leadership 2 1/2 pg paper

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) 207 –215 © Baker College 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051810372220 http://jlos.sagepub.com

Developing the Emotionally Intelligent Leader: Instructional Issues

Susan M. Kruml1 and Mark D. Yockey2

Abstract

This study generates evidence that participants who completed a specific leadership development curriculum increased their emotional intelligence (EI). This study also fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence that (a) there are no differences in the effectiveness between a face-to-face and hybrid (online and face-to-face) curriculum, or (b) between a 7-week and 16-week curriculum, and that (c) participants with initial low or average EI experience improvements in their EI, whereas those with initial high EI do not.

Keywords

emotion and leadership, emotional intelligence, employee leadership development, leadership development, management development

It is widely believed among scholars that effective leaders need to be emotionally intelligent (e.g., Bachman, 1988; Bar-On, 2004; Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 2002; Salovey & Mayer, 1993; Spencer, 1997; Stein & Book, 2006). That is to say they need to have the “ability to read the political and social environ- ments, and landscape them; to intuitively grasp what others want and need, what their strengths and weaknesses are; to remain unruffled by stress; and to be engaging” (Stein & Book, 2006, p. 14). Practitioners also see the value in emotionally intelligent leaders. Jack Welch (2004), widely respected former CEO of General Electric, summed it up well:

A leader’s intelligence has to have a strong emo- tional component. He has to have high levels of self-awareness, maturity and self-control. She must be able to withstand the heat, handle setbacks and when those lucky moments arise, enjoy success with equal parts of joy and humility. No doubt, emotional intelligence is more rare than book smarts, but my experience says it is actually more important in the making of a leader. You just can’t ignore it. (p. A14)

Studies exist that use emotional intelligence (EI) dimen- sions to discriminate high performing leaders from low performing leaders (see Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland, 1999; Pesuric & Byham, 1996; Porras & Anderson, 1981; Stein & Book, 2006). These studies are informative and useful when it comes to selecting leaders and in determining what

areas leaders may need to improve on. Early studies have found initial support that EI can be improved (e.g., Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008; Chang, 2006; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Groves, McEnrue, & Shen, 2008; Jaeger, 2003; Latif, 2004). However, important questions still remain regarding the development of EI. Optimal EI program creation requires an understanding of the effectiveness of different teaching modalities and program lengths. Yet we found no studies that compare the effectiveness of face-to-face and online programs. Likewise, we found no studies that contrast pro- grams of varying lengths. These issues are of particular importance in organizations and academic institutions as they face challenges of geographic space and time con- straints among employees and students. Finally, previous research has not explored who benefits most from EI train- ing. For instance, do individuals with an initial low EI score improve more, or less, than individuals with high EI? Knowing the answer to this question can assist in making decisions regarding the effective and efficient use of lead- ership training dollars.

This study seeks to provide additional evidence that EI can be developed. More important, this study seeks to fill a gap in the extant literature by comparing face-to-face

1Millikin University, Decatur, IL, USA 2The University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA

Corresponding Author: Susan M. Kruml, Millikin University, 1184 W. Main St, Decatur, IL 62522, USA Email: skruml@millikin.edu

208 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

and hybrid (combination of face-to-face and online) EI pro- grams of varying lengths. Furthermore, this study explores the differential effects of EI training on people of varying initial EI levels.

Emotional Intelligence Models Generally, there are three primary models of EI discussed in the literature (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Webb, 2009). They are Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso’s ability-based model (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1998), measured by the MSCEIT; Goleman’s model (Goleman, 1995), measured by the ECI; and Bar-On’s emotion quotient (EQ) model (Bar-On, 1997), measured by the EQ-i). All these models’ measurement tools have been reviewed by Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook (Geisinger, Spies, Carlson, & Plake, 2007; Plake & Impara, 2001; Spies & Plake, 2005) and are deemed to be reliable and valid. There is contro- versy among scholars as to which model is preferred and best represents EI. Each model has its strengths and weak- nesses and sorting that out is beyond the scope of this article. The goal here is to use a valid and reliable measure of emotional and social functioning that is widely used in organizations for leadership development.

The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), the instrument used to measure EI in this study, is widely used in organiza- tional settings for both selection and development by human resource personnel, trainers, and consultants. The EQ-i is recognized as a skills-based measure (Chang, 2006). Landy (1989) describes skill as “the level of proficiency attained as a function of the level of ability, or abilities, the individual possesses” (p. 677). This makes the EQ-i appropriate for use

here given that good social and emotional functioning skills are really what underlie effective leadership (Goleman, 2002; Whetten & Cameron, 2007).

The EQ-i model conceptualizes EI as having 15 compo- nents, which are summarized into a total EI score (Bar-On, 2004). The definitions are presented in Table 1. To best understand the impact of training on EI development, this study investigates not only changes in overall EI but also changes in individual components. Such a fine-grained anal- ysis likely will provide additional insights on where training efforts may have the biggest impact.

Emotional Intelligence Development Model It is generally accepted that EI development begins in the very earliest stages of childhood (Zeidner, Matthews, Roberts, & MacCann, 2003). Infants show an ability to recognize dif- ferent emotional expressions within the first few days of life (Zeidner et al., 2003). Some authors (e.g., Goleman, 1995) have proposed that there may be a critical period early in life for developing EI. Such thinking is supported conceptually by the fact that the neural circuits of the brain associated with language and emotion demonstrate greater plasticity during childhood than later life stages (Balbernie, 2001).

The potential for teaching EI to children and youth has certainly found acceptance in American K-12 schools. Ratnesar and Mitchell (1997) reported in Time that more than 700 school districts adopted social emotional learning programs within 2 years of the introduction of Goleman’s book on EI. Most of these programs contain steps to help students identify and label emotions in themselves and others, discuss and validate those emotions, analyze different

Table 1. The Emotional Quotient Inventory Subscales and What They Assess

Emotional Quotient Inventory Subscales The emotional intelligence skill assessed by each scale

Emotional Self-awareness Ability to be aware of and understand your feelings, behaviors, and the impact they have on others Assertiveness Ability to express and defend your feelings, beliefs, and thoughts in a constructive way Independence Ability to be self-directed and free of emotional dependency on others Self-Regard Ability to respect and accept your strengths and weaknesses Self-Actualization Ability to set personal goals and realize your potential Empathy Ability to understand what others might be thinking and feeling Social Responsibility Ability to be a cooperative, contributing member of your social group Interpersonal Relationship Ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships with others Problem Solving Ability to solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature Reality Testing Ability to view things the way they are rather than the way you want or fear them to be Flexibility Ability to adapt and adjust your thinking, behaving, and feelings to new information Stress Tolerance Ability to effectively withstand adverse events and constructively cope Impulse Control Ability to resist or delay an impulse, drive, or temptation to act Happiness Ability to feel satisfied with yourself, others, and life in general Optimism Ability to be positive and look at the brighter side of life

SOURCE: Stein and Book (2006).

Kruml and Yockey 209

response possibilities, and apply learned concepts through practice such as role playing (e.g., Elias & Weissberg, 2000; Elksnin & Elksnin, 2003).

Both theoretical and empirical research on adult EI train- ing has proposed using similar pedagogical methods as those used with children. Such techniques are different from traditional approaches to teaching business (Cherniss, Goleman, Emmerling, Cowan, & Adler, 1998; Goleman, 1998; Groves et al., 2008; Myers & Tucker, 2005; Tucker, Sojka, Barone, & McCarthy, 2000). Boyatzis and Saatcioglu (2008) argue that to change the social and EI of MBA stu- dents, we must go beyond typical lecture and discussion methods to include a more holistic approach (i.e., develop- ing knowledge, competencies, and values).

Cherniss et al. (1998) suggest a four-phase model for EI development (see, Tucker et al., 2000). Phase 1 is a prepara- tion phase that includes, among other things, self-assessment, feedback, and encouraging participation. Phase 2 is the training phase and includes setting clear goals, providing additional feedback, maximizing self-directed change, and enhancing insight. Phase 3, the transfer and maintenance phase, encourages use of the skills on the job. Phase 4 calls for evaluation of progress.

Although most empirical studies on EI development fail to provide training details, those that did used methods that were generally in line with Cherniss’s model. For example, Groves et al. (2008) report using self-assessments, self- development plans, coaching, onsite exercises, interviews, critiques, readings on EI, interim progress reports from a coach, one-on-one review with the instructor, observation of film clips, and journaling. Jaeger (2003) used the Bar-On EQ-i coupled with a 1-hour feedback session on the results as a form of self-assessment. Additional training came through readings about EI and case studies incorporating EI. Latif (2004) used numerous student assessments, a self-awareness journal, class debates, and student group–generated training modules designed to teach EI-related concepts. Similar ideas are suggested by other researchers (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Liptak, 2005; Morris, Urbanski, & Fuller, 2005; Myers & Tucker, 2005; Ornstein & Nelson, 2006).

In keeping with such approaches, the current study draws heavily on Whetten and Cameron’s Developing Management Skills (2007), which focuses on EI devel- opment based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). This method combines both cognition and behavioral work (Porras & Anderson, 1981), goes beyond conceptual knowl- edge to include heavy emphasis on practice and application, and is common in executive education programs (Whetten & Cameron, 2007). This is important because it is our inten- tion that the method used here be easily transferable to training and development in organizations. The model has five components. First, participants need to be aware of

their current skill levels so assessments are in order. Second, the model is based on the presentation of sound behavioral principles and guidelines for effective skill performance, similar to traditional teaching methods. Third, using cases, films, or incidents, there needs to be analysis of princi- ples in real organizational settings. Fourth, there should be practice through role plays and exercises. And, fifth, there should be application of the material outside the classroom.

Hypotheses The research suggests that EI can be developed using an experiential curriculum founded in social learning theory (e.g., Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008; Chang, 2006; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Groves et al., 2008; Jaeger, 2003). Using this approach, this study seeks to add additional support to initial findings. Previous research using the EQ-i measures the effects of training programs on total EI scores. It remains unclear, however, if these gains are realized across all 15 components. Given the comprehensive nature of the pro- gram used here, we expect to see an increase in the 15 subscale scores.

Hypothesis 1a: Participants’ overall EQ-i scores will increase after completing the EI Leadership De- velopment course.

Hypothesis 1b: Participants’ scores on the 15 EQ-i components will increase after completing the EI Leadership Development course.

Organizations face a wide variety of conditions affecting their ability to deliver EI training in an ongoing, face-to-face format. For example, geographic dispersion and time con- straints may require the use of more online interventions. The effectiveness of online teaching versus face-to-face teaching has been debated at length with some researchers finding that face-to-face teaching is more effective (Ferguson & Tryjankowski, 2009) and other researchers finding no significant difference (Cook et al., 2008). Overall summa- ries of the debate are also available (e.g., Russell, 1999; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006). It might be argued that, given the experiential nature required of an EI curriculum and the limited ability of computer-aided instruc- tion to offer practice for emotional competence, face-to-face interaction is necessary to develop EI skills (Goleman, 1998). Although some elements of EI training such as role plays and team exercises may be most effective in a face-to- face environment, it can be reasoned that the most critical training elements, that is, self-assessment and reflection (Goleman, 1995; Stein & Book, 2006), may be compatible with an online approach. With this in mind, the hybrid deliv- ery method used here sought to use an online component

210 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

to facilitate self-assessments and reflections. Given these arguments and the current state of research regarding online learning, we expect the following:

Hypothesis 2: Changes in EQ-i scores will not be de- pendent on delivery method.

Given the embedded nature of EI, it may require signifi- cant training time to affect change. Previous research has used training times ranging from 8 to 16 weeks but no research could be found contrasting the effects of length of training. It is unclear if longer programs provide any addi- tional benefits. One could argue that more intense, frequent exposure to a topic may have a greater influence on the learner; however, one could also argue that a slower, more deliberate and reflective application of a topic may have a greater influence. The current study will investigate the dif- ferences in EI development between a 7-week and a 16-week intervention. Given that the curriculum will be identical, no difference is expected.

Hypothesis 3: Changes in EQ-i scores are not depen- dent on length of program as defined by 7 or 16 weeks.

Although previous research has shown an ability to improve individual EI (e.g., Groves et al., 2008; Jaeger, 2003), it remains unclear if such effects apply equally across all subjects regardless of their initial EI scores. Although it is possible that all subjects might benefit equally from train- ing, it can be argued that individuals with lower initial EI scores stand to gain the most, much like a poor golfer taking golf lessons might shave more strokes off his score than an already accomplished golfer.

Hypothesis 4: The lower a participant’s initial EQ-i score, the greater the increase in the participant’s posttraining EQ-i score.

Method Participants

The participants in this study were 78 MBA students enrolled in four courses called Leadership Development. The length of each course and the delivery method were determined before each student self-selected into a course. The average age of the participants was 28.6 years (ranging from 21 to 50 years), and 46 (59%) were women. The majority of the students were working full-time or part-time, and the few who were not had previous work experience. Participant groups were delineated by length of intervention and by whether or not the intervention was face-to-face or hybrid

(online culminating with a 5 day face-to-face component). Group 1 (25 subjects) was a face-to-face, 16-week interven- tion. Group 2 (21 subjects) was a 16-week intervention. The first 15 weeks used an online format with the course culmi- nating in a 5-day, face-to-face class. We will refer to this format as a hybrid format because it combines both online and face-to-face components. Group 3 (18 subjects) was face-to-face for 7 weeks. And, finally, Group 4 (14 sub- jects) was 7 weeks long and used the same hybrid structure used in Group 2. All groups received the same curriculum from the same instructors. Participants’ pre- and post-EQ-i scores will be compared for the entire group. Group differ- ences will be examined between the hybrid group and the face-to-face group (Groups 1 and 3 compared to Groups 2 and 4) and between 7-week intervention and 16-week inter- vention (Groups 1 and 2 compared with Groups 3 and 4). To test Hypothesis 4, subjects were classified as low, average, or high according to their initial EI score.

EQ-i Instrument The EQ-i measures an individual’s EI skills (Bar-On, 2004). It is a self-report, online-based measure containing 133 items, and it takes approximately 20 to 40 minutes to complete. Respondents use a 5-point response set scale rating them- selves from 1 (very seldom true of me) to 5 (very often true of me). Sample items include “It’s hard for me to share my deep feelings with others,” “I’m good at understanding the way other people feel,” and “It doesn’t bother me to take advantage of people, especially if they deserve it.” Sixteen (total EQ and 15 subscales) computer-generated scores are converted to standard scores with a mean of 100 and stan- dard deviation of 15, similar to IQ scores. Scores are adjusted according to embedded negative impression and positive impression scales that were designed to detect “test sabotaging” (Bar-On, 2004). The EQ-i uses these scales to calculate score adjustments designed to minimize socially desirable response bias. Subscale reliability scores using Cronbach’s alpha range from .69 to .86, with an overall average internal consistency coefficient of .76.

Intervention Procedure Participants in all groups were administered the EQ-i the first week of class by the two authors, both of whom are certified EQ-i administrators. The authors emailed per- sonal results to each participant and asked that they review their results prior to individual feedback sessions. During the first three weeks of class, feedback sessions lasting approximately 1 hour were held between one instructor and student. During these sessions, instructors interpreted participants’ results. Participants identified skills they wanted to develop and strategies to do so were discussed.

Kruml and Yockey 211

This course differed from those in most previous studies in that it was not focused on teaching the topic of EI, rather it sought to teach students skills underpinning their per- sonal EI. After taking the EQ-i and receiving their personal feedback, subjects received an introductory 1 hour lecture on the concept of EI. The remainder of the course focused on developing leadership skills related to EI such as self- awareness, managing personal stress, creative problem solving, supportive communication, power and influence, motivation, managing conflict, empowerment and delega- tion, building effective teams, and leading positive change. In other words, the course did not focus on the topic of EI specifically but rather on the development of EI skills. Par- ticipants in all groups were asked to complete skill-specific self-assessments and then to read the accompanying mate- rial. After this, they completed a writing assignment in which they recorded their self-assessment scores, reflected on their scores and why they think they scored the way they did (e.g., experiences in their lives that may have contrib- uted), provided a recent example of the relevant concepts, and attempted to link them to some aspect of their EI. It has been found that such writing assignments promote cogni- tive processing of emotional matters and help promote EI development (Wing, Schutte, & Byrne, 2006). Assignments were returned to the students with feedback, often in the form of probing questions.

Face time in all groups consisted of mini-lectures, dis- cussing self-assessments, cases, exercises, role plays, and film clips.1 This was done twice a week for Group 1 (75 minutes each time), 5 straight days (8 hours each day) for Groups 2 and 4, and once a week (5 hours each time) for Group 3. This resulted in each group having similar face time (35-40 hours) though the timing was considerably

different. Groups 1 and 3 received face-to-face lectures throughout the intervention, whereas the face time for the hybrid groups (i.e., Groups 2 and 4) came exclusively at the end of the intervention. Each participant also wrote a research paper on some aspect of leadership and gave a pre- sentation on it. Additionally, participants watched a movie on their own and developed an analysis of the movie based on questions provided by the instructors. Questions were based on the topics covered in the course.

Analysis To assess the overall impact of the course on EI, paired t tests were used to compare individual post- and pre-EQ-i scores on total EQ and the 15 individual subscales. Results show that, as a whole, students showed a significant increase in total EQ, t(77) = 5.06, p = .001, thus supporting Hypoth- esis 1a (see Table 2). In addition, 13 of the 15 subscale areas also showed significant increases (see Table 2) providing substantial support for Hypothesis1b. The only areas not showing significant increases were the impulse control and problem-solving subscales.

Tests between the different teaching methodologies were conducted using MANOVAs to determine if there were mean differences based on the length of the course or its presentation in a face-to-face or hybrid format. Results show that there were no significant differences between groups based on either the presentation format, Wilks’s L = .814, F(1, 78) = .611, p = .893, or the length of the course, Wilks’s L = .681, F(1, 78) = 1.25, p = .251. These findings support Hypotheses 2 and 3.

To better understand which students benefited most from the course, students were separated into three groups based

Table 2. Pre/Post Paired t Test (N = 78)

Postcourse Mean Precourse Mean Mean Change SD t Sig.

Total Emotional Quotient Inventory 104.41 99.69 4.718 8.230 5.06 .000 Self-Regard 103.51 100.09 3.423 7.502 4.03 .000 Emotional Self-awareness 103.45 98.64 4.808 10.100 4.20 .000 Assertiveness 101.64 97.56 4.077 9.814 3.67 .000 Independence 102.42 98.96 3.462 10.656 2.87 .003 Self-Actualization 104.29 100.14 4.154 8.356 4.39 .000 Empathy 104.46 97.71 6.756 10.272 5.81 .000 Social Responsibility 102.63 98.58 4.051 10.304 3.47 .001 Interpersonal Relationship 103.42 99.40 4.026 9.346 3.80 .000 Stress Tolerance 102.63 99.26 3.372 9.970 2.99 .002 Impulse Control 102.36 102.97 -0.615 9.450 -0.58 .284 Reality Testing 104.74 100.64 4.103 8.146 4.45 .000 Flexibility 101.06 97.74 3.321 10.159 2.89 .003 Problem Solving 101.91 100.37 1.538 10.834 1.25 .107 Optimism 105.06 101.21 3.859 8.217 4.15 .000 Happiness 108.01 104.65 3.359 6.552 4.53 .000

212 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

on their initial total EI score. Bar-On provides an interpre- tive guideline for scores indicating that scores less than 90 are considered low and scores 110 and more are considered high. Based on these guidelines students were divided into low (70-90), average (91-109), and high (110+) EI groups. There were 12 students in each of the low and high groups (mean = 83.6 and 116.6, respectively) with 54 students in the average group (mean 99.5). An ANOVA was conducted to see if the change between post- and pre-EQ-i scores were different based on these groups (see Table 3). Results show that there were differences, F(2) = 7.0, p = .002. To isolate these differences, a Tukey’s honestly significant difference test was conducted. Results indicate that, although there were no significant differences between the low and average groups, both the low and average groups were significantly different from the high EI group. More specifically, Hypoth- esis 4 was supported, as there was greater improvement in total EI score for low (M = 11.5, p = .001) and average (M = 7.03, p = .014) EI scorers than for those who originally scored high (see Table 4).

As an exploratory step, paired t tests across all EQ-i dimensions were run separately for each group (see Table 5). The low and average groups saw increases in mean scores for total EI and most of the 15 subscales with some exceptions (e.g., impulse control), whereas high scorers saw no improvements.

Discussion

Researchers and practitioners agree that EI is an important component of effective leadership. Therefore, it is an impor- tant matter of interest to establish that EI can be developed. Initial evidence provided here offers additional support that EI can be taught through an experiential curriculum grounded in sound organizational behavior theory and incorporating self-assessment, self-reflection, case analysis, and practical applications. This finding supports the current efforts of many organizations and MBA programs to improve EI skills in current and future leaders. The curriculum used in this study is transferable to a wide variety of settings including corporate training and MBA programs.

Analysis and results presented here provide trainers and coaches additional insights into which specific EI skills leaders stand to improve the most in a focused development program. Participants’ empathy increased the most at 6.9% and self-awareness increased by 4.9%, an important finding given the widely held belief that these are necessary founda- tional components of EI. The focus on self-awareness and perspective taking in the course appears to have paid off.

This study also provides guidance on the potential for- mats for EI training programs. Findings indicate that there is some flexibility in both the length of the program and its delivery format. We found no difference in EI improvements between a 7-week and a 16-week training program. Although most college terms are approximately 16 weeks, this result indicates that organizations that often have more complex time considerations can potentially adapt program length to fit organizational needs. The full extent of that flexibility remains unclear as programs shorter than 7 weeks may begin to lose their effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish the minimum time for an effective EI training pro- gram. In addition, more research is needed to see the effects of even longer programs on EI development.

An interesting finding of this study is that EI training can also be taught using different formats including the incor- poration of an online component without reducing its effectiveness. We found no differences in EI changes for stu- dents who received the majority of their instruction online as compared with those who received 100% face-to-face instruction. The implications of this finding are important for organizations, especially those whose employees cannot be together due to physically diverse locations or work schedules, increasing the need for distance training tech- niques. Further research needs to be done to investigate the effects of a completely online program as opposed to the hybrid one used here.

The question of whether or not EI is more readily improved for those with lower versus higher initial EI scores is also answered here. Results reveal that the program improved EI for those who initially had low or average EI

Table 3. ANOVA Comparison of Mean Changes for Low, Average, and High Emotional Intelligence Groups

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between groups

820.628 2 410.314 7.002 .002

Within groups

4395.167 75 58.602

Total 5215.795 77

Table 4. Tukey’s HSD Post hoc Test of Mean Changes for Low, Average, and High Emotional Intelligence Groups

Multiple Comparisons

Tukey’s HSD

(I) low_ (J) low_ Mean avg_high avg_high Difference (I - J) SE Sig.

Low Average -4.472 2.443 .167 High -11.500* 3.125 .001 Average High -7.028* 2.443 .014

NOTE: HSD = honestly significant difference.

Kruml and Yockey 213

scores but not for those who started with a high EI. This is an important finding as it indicates that EI training best ben- efits those individuals most in need of EI development. Additionally, because approximately 85% of the population is classified as having average or below EI, this means that nearly all leaders stand to benefit from an EI training pro- gram as developed for this study.

It remains unclear though why those initially high in EI did not improve. Because their scores were already high, there may be some measurement ceiling effects limiting our ability to assess improvements. It is also known that exces- sively high EI scores, particularly when coupled with a divergence in subscale scores, can be counterproductive to leadership. Thus, subjects may have felt a need to cut back in some areas to become more balanced overall. Or perhaps the existing curriculum was inappropriate for their ability level and a more “advanced” program might produce better results. Additional research is needed in this area.

Finally, before this study, the EQ-i remained rela- tively untested with regard to the question of whether or not EI can be taught (see exceptions in Chang, 2006; Jaeger, 2003). These results provide additional evidence of validity for the EQ-i.

Limitations The results of this study should be interpreted within the context of the study’s limitations. First, the EQ-i is a self- report measure and may be susceptible to socially desirable

responses. The EQ-i includes a positive impression index that adjusts scores to reduce this potential bias. Second, we acknowledge that the study did not incorporate the use of a non-EI intervention control group. The focus of this study was to compare the effectiveness of teaching modalities within an EI curriculum rather than comparing it with a non-EI curriculum. Furthermore, the focus of the course was on the development of leadership skills, which by nature are EI related making a control group impossible. Previous studies have already shown that EI-focused curriculums are significantly more effective at EI development than standard curriculums (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Groves et al., 2008; Jaeger, 2003). In addition, the small sample size of this study calls for some caution in interpreting the results. Although the effect sizes found are impressive, additional studies are needed to confirm these initial findings. And finally, we acknowledge that the subjects were all MBA students and thus are in a “learning frame of mind” and interested in improving their skills. Other subjects, less open to self- improvement, may not experience the same benefits.

Conclusion Finding effective and efficient methods for enhancing EI is important for developing leadership in organizations. This study suggests that organizations may have some flexibility in both the delivery method and the length of such training interventions. Furthermore, such programs are most benefi- cial to those who currently lack high EI abilities.

Table 5. Comparisons by Low, Average, and High Groups

Low Average High

Mean change t p

Mean change t p

Mean change t p

Total Emotional Quotient Inventory

9.58 3.77 .002 5.11 4.94 .000 -1.92 -1.01 .167

Self Regard 6.42 2.41 .017 4.0 4.56 .000 -2.17 .-944 .183 Emotional self-Awareness 9.5 2.74 .009 4.8 3.58 .001 .17 .079 .469 Assertiveness 5.67 1.68 .06 4.59 3.42 .001 .17 .084 .467 Independence 4.92 1.99 .036 4.04 2.52 .008 -.58 -.348 .367 Self-Actualization 7.17 2.53 .014 4.5 4.02 .000 -.42 . -25 .404 Empathy 16.92 10.9 .000 5.39 3.97 .000 2.75 .998 .17 Social Responsibility 14.58 4.49 .001 2.85 2.42 .01 -1.08 -.378 .356 Interpersonal Relationship 8.33 3.51 .003 4.44 3.71 .000 -2.17 -.724 .242 Stress Tolerance 7.25 2.52 .014 3.85 2.81 .003 -2.67 -2.64 .107 Impulse Control .5 .15 .44 -.074 -.06 .49 -4.17 -2.3 .021 Reality Testing 4.67 1.34 .105 5.13 5.37 .000 -1.08 -.553 .296 Flexibility 6.58 3.06 .006 3.33 2.35 .012 .00 .000 .5 Problem Solving 5.5 2.07 .037 .94 .64 .27 .25 .072 .472 Optimism 9.08 5.42 .000 3.93 3.46 .001 -1.67 -.894 .195 Happiness 6.08 4.06 .001 3.94 4.34 .000 -2.0 -1.67 .062

214 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

Note

1. Many of the face-time components were similar to those the authors use in leadership training in organizations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 18-22.

Bachman, W. (1988). Nice guys finish first. A SYMLOG analysis of U.S. Naval commands. In R. Polley, A. Hare, & P. Stone (Eds.), The SYMLOG practitioner (pp. 133-153). New York, NY: Praeger.

Balbernie, R. (2001). Circuits and circumstances: The neuro- biological consequences of early relationship experiences and how they shape later behavior. Journal of Child Psychother- apy, 27, 237-255.

Bandura, A. (1977). A social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory user’s manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2004). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory techni- cal manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effec- tive performance. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Boyatzis, R., & Saatcioglu, A. (2008). A 20-year view of trying to develop emotional, social and cognitive intelligence com- petencies in graduate management education. Journal of Man- agement Development, 27, 92-108.

Chang, K. (2006). Can we teach emotional intelligence? (Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation), University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Cherniss, C., Goleman, D., Emmerling, R., Cowan, K., & Adler, M. (1998, October). Bringing emotional intelligence to the work- place (Tech. Rep.). Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium .org/pdf/technical_report.pdf

Cook, D., Levinson, A., Garside, S., Dupras, D., Erwin, P., & Montori, V. (2008). Internet-based learning in the health pro- fessions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1181-1196.

Cooper, R., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intel- ligence in leadership and organizations. New York, NY: Advanced Intelligence Technologies.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2004) Can emotional intelligence be developed? International Journal of Human Resource Man- agement, 15, 95-111.

Elias, M., & Weissberg, R. (2000). Primary prevention: Educa- tional approaches to enhance social and emotional learning. Journal of School Health, 70, 186-190.

Elksnin, L., & Elksnin, N. (2003). Fostering social-emotional learning in the classroom. Education, 124, 63-76.

Ferguson, J., & Tryjankowski, A. (2009). Online versus face-to- face learning: Looking at modes of instruction in master’s-level courses. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33, 219-228.

Geisinger, K., Spies, R., Carlson, J., & Plake, B. (Eds.). (2007). The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Groves, K., McEnrue, M. P., & Shen, W. (2008). Developing and measuring the emotional intelligence of leaders. Journal of Management Development, 27, 225-250.

Jaeger, A. J. (2003). Job competencies and the curriculum: An inquiry into emotional intelligence in graduate professional education. Research in Higher Education, 44, 615-639.

Landy, F. (1989). Psychology of work behavior (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Latif, D. (2004). Using emotional intelligence in the planning and implementation of a management skills course. Pharmacy Education, 4, 81-89.

Liptak, J. J. (2005). Using emotional intelligence to help college students succeed in the workplace. Journal of Employment Counseling, 42, 171-177.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emo- tional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (2nd ed.) 396-420. New York, NY: Cam- bridge University Press.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Hand- book of intelligence (pp. 396-420). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McClelland, D. (1999). Identifying competencies with behavioral- event interviews. Psychological Science, 9, 331-339.

Morris, J. A., Urbanski, J., & Fuller, J. (2005). Using poetry and the visual arts to develop emotional intelligence. Journal of Management Education, 29, 888-904.

Myers, L. L., & Tucker, M. L. (2005). Increasing awareness of emotional intelligence in a business curriculum. Business Communication Quarterly, 68, 44-51.

Ornstein, S., & Nelson, T. (2006). Incorporating emotional intel- ligence competency building into the preparation and delivery of international travel courses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 41-55.

Pesuric, A., & Byham, W. (1996, July). The new look in behav- ioral modeling. Training and Development, 25-33.

Kruml and Yockey 215

Plake, B., & Impara, J. (Eds.). (2001). The fourteenth mental mea- surements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Porras, J., & Anderson, B. (1981). Improving managerial effective- ness through modeling-based training. Organizational Dynam- ics, 9, 60-77.

Ratnesar, R., & Mitchell, E. (1997, September). Teaching feelings 101. Time, 150(13), 62.

Russell, T. (1999). The no significance difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. Montgomery, AL: IDECC.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, O., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruc- tion: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623-664.

Spencer, L. (1997). Competency assessment methods: History and state of the art. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer.

Spies, R., & Plake, B. (Eds.). (2005). The sixteenth mental mea- surements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Stein, S., & Book, H. (2006). The EQ edge: Emotional intelligence and your success. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Tucker, M., Sojka, J., Barone, F., & McCarthy, A. (2000). Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of busi- ness graduates. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 331-337.

Webb, K. (2009, spring). Why emotional intelligence should mat- ter to management: A survey of the literature. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 32-41.

Welch, J. (2004, January 23). Four es (a jolly good fellow). Wall Street Journal, p. A14.

Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2007). Developing management skills (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wing, J. F., Schutte, N. S., & Byrne, B. (2006). The effect of positive writing on emotional intelligence and life satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1291-1302.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., Roberts, R., & MacCann, C. (2003). Development of emotional intelligence: Towards a multi-level investment model. Human Development, 46, 69-96.

Bios

Susan M. Kruml experience includes 12 years of management in the catalog industry, 15 years of teaching management, and 12 years of management/leadership consulting. She has used the EQ-i extensively in her teaching and consulting practice.

Mark D. Yockey has more than 15 years of management expe- rience in retail and production. He has been teaching a variety of management and human resources classes for the past 10 years.