10 page Leadership Research Paper

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2014, Vol. 21(3) 315 –323 © The Authors 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051814531826 jlo.sagepub.com

Article

Servant leadership is an approach to leadership that is deeply rooted in the leader’s primary desire to serve and do well for others, particularly followers (Greenleaf, 1970, 1977, 1996). The philosophy of the leader as servant dates back to ancient teachings of the world’s great religions. For the most part, however, this philosophy has only recently appeared in mainstream organizational and leadership research (Parris & Peachey, 2013), largely because soci- ety’s views on leadership are evolving toward a stronger emphasis on shared, relational, and global leadership, thus creating a demand for more ethical, people-centered leadership—the focus of servant leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011). With this evolving perspective and enhanced need for servant leaders who place greater empha- sis on their followers and key stakeholders, it becomes nec- essary to identify traits and skills (i.e., antecedents) that can be used in the selection, training, and development of such leaders (Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004).

To our knowledge, to date only one study has investi- gated antecedents of servant leadership, identifying only two: the personality traits of agreeable and extraversion (Hunter et al., 2013). Another potential antecedent of ser- vant leadership, however, is emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings, beliefs, and internal states and to use the information gained to guide the thinking and actions of both self and others (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence is not new to the leadership domain, having been studied and identified as an antecedent to various leadership types (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006;

Clarke, 2010; Harms & Credé, 2010; Higgs & Aitken, 2003), and we believe it is both theoretically and practically relevant to servant leadership. In theory, because servant leadership is other oriented, a leader’s sensitivity to others’ feelings, beliefs, and internal states should influence the leader’s desire to adopt a servant leadership ideology and exhibit leadership behaviors consistent with that ideology. In practice, emotional intelligence is considered to have both trait-like and skill-like qualities, making it potentially useful for selection, training, and development of leaders (Bar-On, 1996; Goleman, 1995; Schutte et al., 1998).

Thus, the purpose of our study was to investigate emo- tional intelligence as an antecedent to servant leadership to determine if emotional intelligence is a vehicle whereby servant leadership can be promoted and developed. To test this relationship, we surveyed 75 civic leaders to determine their emotional intelligence, then measured their percep- tions of their approach to servant leadership, as well as their followers’ (n = 401) actual observations of servant leader- ship. Measuring both the leaders’ and followers’ percep- tions of servant leadership allowed us to determine whether

531826 JLOXXX10.1177/1548051814531826Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesBarbuto et al. research-article2014

1California State University–Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA 2Consultant, Orem, UT, USA

Corresponding Author: John E. Barbuto Jr., PhD, Center for Leadership, Department of Management, Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University–Fullerton, 5393 SGMH–800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92831, USA. Email: [email protected]

An Examination of Emotional Intelligence as an Antecedent of Servant Leadership

John E. Barbuto Jr.1, Ryan K. Gottfredson1, and Travis P. Searle2

Abstract Servant leadership is an approach to leadership that involves a leader’s deeply rooted desire to serve subordinates. As the need for more people-centered leadership evolves, organizations increasingly want leaders who are driven to serve the people they lead, and they are seeking ways to identify predictors of servant leadership to ensure that those they place in management positions possess the attributes of a servant leader. Until now, very little research has been conducted in this area. Thus, we investigated emotional intelligence as an antecedent of the different dimensions of servant leadership. Our findings, based on assessments of 75 civic leaders and 401 of their followers, suggest that emotional intelligence is a good predictor of a leader’s servant-leader ideology (or approach toward leadership) but may not be a good predictor of servant-leader behaviors as rated by the leaders’ followers.

Keywords emotional intelligence, servant leadership, leadership style, emotion and leadership, leadership behavior

316 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(3)

emotional intelligence predicts a leader’s servant leadership ideology as well as actual servant-leader behaviors.

Theory and Hypotheses

We define servant leadership as an altruistic-based form of leadership in which leaders emphasize the needs and devel- opment of others, primarily their followers. Previous efforts to clarify and operationalize the construct of servant leader- ship have identified five unique dimensions of servant lead- ership (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002, 2006). Altruistic calling is the leader’s deep-rooted desire to make a positive differ- ence in others’ lives. Emotional healing is the leader’s com- mitment to and skill in fostering spiritual recovery from hardship or trauma. Wisdom is the leader’s awareness of surroundings and anticipation of consequences, making him or her adept at picking up cues from the environment and understanding their implications. Persuasive mapping is the leader’s ability to use sound reasoning and mental frameworks that create shared and compelling reasons for action. Finally, organizational stewardship is the leader’s desire for the organization to make a positive contribution to society through responsible business practices and com- munity development, programs, and outreach.

As mentioned previously, emotional intelligence is the ability to monitor and control the feelings, beliefs, and internal states of oneself and others (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Carson, Carson, and Birkenmeier (2000) have developed a measure of emotional intelligence with five underlying factors: empathetic response, the abil- ity to understand the emotional makeup of other people; mood regulation, the ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods; interpersonal skill, proficiency in managing relationships and building networks; internal motivation, a passion to work for reasons that go beyond money and status, including the ability to delay gratification in pursuit of a goal; and self-awareness, the ability to recog- nize and understand one’s moods, emotions, and drives, as well as their effect on others.

Because emotional intelligence has been frequently studied and found to be an antecedent of various types of leadership, several theoretical rationales have emerged to explain these relationships. Of these, two are relevant to the relationship between emotional intelligence and ser- vant leadership. First, leaders who are able to manage their emotions are likely to display self-control and be willing to delay gratification for the benefit of their fol- lowers, putting them before their own personal needs (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000). Second, leaders who are able to understand and be sensitive to the emotions of others should be able to respond quickly and accurately to the needs of their followers and influence and motivate those followers in an individualized manner (Barling et al., 2000).

To more firmly establish the theoretical relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership, we hypothesized relationships between emotional intelli- gence and each dimension of servant leadership. In doing so, we were interested in determining whether emotional intelligence predicts two different perspectives of servant leadership—those of the leader as well as the followers. It is not uncommon for leadership researchers to use self- reporting to measure leadership from the perspective of the leader (Harms & Credé, 2010). When this perspective is taken, it becomes an assessment of the leader’s own leadership ideology. This perspective was important in the context of the relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership because we wanted to know if emo- tional intelligence affects a leader’s inclination to lead with a servant-leader ideology. We also were interested in servant leadership from the perspective of the followers because this perspective would allow us to assess whether emotional intelligence predicts a leader’s actual servant- leader behaviors. We had little reason to believe that emo- tional intelligence should affect either perspective of servant leadership differently; thus, we explain here how we established the theoretical relationship of each dimen- sion of servant leadership with emotional intelligence, and we offer our hypotheses about the relationship from the both the leader and follower perspectives.

Altruistic Calling

Servant leaders who approach leadership with an altruistic calling desire to put their followers’ interests above their own in an effort to truly make a positive difference in their followers’ lives. For servant leaders to affect their followers in this way, they must be able to identify followers’ inter- ests, desires, and ambitions, which almost by necessity requires that the leader understand the followers’ feelings, beliefs, and internal states. Because emotional intelligence encompasses the ability to understand those things, it is likely to be a predictor of altruistic calling.

This relationship becomes clearer when we consider the two dimensions of emotional intelligence that appear to be necessary for leaders to put the interests of others before their own (i.e., to exhibit an altruistic calling): internal motivation, or the ability to delay personal gratification, and mood regulation, or the ability to control personal impulses and moods. In other words, for leaders to put the interests of others before their own, they need to be able to put off their own interests, emotions, impulses, and needs.

This logic is not unique to servant leadership. In fact, in the transformational leadership literature, the dimension of idealized influence involves the notion of self-sacrifice. Previous studies have used a similar theoretical rationale to hypothesize and test relationships between emotional intel- ligence and idealized influence, finding a significant and

Barbuto et al. 317

positive relationship (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Megerian & Sosik, 1997; Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1a: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s ideology toward altruis- tic calling. Hypothesis 1b: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s actual altruistic call- ing as observed by followers.

Emotional Healing

Emotional healing reflects a leader’s commitment and skill in fostering spiritual recovery from hardship or trauma, and it requires that the leader be able to develop close personal relationships with others (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Taking such an approach with followers seems likely to be preceded by the leader’s ability to understand their feelings and internal states, the essence of emotional intelligence. In addition, to foster spiritual recovery, a leader must demon- strate both empathetic response, or the ability to understand followers’ emotional makeup, and self-awareness, or the ability to recognize and understand followers’ moods, emo- tions, and drives. Both qualities are dimensions of emo- tional intelligence.

This theoretical rationale is not unlike that which explains the relationship between emotional intelligence and individualized consideration, another transformational leadership dimension requiring the development of close personal relationships (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). In fact, Barbuto and Burbach (2006) found a strong positive rela- tionship between the two constructs. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s ideology toward emo- tional healing. Hypothesis 2b: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s actual emotional healing as observed by followers.

Wisdom

An important component of servant leadership is the ability to be aware of the current environment and anticipate what is going to happen both within and outside this environment (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000). By definition, emotional intelligence involves awareness of others’ emotions (George, 2000; Goleman, 1995), which when leading people is a critical component of greater awareness of the current overall environment and likely future consequences within that environment. This awareness is possible due to two additional dimensions of

emotional intelligence: the leader’s empathetic response, or ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people, and interpersonal skill, or proficiency in managing relation- ships and building networks. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3a: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s ideology toward wisdom. Hypothesis 3b: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s actual wisdom behaviors as observed by followers.

Persuasive Mapping

Persuasive mapping involves a leader’s unique ability to understand and use each follower’s mental models in an effort to guide and influence them. Emotional intelligence is a likely prerequisite to persuasive mapping because, for servant leaders to understand and use their followers’ men- tal models, they first must understand the foundational components of those mental models—namely, the follow- ers’ feelings, beliefs, and internal states. Stated differently, a leader who engages in persuasive mapping seeks to influ- ence each follower in a unique manner that is most influen- tial for that particular follower. Practically speaking, this means that servant leaders should use different influence tactics based on their understanding of each follower’s mental models. For example, an emotionally intelligent leader would likely rely on emotional appeals rather than rational ones to influence an emotionally charged follower since this would be better suited for these individuals. Because of the individual nature of persuasive mapping, this dimension of servant leadership also seems similar to individualized consideration, which, as we mentioned pre- viously, is significantly related to emotional intelligence (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). Therefore, we also hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4a: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s ideology toward persua- sive mapping. Hypothesis 4b: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s actual persuasive mapping behaviors as observed by followers.

Organizational Stewardship

Organizational stewardship involves a leader’s desire to leave a positive legacy, taking responsibility for the well- being of the community and making a positive contribution to society. Of the dimensions of emotional intelligence, several may be prerequisite for organizational stewardship, making it a likely predictor. First, a positive legacy is built

318 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(3)

through consistently high performance over time, but one negative event can ruin years of work (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). Thus, mood regulation—the discipline to control one’s disruptive impulses and moods—is necessary to leave a positive legacy. Second, taking responsibility for the well-being of the community surely requires the inter- nal motivation to put off one’s personal agenda for the greater good. Third, organizational stewardship requires self-awareness in leaders to not only recognize their own moods, emotions, and drives but also understand the effect that their personal moods, emotions, and drives have on those they lead. This rationale seems to fall in line with pre- liminary findings suggesting that emotional intelligence is positively related to prosocial behaviors (Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002) and negatively related to deviant behaviors (Deshpande, Joseph, & Shu, 2005; Jung & Yoon, 2012). In all, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5a: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s ideology toward organi- zational stewardship. Hypothesis 5b: A leader’s emotional intelligence will be positively related to the leader’s actual organizational stewardship behaviors as observed by followers.

Methods

Participants

Our sample consisted of 75 elected civic leaders who attended a leadership development conference of a state- wide professional organization in the midwestern region of the United States. This sample was ideal, given that elected civic leaders are voted into positions in which servant lead- ership is expected. The average age of the leaders was 51 years, 50% had earned a bachelor’s degree, 20% had earned an advanced degree, and 65% were women.

Our sample of followers consisted of 401 of the leaders’ direct reports solicited by the leaders themselves. Their average age was 46 years, 42% had earned a bachelor’s degree, less than 10% had earned an advanced degree, and 53% were women.

Procedures

Participants were recruited in combination with a leader- ship development opportunity for civic leaders, which fea- tured instrumentation and feedback, along with a pro-bono 2-day workshop. Leaders completed the emotional intelli- gence self-report instrument 6 weeks prior to attending the leadership development conference; at the conference, they completed the self-report Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ-leader). The 6-week spacing served to limit the effects of common method bias, because leaders were asked to provide both emotional intelligence and

servant leadership data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

Each participating leader was asked to solicit between four and six subordinates (followers) to complete the fol- lower version of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ-follower). Participants were given six rater packets containing coded instruments and return envelopes and were asked to distribute to their staffers. Raters (staffers) were given instructions and assurances that their individual responses would be confidential—that results would only be shared with leaders in the aggregate. Participants were encouraged to include all of their most immediate direct reports that would be most capable of providing candid feedback about their leadership. The followers all reported directly to the leaders who solicited them for the study. The instruments completed by the followers were coded to pro- tect anonymity and returned directly to the first author via U.S. mail. Although 80 of the eligible 92 elected officials participated in the study (an 86% response rate), due to missing data and failure to receive direct report responses for some of them, only 75 were considered valid partici- pants. We received 401 usable rater packages from a target population of 552 raters (a 70% response rate). These high response rates reflected the conscious decision of these civic leaders to participate in the study and indicated high motivation for leadership development.

Measures

Emotional Intelligence. Emotional intelligence was measured with the instrument developed by Carson et al. (2000). This instrument contains 30 self-report items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Each of the five subscales (Empathetic Response, Mood Regulation, Interpersonal Skills, Internal Motivation, and Self-Awareness) consisted of six items.

In this study, emotional intelligence was used as a higher order factor and labeled emotional intelligence. This mea- sure had a reliability of α = .91 (see Table 1). To ensure that we could assess emotional intelligence as a higher order factor, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the five dimensions of emotional intelligence as indicators for the higher order factor. (The 30 items were not used as indicators because the model then would have had more parameters than the sample size of 75 leaders.) This model showed adequate fit (χ2 = 13.01, df = 5, p < .02; compara- tive fit index [CFI] = .92; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .05; Kline, 2005), suggesting it was appropriate to analyze emotional intelligence as a higher order factor.

Servant Leadership. Servant leadership was measured using the Servant Leadership Questionnaire (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). The instrument has self and rater ver- sions, with 23 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The self-rated version (SLQ-leader) allows leaders to

Barbuto et al. 319

evaluate the servant-leader behaviors they exhibit toward their followers. The rater version (SLQ-follower) empha- sizes followers’ perceptions of their leader’s servant- leader behaviors. Although the measure of SLQ-follower occurs at the individual level, results were aggregated to the group level to examine average servant-leader behav- iors, or the leader’s tendency to exhibit similar servant- leader behaviors to all subordinates (Rousseau, 1985). This allowed for easier comparisons between the leader and follower versions of servant leadership. Both versions demonstrated internal consistency with acceptable coeffi- cient alphas (see Tables 1 and 3).

We used confirmatory factor analysis to ensure that ser- vant leadership could be hypothesized as a five-dimension factor. The items used to measure servant-leader behaviors

were used as indicators for each of the five dimensions. This model demonstrated good fit (χ2 = 613.06, df = 220, p < .01; CFI = .94; root mean square of approximation < .06; SRMR = .05; Kline, 2005).

To investigate the plausibility of aggregating servant leadership to the group level, we calculated the interrater agreement among direct reports on their leader’s servant- leader behaviors (r

wg(j) ; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), as

well as the group mean reliability (ICC[2]; Bliese, 2000) for each of the five dimensions of servant leadership. The results for each dimension were as follows: altruistic calling (r

wg(j) = .85; ICC[2] = .51), emotional healing (r

wg(j) = .73;

ICC[2] = .47), wisdom (r wg(j)

= .92; ICC[2] = .65), persua- sive mapping (r

wg(j) = .85, ICC[2] = .48), and organizational

stewardship (r wg(j)

= .89; ICC[2] = .50). The interrater

Table 1. Intercorrelations and reliabilities for the servant leadership dimensions from the leader’s perspective, emotional intelligence, and locus of control.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Altruistic calling 2.90 .53 (.78) 2 Emotional healing 2.47 .48 .43 (.66) 3 Wisdom 3.00 .57 .49 .44 (.85) 4 Persuasive mapping 2.27 .58 .32 .50 .52 (.83) 5 Organizational stewardship 3.00 .59 .51 .30 .41 .50 (.84) 6 Emotional intelligence 2.83 .40 .39 .37 .58 .33 .41 (.91) 7 Locus of control 2.85 .59 .27 .26 .39 .42 .44 .49 (.71)

Note. All correlations are significant at p < .05; n = 75.

Table 3. Intercorrelations and reliabilities for the servant leadership dimensions from the followers’ perspectives, emotional intelligence, and locus of control.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Altruistic calling 2.72 .71 (.85) 2 Emotional healing 2.85 .88 .76* (.91) 3 Wisdom 3.28 .75 .66* .67* (.92) 4 Persuasive mapping 2.68 .82 .75* .74* .58* (.87) 5 Organizational stewardship 3.20 .73 .77* .70* .75* .68* (.89) 6 Emotional intelligence 2.83 .40 .07 .21 .10 .28* .17 (.91) 7 Locus of control 2.85 .59 .10 .11 .07 .20 .15 .48* (.71)

Note. *All correlations are significant at p < .05; n = 75.

Table 2. Regressions for the servant leadership dimensions from the leader’s perspective.

Altruistic calling Emotional healing Wisdom Persuasive mapping

Organizational stewardship

B SE β β B SE β β B SE β β B SE β β B SE β Β

Locus of control .10 .12 .10 .08 .12 .10 .14 .11 .14 .33* .12 .34* .32* .12 .32* Emotional intelligence .45* .12 .34* .39* .12 .32* .72* .10 .51* .23 .17 .16 .37** .17 .25** R2 15.70% 14.30% 34.80% 19.40% 24.20%

Note. *p < . 01; **p < .05.

320 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(3)

Table 4. Regressions for the servant leadership dimensions from the followers’ perspectives.

Altruistic calling Emotional healing Wisdom Persuasive mapping

Organizational stewardship

B SE β β B SE β β B SE β β B SE β β B SE β β

Locus of control .10 .13 .08 .02 .13 .01 .04 .23 .03 .12 .13 .08 .10 .13 .08 Emotional intelligence .06 .13 .03 .46 .13 .21 .16 .65 .09 .48 .13 .23 .25 .13 .13 R2 1.00% 4.60% 1.10% 8.20% 3.50%

Note. *p < .05.

agreement indicated a high degree of consensus among direct reports on the servant-leader behaviors of their super- visors. The lower ICC(2) indicated low group mean reli- ability, possibly due to the relatively smaller number of direct reports per group (Bliese & Hanges, 2004; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Following the procedure used in similar research on servant leadership, the lower group mean reli- ability was acknowledged and aggregated to the group level (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008). In addition, ICC(1) was found to be significant for each dimension, indicating between-group differences in perceptions of the leaders’ servant-leadership behaviors.

Control Variable. We chose to use locus of control as a con- trol variable, because it has been shown to be positively related to emotional intelligence (Johnson & Holdsworth, 2009). This was measured during the same time period as emotional intelligence. We included it in our model to deter- mine if the relationships really were the result of emotional intelligence or whether another variable, such as locus of control, was influencing them. Locus of control was mea- sured using three items, rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale that was validated in prior work (Barbuto & Story, 2008). This measure had a reliability of α = .71 (see Table 1).

Analysis

Because all the constructs measured were analyzed at the group or leader level, we analyzed our data using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Multilevel modeling was not needed because followers were not being considered at the individual level (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Snijders & Bosker, 1999).

Results

Because we measured servant leadership from the perspec- tive of both the leaders and the followers, different sets of analyses were necessary. Therefore, our results are reported based on the source of the data.

Leader-Reported Results

As mentioned previously, we measured the leaders’ percep- tions of their servant-leader behaviors to assess the degree

to which emotional intelligence affects their ideological leaning toward servant leadership. Pearson correlation coefficients were first calculated to examine the relation- ships between leaders’ emotional intelligence and each of the five dimensions of servant leadership. Emotional intel- ligence was positively related to each of the five dimensions of servant leadership (see Table 1), providing preliminary evidence that leaders with higher levels of emotional intel- ligence are more likely to rate themselves higher in servant- leader ideology among all five dimensions.

To further assess these relationships, a series of regres- sion analyses was conducted. Results were consistent with the earlier correlation results, with one exception (see Table 2). The standardized regression coefficients indicated that emotional intelligence significantly predicted the lead- er’s servant-leader ideological leaning toward altruistic calling (β = .34, p < .01), emotional healing (β = .32, p < .01), wisdom (β = .51, p < .01), and organizational steward- ship (β = .25, p < .05). Emotional intelligence was not found to have a significant relationship with persuasive mapping (β = .23, p >.05), but our control variable, locus of control, showed a significant relationship with that dimension of servant leadership (β = .33, p < .05). Thus, hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, and 5a were supported, whereas hypothesis 4a was not. This suggests that, for the most part, leaders who rate themselves high in emotional intelligence also are more likely to rate themselves as having a servant-leader ideology.

Follower-Reported Results

To assess whether emotional intelligence was related to fol- lowers’ perceptions of their leader’s servant-leader behav- iors, we first calculated Pearson correlation coefficients between emotional intelligence and each dimension of ser- vant leadership (see Table 3). Of the five correlations between emotional intelligence and the dimensions of ser- vant leadership, only the relationship with persuasive map- ping showed a significant correlation, which was positive.

To further assess these relationships, a series of regres- sion analyses was conducted (see Table 4), which revealed that emotional intelligence was not significantly related to any of the followers’ perceptions of the leaders’ servant- leader behaviors. Thus, there is no statistical support for hypotheses 1b through 5b; however, of the relationships

Barbuto et al. 321

between emotional intelligence and the dimensions of ser- vant leadership, the relationship between emotional intelli- gence and persuasive mapping shows the most promise (β = .23, p = .06).

Discussion

Because servant leadership is becoming increasingly recog- nized as an important leadership approach (Parris & Peachey, 2013; van Dierendonck, 2011), identifying ante- cedents of such leadership is important in improving our understanding of how to select, train, and develop servant leaders. The purpose of this study was to determine whether emotional intelligence is an antecedent of servant leader- ship. We tested the relationships between emotional intel- ligence and each of the five dimensions of servant leadership (altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom, and organizational stewardship) to establish whether emotional intelligence predicts a leader’s ideologi- cal inclination toward servant leadership and his or her actual servant-leader behaviors as perceived by the leader’s followers.

From the leader’s perspective, we found that emotional intelligence shared positive and statistically significant rela- tionships with four of the five dimensions of the leader’s servant leadership ideology (altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, and organizational stewardship). These findings suggest that a leader’s ability to monitor the feel- ings, beliefs, and internal states of the self and others plays an important role in the leader’s efforts to lead with a servant-leader ideology. But, from the followers’ perspec- tives, we found no significant relationships between emo- tional intelligence and the dimensions of servant leadership. Together, our results suggest that, for the most part, emo- tional intelligence is a predictor of a leader’s efforts to lead with a servant-leader ideology but not the leader’s actual servant-leader behaviors. Although we expected to find sig- nificant relationships in both regards, our findings are not uncommon in leadership research that investigates emo- tional intelligence as an antecedent for other types of lead- ership. For example, in a recent meta-analysis investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence and several different types of leadership (e.g., transformational leader- ship, contingent rewards, and management by exception), Harms and Credé (2010) found consistent positive and sig- nificant relationships between emotional intelligence and self-rated leadership, but rather small relationships between emotional intelligence and others’ leadership ratings. This further reinforces the premise that emotional intelligence may better predict leaders’ ideology or desired leadership— more so than their actual leadership behaviors.

Even though emotional intelligence does not appear to be strongly related to actual servant-leader behaviors, our results are not inconsequential. We know from past research that servant leadership is important (Parris & Peachey,

2013), making it essential to select, train, and develop lead- ers who, at a minimum, desire to lead through a servant- leader approach. Thus, if an organization wants leaders who approach leadership from a servant-leader ideology, then emotional intelligence should be assessed and used in the selection and development of such leaders.

Unfortunately, as our results indicate, emotional intelli- gence may not translate to actual servant-leader behaviors, but that does not mean we should abandon research on emo- tional intelligence in the leadership domain. A major reason why emotional intelligence may be a significant predictor of a leader’s ideology, but not behaviors, is that factors other than a leader’s traits or skills affect the leader’s behav- iors. Such factors could include incentives and/or stressors associated with day-to-day functioning. An example of this relevant to our sample is that political leaders who want to stay in office are incentivized to engage in behaviors that enhance their public perceptions, which is likely to explain greater variance in actual leader behaviors compared to the traits or skills they possess.

Limitations and Future Directions

In attempting to explain why the relationships between emotional intelligence and self-rated leadership are so much larger than the relationships between emotional intelligence and other-rated leadership, Harms and Credé (2010) sug- gested that common method bias might be a factor. We attempted to limit common method bias by measuring emo- tional intelligence 6 weeks prior to measuring self-reported servant leadership. But we recognize that it still may be a factor, so we interpret the results between these two self- reported constructs as the effect of emotional intelligence not on actual leader behaviors, but on a leader’s approach or ideology toward servant leadership, which we believe yields a more accurate understanding of self-reported lead- ership and derives fundamentally from the perspective of the leader. Plus, with such a plethora of research in the field examining self-reported leadership behaviors and treating them as actual behaviors, we advocate for interpreting self- reported leadership as an ideology rather than as actual behaviors.

The lack of significant results between emotional intel- ligence and follower-rated servant leadership also may result from a lower than desired group-mean reliability of follower-rated servant leadership, due, we suspect, to the small number of followers surveyed per leader. Thus, we suggest that future studies further investigate the relation- ship between emotional intelligence and follower-rated ser- vant leadership by increasing the number of followers surveyed per leader.

In addition, we acknowledge that, although our sample of civic leaders is ideal for a study on servant leadership, it is a unique sample. Such officials may operate and lead dif- ferently than leaders in the private sector because they have

322 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21(3)

unique employment contracts; rely on popularity, impres- sion management, and public perception; and set terms of employment that create unique work and organizational dynamics. Thus, future research between emotional intelli- gence and servant leadership should be conducted in the private sector to replicate and generalize our findings.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to investi- gate antecedents of servant leadership, and the first to investigate emotional intelligence in that role. Research on the antecedents of servant leadership is important in foster- ing understanding of how to influence, improve, or modify leaders’ approaches to servant leadership. Our findings sug- gest that emotional intelligence is a good predictor of a leader’s servant-leader ideology, but it is not a predictor of actual servant-leader behaviors as rated by followers. Thus, we recommend that organizations use emotional intelli- gence, which is a mixture of trait and skill, for leader selec- tion and development if they are seeking to hire leaders who are inclined to lead with a servant-leader ideology.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intel- ligence of transformational leader: A field study of elected officials. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51–64.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Story, J. S. (2008). Relations between locus of control and sources of work motivation amongst govern- ment workers. Psychological Reports, 102, 335–338.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2002). Becoming a servant leader: Do you have what it takes? (NebGuide G02-1481-A). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Nebraska Cooperative Extension.

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326.

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 157–161.

Bar-On, R. (1996). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 595–618.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analy- ses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349– 381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400–417.

Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transfor- mational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 195–210.

Carson, K. D., Carson, P. P., & Birkenmeier, B. J. (2000). Measuring emotional intelligence: Development and vali- dation of an instrument. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 2, 32–44.

Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2002). Emotional intelli- gence and prosocial behaviors in adolescents. Psychological Reports, 90, 361–370.

Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership and key project manager compe- tences. Project Management Journal, 41, 5–20.

Deshpande, S. P., Joseph, J., & Shu, X. (2005). The impact of emotional intelligence on counterproductive behavior in China. Management Research News, 28, 75–85.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emo- tional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055.

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

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as a leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). On becoming a servant leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5–17.

Higgs, M., & Aitken, P. (2003). An exploration of the relation- ship between emotional intelligence and leadership potential. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 814–823.

Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316–331.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

Johnson, S. J., & Holdsworth, M. B. L. (2009). Personality and health: The mediating role of trait emotional intelligence and work locus of control. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 470–475.

Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2012). The effects of emotional intel- ligence on counterproductive work behaviors and organiza- tional citizen behaviors among food and beverage employees

Barbuto et al. 323

in a deluxe hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 369–378.

Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equa- tion modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizational contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In S. W. Kozlowski & K. J. Klein (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organiza- tions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 554–564.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional mea- sure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.

Megerian, L. E., & Sosik, J. J. (1997). An affair of the heart: Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 3, 31–48.

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational con- texts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 377–393.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.

Schutte, N. S., Malouf, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggarty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality & Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.

Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An intro- duction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emo- tional intelligence and performance. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367–390.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 1228–1261.

Author Biographies

John E. Barbuto Jr. (Jay), is Director of the Center for Leadership and Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Mihaylo College of Business and Economics at California State University, Fullerton. He earned his PhD from Rhode Island. His research features work on antecedents of leadership, servant leadership, self-concept-based work motivation, influence trig- gers and processes, global mindset, constructive development, and pedagogical innovations.

Ryan K. Gottfredson is an assistant professor of management at the Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton. His research and teaching interests focus on how leaders and managers can shape the perceptions and perfor- mance of their followers and subordinates. Specific topics include leadership behaviors (e.g., contingent rewards, servant leadership, transformational leadership), leader-member exchange, psycho- logical contracts, justice, trust, and performance.

Travis P. Searle earned his PhD from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. His research interests include positive forms of leader- ship, positive work role behaviors, multilevel modeling, learning and development in organizations.