results for the dependent
variables of EI, SM, SOA, and RM with management leaders having significantly higher
mean scores on the four tests. With the exception of Hypothesis 2 as related to the
construct of SEA, analysis of the results supported all research hypotheses.
The study gained knowledge concerning the relative unimportance of EI in the
selection of non-management leaders within the software industry. The study discovered
that improvements might be beneficial in the EI levels of non-management leaders. The
lower EI levels for non-management leaders discovered in the study may indicate the
need to increase EI levels, which might lead to improvements in successful development
projects, since EI accounts for 85% to 90% of the success of organizational leaders
(Cherniss & Goleman, 2001) and EI is more important than IQ in engineering careers
(Goleman, 1998). If the benefits of EI are accurate, the lack of EI as a criterion for
selecting non-management leaders may be reducing the success of software development.
The research promoted by this study needs to continue to probe into the importance of
emotional intelligence for successful non-management leaders in addition to supporting
the promotion of emotional intelligence for successful management leaders.

84
REFERENCES
Allio, R. (2002). Emotionally unbalanced [Review of the book Primal Leadership:
Realizing the power of emotional intelligence]. Strategy & Leadership, 30(4), 35-36.
Anand, V., Clark, M. A., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2003). Team knowledge structures:
Matching task to information environment. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(1), 15.
Arsenio, W. F. (2003). Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotions: A
developmental perspective on mixed EI models. Human Development, 46(2-3), 97-
103.
Antonakis, J. (2003). Why emotional intelligence does not predict leadership
effectiveness: A comment on Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley (2003).
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 355-361.
Antonakis, J. (2004). On why emotional intelligence will not predict leadership
effectiveness beyond IQ or the Big Five: An extension and rejoinder.
Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 171-182.
Bacon, N. & Blyton, P. (2003). The impact of teamwork on skills: Employee perceptions
of who gains and who loses. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(2), 13-29.
Barbuto, J. E, Jr., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of
transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 146(1), 51-64.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and Social Intelligence: Insights from the emotional
quotient inventory. In Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (Eds.). The handbook of
emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home,
school, and in the workplace. (pp. 363-388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

85
Bar-On, R., Maree, J. G., & Elias, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Educating people to be
emotionally intelligent. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence:
Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the
workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial
applications (3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bharwaney, G. (2004). Emotional intelligence and 360-degree assessment. Competency
& Emotional Intelligence, 12(1), 39-46. Retrieved Monday, November 13, 2006
from the Business Source Complete database.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2007). Developing Emotional Intelligence Competencies. In Ciarrochi,
J., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioners guide
(pp. 28-52). New York: Psychology Press.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating
emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and
performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(4), 780-795.
Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2005). The emotional intelligence quick book: Everything
you need to know to put your EQ to work. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2004). The emotional intelligence appraisal: Technical
Manual. www.talentsmart.com.
86
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal
influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871.
Brown, K. D. (2005). Relationship between emotional intelligence of leaders and
motivational behavior of employees. DM dissertation, University of Phoenix, United
States, Arizona. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations
database. (UMI No. 3183509).
Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership. New York: Perennial.
Ciarrochi, J., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.). (2007). Applying emotional intelligence: A
practitioners guide. New York: Psychology Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science (2nd Ed.). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th Ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Covey, S., R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free
Press.
DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. (1999). Peopleware: Productive projects and teams. New
York: Dorset House Publishing.
Diggins, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: The key to effective performance. Human
Resource Management International Digest, 12(1), 33-35.

87
Doyle, M. (2002). Selecting managers for transformational change. Human Resource
Management Journal, 12(1), 3-16.
Druskat, V. U., Sala, F., & Mount, G. (Eds.). (2006). Linking emotional intelligence and
performance at work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4),
435-457.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2004). How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 45(4), 65-71.
Dulewicz, C., Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2005a). The relevance of emotional
intelligence for leadership performance. Journal of General Management, 30(3), 71-
86.
Dulewicz, C., Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2005b). How important is emotional
intelligence for effective leadership? Competency & Emotional Intelligence, 12(3),
38-43. Retrieved Monday, November 13, 2006 from the Business Source Complete
database.
Dulewicz, V. Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence: Content,
construct, and criterion-related validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(5),
405-420.
Ferres, N., & Connell, J. (2004). Emotional intelligence in leaders: An antidote for
cynicism towards change. Strategic Change, 13(2), 61-71.

88
Feyerherm, A. E., & Rice, C. L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and team performance:
The good, the bad and the ugly. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 10(4), 343-362.
Fuimano, J. (2004). Raise your emotional intelligence. Nursing Management, 35(7), 10-
12.
Gantt, S. P., & Agazarian, Y. M. (2004). Systems-centered emotional intelligence:
Beyond individual systems to organizational systems. Organizational Analysis,
12(2), 147-169.
Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural
analysis of the concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 274-
306.
Glen, P. (2003). Leading Geeks: How to manage and lead people who deliver
technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. New
York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2000). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the
power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gorla, N., & Lam, Y. W. (2004). Who should work with whom? Communications of the
ACM, 47(6), 79-82.
Grewal, D., & Salovey, P. (2005). Feeling smart: The science of emotional intelligence.
American Scientist, 93(4), 330-339.

89
Hacker, M. (2000). The impact of top performers on project teams. Team Performance
Management, 6(5/6), 85. Retrieved April 5, 2005, from University of Phoenix
ProQuest.
Hayashi, A, & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor leaders emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership. The Journal of Experiential Education, 28(3), 222-242.
Holt, S., & Jones, S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and organizational performance:
Implications for performance consultants and educators. Performance Improvement,
44(10), 15-21.
Hughes, M., Patterson, L. B., & Terrell, J. B. (2005). Emotional intelligence in action:
Training and coaching activities for leaders and managers. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Hughes, M., & Terrell, J. B. (2007). The emotionally intelligent team: Understanding and
developing the behaviors of success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Humphreys, J. H., Weyant, L. E., & Sprague, R. D. (2003). Organizational commitment:
The roles of emotional and practical intellect within the leader/follower dyad.
Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 189-209.
Johnson, V. (2005). Emotional Intelligence: Are successful leaders born or made? The
Business Review, Cambridge, 3(2), 21-26.
Kaluzniacky, E. (2004). Managing psychological factors in Information Systems Work:
An orientation to emotional intelligence. Hersey, PA: Information Science.
Langhorn, S. (2004). How emotional intelligence can improve management performance.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(4/5), 220-230.

90
LaRue, B., Childs, P., & Larson, K. (2004). Leading organizations from the inside out:
Unleashing the collaborative genius of action-learning teams. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job
knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27-52.
Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and
transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(7/8), 554-564.
MacCann, C., Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2003). Psychological
assessment of emotional intelligence: A review of self-report and performance-based
testing. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 247-274.
MacCormack, A. (2001). Product-development practices that work: How Internet
companies build software. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 75-84.
Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17(3), 387-404.
Manikutty, S. (2003). From a manager to a leader: Bridging a gulf or jumping a chasm?
Vikalpa: The Journal of Decision Makers, 28(4), 53-61.
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2003). Development of emotional
intelligence: A skeptical but not dismissive perspective. Human Development,
46(2-3), 109-114.
91
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.). (2007). The Science of Emotional
Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and
Myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey, P.,
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Key readings on the
Mayer and Salovey Model (pp. 29-59). Port Chester, New York: Dude Publishing.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In
Salovey, P., Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Key
readings on the Mayer and Salovey Model (pp. 81-119). Port Chester, New York:
Dude Publishing.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional
intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. In Salovey, P., Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D.
(Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Key readings on the Mayer and Salovey Model (pp.
195-219). Port Chester, New York: Dude Publishing.
McKenna, P. J., & Maister, D. H. (2002). First among equals: How to manage a group of
professionals. New York: The Free Press.
Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic
team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121-134.
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Newman, M. (2005). Emotional capitalists: The new leaders. Melbourne, Australia:
RocheMartin Institute.
92
Owen, G. (2004). Emotional intelligence: The driving force for top-executive
performance. Human Resource Management International Digest, 12(4), 2-3.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual. New York: Open University Press.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003a).
Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 21-40.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003b). The
role of emotional intelligence in team leadership: Reply to the critique by Antonakis.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 363-369.
Richards, D., & Pryce, J. (2006). EI, wellbeing and performance. Competency &
Emotional Intelligence, 13(3), 41-46.
Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional Intelligence and its relationship to
workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26(5/6), 388-399.
Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring research (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Salovey, P., Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.). (2004). Emotional intelligence: Key
readings on the Mayer and Salovey Model. Port Chester, New York: Dude
Publishing.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. In Salovey, P., Brackett, M.
A., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Key readings on the Mayer and
Salovey Model (pp. 1-27). Port Chester, New York: Dude Publishing.
93
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional
intelligence. In Salovey, P., Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.), Emotional
intelligence: Key readings on the Mayer and Salovey Model (pp. 61-79). Port
Chester, New York: Dude Publishing.
Scholarios, D., & Marks, A. (2004). Work-life balance and the software worker. Human
Resource Management Journal, 14(2), 54-74.
Sivanathan, N., & Fekken, G. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and
transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
23(3/4), 198-204.
Smith, R. M. (2005). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence
and leader effectiveness. DBA dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, United
States, Florida. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations
database. (UMI No. 3205547).
Sparrow, T., & Knight, A. (2006). Applied EI: The importance of attitudes in developing
emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stubbs, E. C. (2005). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A
multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on group
performance. Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, United States,
Ohio. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
(Publication No. AAT 3141150).
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.

94
Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Leading technology-based project teams. Engineering
Management Journal, 16(2), 35-42.
van Hauen, P. (2004). Developing management and leadership effectiveness through the
framework of emotional intelligence. Competency & Emotional Intelligence, 11(4),
40-48. Retrieved Monday, November 13, 2006 from the Business Source Complete
database.
Weinberg, G. M. (1986). Becoming a technical leader: An organic problem-solving
approach. New York: Dorset House Publishing.
Weymes, E. (2003). Relationships not leadership sustain successful organizations.
Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 319-331.
Whitehead, R. (2001). Leading a software development team: A developers guide to
successfully leading people & project. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
Willems, H., & Smet, M. (2007). Mentoring driving diversity. Organization Development
Journal, 25(2), 107-111.
Wolff, S. B. (2006). Emotional competence inventory (ECI) technical manual. Hay
Group, McClelland Center for Research and Innovation.
Wywick, D. (2003). Understanding learning styles to be a more effective team leader and
engineering manager. Engineering Management Journal, 15(1), 27-33.

95
APPENDIX A: PERMISSION TO USE INSTRUMENT

96
APPENDIX B: INSTRUMENT SURVEY
For each question, check a box according to how often you
(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Usually, Almost Always, Always)
1. Are confident in your abilities.
2. Admit your shortcomings.
3. Understand your emotions as they happen.
4. Recognize the impact your behavior has upon others.
5. Realize when others influence your emotional state.
6. Play a part in creating the difficult circumstances you encounter.
7. Can be counted on.
8. Handle stress well.
9. Embrace change early on.
10. Tolerate frustration without getting upset.
11. Consider many options before making a decision.
12. Strive to make the most out of situations whether good or bad.
13. Resist the desire to act or speak when it will not help the situation.
14. Do things you regret when upset.
15. Brush people off when something is bothering you.
16. Are open to feedback.
17. Recognize other peoples feelings.
18. Accurately pick up on the mood in the room.
19. Hear what the other person is really saying.
20. Are withdrawn in social situations.

97
21. Directly address people in difficult situations.
22. Get along well with others.
23. Communicate clearly and effectively.
24. Show others you care what they are going through.
25. Handle conflict effectively.
26. Use sensitivity to another persons feelings to manage interactions effectively.
27. Learn about others in order to get along better with them.
28. Explain yourself to others.
2001-2007 TalentSmart, Inc. 11526 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, CA
92121 tel 858.509.0582 fax 858.509.0528 www.talentsmart.com

98
APPENDIX C: PERMISSION TO USE PREMISES

99
APPENDIX D: INTRODUCTORY LETTER

Dear Mentor/Mentee,
Hello fellow mentors and mentees. I was a mentee with this program in 2006 and I am
reaching out and hoping to have this group help me with a very important milestone for
me. I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a Doctor of Management in
Organizational Leadership. I am conducting a research study entitled Analysis of
Emotional Intelligence among Management Leaders and Non-management Leaders in
Software Development.
The purpose of the research study is to determine the level of emotional intelligence in
software development related managers and non-management leaders selected by a
mentoring program for high potential leaders in order to compare the level of EI in
managers with the EI level in non-management leaders.
Your participation will involve going to a web site to provide some demographic
information and then filling out a 28-question multiple-choice survey to measure your
personal emotional intelligence. Your participation in this study is voluntary and
anonymous to the study. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at
any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the
research study may be published but your name will not be used and your results will be
anonymous to me.
In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you. The results you provide are
anonymous to the study. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, the possible
benefit of your participation is to understand you emotional intelligence level and could
use this knowledge to improve your career and other relationships in your life.
If you participate in any facet of software development and would like to participate,
please set your web browsers URL to www.xxx.com/EISurvey. On the web site, an
accept button will indicate acceptance of your informed consent. After responding to
the demographic questions and providing your consent, you will receive a password and a
URL to take the actual emotional intelligence survey. The web site provides passwords
on a first-come first-serve basis. Passwords are the key to collect the results from the
survey. The number of participants will be limited to 100, so please respond as soon as
possible to make sure you get the benefits of the survey.
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and the time and effort you will spend on
helping me attain my doctoral degree.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Milillo
100
APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPANTS 18 YEARS AND

OLDER
Welcome Mentor/Mentee,
I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a Doctor of Management in

Organizational Leadership. I am conducting a research study entitled Analysis of
Emotional Intelligence among Management Leaders and Non-management Leaders in
Software Development.
Your participation will involve providing some demographic information and then filling
out a 28-question multiple-choice survey to measure your personal emotional
intelligence. Your participation in this study is voluntary and anonymous to the study. If
you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so
without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. I will publish the results of the research
study but your name will not be used and your results will be anonymous to me.
TalentSmart administers the survey and provides the results of the survey to you.
TalentSmart limits access to personal information about you to employees who we
believe reasonably need to come into contact with that information to provide products or
services to you or in order to do their jobs. TalentSmart has physical, electronic, and
procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to protect personal
information about you. TalentSmart uses industry-standard SSL encryption to protect
data transmissions.
TalentSmart only collects personal information when you submit it voluntarily to

purchase our products or services, take a feedback survey, sign up for our newsletter or
contact us via email with questions. We will not share your information we obtain with
business partners or other companies. TalentSmart automatically receives and records
non-personal information only on our server logs from your browser, including your IP
Address, cookie information, and the page you request. TalentSmart uses information
to fulfill your requests for products and services, improve our services, contact you, and
provide anonymous reporting.
In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you. The results you provide are
anonymous to the study. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, the possible
benefit of your participation is to understand you emotional intelligence level and could
use this knowledge to improve your career and other relationships in your life.
An accept button below will indicate acceptance of your informed consent. After
providing your consent, you will be given some demographic questions to answer. Once
these are answered, then a password and a URL to take the actual emotional intelligence
survey. Passwords are provided on a first-come first-serve basis and are used to collect
the results from the survey. The number of participants will be limited to 100, so please
respond as soon as possible to make sure you get the benefits of the survey.
101
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at 303-673-8566.
By clicking the ACCEPT button below, I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the
study, the potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my identity will
be kept confidential. Clicking the ACCEPT button indicates that I am 18 years old or
older and that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study
described.
<ACCEPT>
102
APPENDIX F: SECOND WEB PAGE
Demographics
1. Management yes[] or no [] (MANDATORY)
2. Gender - Male [] or Female [] (OPTIONAL)
3. Mentor/Mentee Mentor only [] or Mentee only [] Both Mentor and Mentee []

(OPTIONAL)
4. USA Citizen - Yes [] or No [] (OPTIONAL)
5. Geographic location - Americas [] Asia/Pacific [] Europe/Middle East [] Rest of world

[] (OPTIONAL)
6. Age Range - (18 -29 [] ) (30 39 []) (40 49 []) (50 -59 []) (60 and over [])
(OPTIONAL)
7. Years with the company - (0-5 []) (6-10 []) (11-15 []) (16-20 []) (21- 25 []) (26 30 [])
( 30 or over []) (OPTIONAL)
103
APPENDIX G: THIRD WEB PAGE
URL and Password
Thank you for your responses!
Please direct your browser to www.eiquickbook.com and click on the gray button in the
middle of the page that says Im Ready.
You password (aka ID code) is XXXXXXXX
Use the password above when prompted for ID code after clicking on the Im Ready
button.

Analysis of Emotional Intelligence Among Management Leaders and Non-Management Leaders in Software Development

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Analysis of Emotional Intelligence Among Management Leaders and Non-Management Leaders in Software Development

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ANALYSIS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AMONG MANAGEMENT

LEADERS AND NON-MANAGEMENT LEADERS IN SOFTWARE

Michael Steven Milillo

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

found a statistically significant difference in four of the five levels of emotional

attention to emotional intelligence levels of non-management leaders, the benefits of

are not effective in team leadership.

This dedication is to God whose blessings are constant, my parents whose

guidance was foundational, and to my wife whose support is unending.

proposal approval. I would like to thank and acknowledge my classroom colleagues,

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ x

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1

Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 3

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 5

Nature of the Study ............................................................................................... 6

Research Questions/Hypotheses ........................................................................... 8

Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 10

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations ................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................. 16

Emotional Intelligence ........................................................................................ 17

Model Comparisons ..................................................................................... 22

Emotional Intelligence Measurements ........................................................ 24

Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership.................................. 26

Affirming the Relationship .......................................................................... 28

Nullifying the Relationship.......................................................................... 30

Technical Leadership .......................................................................................... 34

Manager as Technical Leader ...................................................................... 35

Non-manager as Technical Leader .............................................................. 37

Team Environment ...................................................................................... 38

Technical Leader Relationships................................................................... 40

Software Engineering .................................................................................. 40

Software Technical Leader .......................................................................... 41

CHAPTER 3: METHOD .................................................................................... 45

Research Method and Design Appropriateness .................................................. 45

Research Questions ............................................................................................. 48

Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale .............. 50

Sampling Frame .................................................................................................. 51

Data Collection ................................................................................................... 52

Validity Internal and External .......................................................................... 54

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................................... 58

Instrumentation, Variables, and Hypotheses of Study ........................................ 58

Population and Data Collection Process ............................................................. 61

Descriptive Measures for Study Variables ......................................................... 62

Assumptions for Inferential Analysis ................................................................. 64

Inferential Analysis ............................................................................................. 65

Inferential Analysis as Relates to Hypothesis 1.................................................. 65

Inferential Analysis as Relates to Hypothesis 2.................................................. 66

Inferential Analysis as Relates to Hypothesis 3.................................................. 67

Inferential Analysis as Relates to Hypothesis 4.................................................. 68

Inferential Analysis as Relates to Hypothesis 5.................................................. 69

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 73

Hypothesis 1 Conclusion .................................................................................... 75

Hypothesis 2 Conclusion .................................................................................... 75

Hypothesis 3 Conclusion .................................................................................... 76

Hypothesis 4 Conclusion .................................................................................... 77

Hypothesis 5 Conclusion .................................................................................... 77

Discussion of Assumptions and Limitations....................................................... 77