10 page Leadership Research Paper

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1) 5 –17 © Baker College 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051809350894 http://jlos.sagepub.com

Research into the relationship between emotional intelli- gence (EI) and transformational leadership is filled with bold claims as to the relationship between these constructs. Noted experts in the field of EI argue that elements of EI such as empathy, self-confidence, and self-awareness are the core underpinnings of visionary or transformational leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). An infor- mation package distributed by Multi-Health Systems, the leading distributor of EI assessment tools, claims that “emotional intelligence is synonymous with good leader- ship.” Some have claimed that “for those in leadership posi- tions, emotional intelligence skills account for close to 90 percent of what distinguishes outstanding leaders from those judged as average” (Kemper, 1999, p. 16). Others have noted the disappointing results of intelligence and per- sonality models in the prediction of exceptional leadership and have argued that EI may represent an elusive “X” factor for predicting transformational leadership (Brown & Moshavi, 2005).

Since Goleman (1995) popularized the concept of EI, there has been no shortage of studies investigating the rela- tionship between EI and positive outcomes. Two recent meta-analyses have found positive associations for EI with school and work performance outcomes (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004) as well as mental and physical health (Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007).

Research into the relationship between EI and leadership outcomes has seen similar, if not more, levels of interest in recent years. The relationship with transformational leader- ship has received particular attention in these studies, which can be attributed to both its popularity in the leadership lit- erature and specific elements of transformational leadership theory that seem relevant to EI. Yet, there has been wide- spread skepticism of the link between EI and leadership outcomes (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005) and many studies have failed to find significant relationships between EI and transforma- tional leadership in particular (e.g., Brown, Bryant, & Reilly, 2006; Moss, Ritossa, & Ngu, 2006; Sosik & Megar- ian, 1999; Weinberger, 2004). A review of the relationship between EI and leadership outcomes described the ongoing debate between the proponents and critics of EI as one that “thrives on hyperbolic claims on one hand, and empirical evidence to the contrary on the other” (Lindebaum, 2009, p. 227). Furthermore, in a recently published debate

1University of Nebraska–Lincoln, USA 2State University of New York at Albany, USA

Corresponding Author: P. D. Harms, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1240 R Street, 114 CBA, Lincoln, NE 68588 Email: [email protected]

Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis

P. D. Harms1 and Marcus Credé2

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate claims that emotional intelligence is significantly related to transformational and other leadership behaviors. Results (based on 62 independent samples) indicated a validity estimate of .59 when ratings of both emotional intelligence and leadership behaviors were provided by the same source (self, subordinates, peers, or superiors). However, when ratings of the constructs were derived from different sources, the validity estimate was .12. Lower validity estimates were found for transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Separate analyses were performed for each measure of emotional intelligence. Trait measures of emotional intelligence tended to show higher validities than ability-based measures of emotional intelligence. Agreement across ratings sources for the same construct was low for both transformational leadership (.14) and emotional intelligence (.16).

Keywords

transformational, leadership, emotional intelligence

Articles

6 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1)

(Antonakis et al., 2009) between major figures in each camp, Ashkanasy and Dasborough argued that a meta-anal- ysis was needed to establish whether or not the claims of the EI proponents had merit. To address the issues raised in prior research and the current debate, this study will use a meta-analytic approach to establish whether or not EI is related to transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and under what circumstances.

Transformational Leadership The concept of transformational leadership, a component of Bass and Avolio’s “full range leadership theory” (Antona- kis & House, 2002; Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998), is one of the most widely researched paradigms in the leadership field and has shown substantial validity for predicting a number of outcomes including leader performance and effectiveness ratings in addition to follower satisfaction and motivation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Sashkin, 2004). Transformational leaders act as mentors to their followers by encouraging learning, achievement, and individual development. They provide meaning, act as role models, provide challenges, evoke emotions, and foster a climate of trust. The five dimensions of transformational leadership are idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavioral), individual consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Idealized influence (attributed) refers to the socialized charisma of the leader and whether or not he or she is perceived as being confident and committed to high-order ideals. Idealized influence (behavioral) refers to charismatic actions by the leader that are based on values, beliefs, or ideals. Individu- alized consideration is the extent to which a leader attends to the needs and concerns of his or her followers by provid- ing socio-emotional support. This involves mentoring fol- lowers, maintaining frequent contact, encouraging followers to self-actualize, and empowering them. Inspirational moti- vation is the degree to which leaders inspire and appeal to followers by setting challenging goals and communicating optimism with regard to goal attainment. Intellectual stimu- lation refers to the extent to which leaders engage in behav- iors that cause followers to challenge their assumptions, think creatively, take risks, and participate intellectually.

Beyond the subdimensions of transformational leader- ship, Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full range model of leader- ship also contains three transactional leadership factors: contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), and management-by-exception (passive). Contingent reward refers to the degree that leaders operate according to eco- nomic and emotional exchange principles with followers. The leader sets out clear goals and expectations and rewards followers for working toward them. Management-by- exception (active) is the extent to which a leader actively monitors followers for mistakes and tries to correct them.

Management-by-exception (passive) refers to leaders who wait for mistakes to occur before acting to correct them.

A final style of leadership is laissez-faire leadership, which refers to the absence of leadership. Laissez-faire lead- ers avoid making decisions or taking positions, hesitate to take action, abdicate their authority, and are typically absent when they are needed. Although conceptually similar to management-by-exception (passive), this form of leadership results in a lack of action even when correction is needed.

It has been noted that leaders can display each of these leadership styles at various times and to various degrees but that effective leaders are described as displaying transfor- mational leadership behaviors and transactional leadership behaviors more frequently than passive and ineffective non-leadership style behaviors (Avolio, 1999).

Although there has been a great deal of research demon- strating the effectiveness of transformational leadership behavior in organizations (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), there has been a relative lack of research investigating the antecedents of these behaviors (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005). Prior research has linked transformational leadership with a num- ber of biographical background factors such as parents taking an active interest in the development of their child, high parental moral standards, and whether or not individuals enjoyed school and their prior work experience (Avolio, 1994). In terms of psychological factors, transformational leadership has been linked with the higher levels of the traits Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Open- ness (Bono & Judge, 2004) in addition to other individual differences such as Need for Power (Antonakis & House, 2002; Sashkin, 2004), moral reasoning (Turner, Barling, Epi- tropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002), and secure attachment style (Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000). Higher lev- els of intelligence have also been found to be related to trans- formational leadership (Atwater & Yammarino, 1993). However, overall, the capacity of individual differences to predict transformational leadership has been disappointing. A meta-analysis of the relationship between transformational leadership and Big Five traits found that the corrected corre- lation between these constructs ranged from a low of .09 for Openness to a high of .23 for Extraversion (Bono & Judge, 2004). As a consequence, it has been suggested that other, unexplored factors such as EI may play a prominent role in predicting transformational leadership behaviors (Bass, 2002; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Nye, 2008).

Emotional Intelligence Although definitions of EI vary widely, it can be thought of as “the set of abilities (verbal and non-verbal) that enable a person to generate, recognize, express, understand, and eval- uate their own and others’ emotions in order to guide think- ing and action that successfully cope with environmental demands and pressures” (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004,

Harms and Credé 7

p. 72). Research has conceived of EI as either a trait (Bar- On, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Petrides & Furnham, 2000; 2001) or an ability (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). As a trait, EI is considered to be an innate characteristic that enables and promotes well-being. Trait EI has been described as a con- stellation of emotional self-perceptions at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). As an ability, EI is considered to be important for not only comprehending and regulating emotions, but also understanding and integrating them into cognitions.

Because of differences in definitions, researchers have employed a variety of assessment devices to measure EI. Typically, research into trait EI has used self-report measures such as the Bar-On (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory or the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (Palmer & Stough, 2001). Whereas trait-based measures generally depend on participants self-reporting their levels of EI, ability-based measures such as the Mayer-Salovey- Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) require participants to engage in tasks that assess EI based on performance. On these measures, partici- pants may be asked to identify the emotions conveyed by pictures, report on how they would manage or change emo- tions in response to hypothetical scenarios, relate emotions to sensory stimuli, or report on circumstances that would be expected to change emotional states (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Responses are then scored according to con- sensus or expert ratings of the different options.

While there have been considerable efforts made to create psychometrically valid measures of EI, there remains no sin- gle universally accepted measure of EI, and a number of criticisms have been made concerning the psychometric properties of the current scales available with regard to their convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. For instance, Brackett and Mayer (2003) compared a number of different EI inventories and found little convergence across EI measures. Because of this, some researchers have ques- tioned whether or not different measures of EI assess the same construct at all (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Beyond concerns about cross-measure comparability, Anton- akis (2004) has noted that in numerous studies, EI measures fail to add incrementally to the prediction of work outcomes above and beyond established measures of personality and cognitive intelligence. Moreover, concerns have been raised about the susceptibility of trait-based EI measures to faking under high-stakes conditions (Day & Carroll, 2008).

The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional Leadership Despite concerns about the various EI measurements them- selves, interest in EI remains high, in particular in the lead- ership domain. A recent meta-analysis has demonstrated

that, across criteria, EI has an operational validity of .24 with employment-related criteria (Van Rooy & Viswes- varan, 2004). Anthropologists have noted that appropriate emotional displays and recognition of the emotional dis- plays of others are essential for successful functioning and leadership in primate societies (Boehm, 1999). Moreover, there are a number of theoretical arguments to be made for the relationship between EI and effective leadership, spe- cifically transformational leadership (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005). EI competencies such as self-confidence, self- awareness, transparency, and empathy have been argued to be essential for communicating visionary messages (Gole- man et al., 2002). Sosik and Megarian (1999) suggested several aspects of EI that would facilitate transformational leadership. First, empathy may be necessary for transfor- mational leaders who display individual consideration to followers. Second, emotion management may promote pos- itive affect and confidence in followers expressing and gen- erating new ideas. Third, self-aware leaders may possess a greater than average sense of purpose and meaning. Fourth, those skilled at emotional management are also those more likely to put the needs of others ahead of their own personal needs. George (2000) argued that emotional appeals may be used by transformational leaders for inspirational motiva- tion. Others have pointed out that adherence to professional or moral standards of behavior are common aspects of both EI and transformational leadership (Brown et al., 2006).

Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence will be posi- tively related to transformational leadership.

While there are less theoretical underpinnings to guide hypotheses concerning the relationship of transactional and laissez-faire styles of leadership with EI, it has been suggested that to provide the effective and equitable exchanges characteristic of contingent reward behaviors, leaders should have abilities and traits associated with ele- vated EI (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000). Because active management-by-exception behaviors reflect reac- tive and routine leadership behaviors that require no insight or empathy, it is not expected that there would be any rela- tionship with EI (Barling et al., 2000). However, it is expected that EI would show negative relationships with passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire lead- ership behaviors, because individuals with elevated EI are thought to be higher on initiative and self-efficacy (Gole- man et al., 2002).

Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence will be positively related to contingent reward behaviors.

Hypothesis 3: Emotional intelligence will be negatively related to management-by-exception (passive) and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.

8 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1)

METHOD Literature Search Possible sources of data for this study were identified via searches of the PsychINFO (1872-2009), Dissertation Abstracts (1980-2009), Business Sources Premier, and ERIC databases as well as Internet searches for additional unpublished data sources. Keywords used for these searches included emotional intelligence, transformational leader- ship, multifactor leadership questionnaire, and charismatic leadership. The citation lists of all examined journal articles, technical reports, and dissertations were also examined for additional promising sources. This initial search yielded a total of 106 articles, dissertations, and technical reports.

Studies were only included if they reported zero-order correlations or data from which unbiased estimates of zero- order correlations could be computed. Studies that reported statistically significant correlations, but not nonsignificant correlations, were not included in our analysis; the inclu- sion of such studies would result in upwardly biased meta- analytic estimates of the strength of relationships. We attempted to contact the authors of all studies that did not present data in a manner that allowed inclusion in our anal- ysis and requested full zero-order correlations for all rele- vant variables such that their data could be included.

We also decided to include only studies that reported data from explicit measures of EI. Some authors (e.g., Hoff- man & Frost, 2006) have used measures of personality as proxies for measures of EI, but such studies were not included in our analysis.

Coding Procedures All studies were coded by the two authors using strict cod- ing procedures and coding sheets to ensure a high level of accuracy and rating agreement. Accuracy checks revealed near unanimous agreement in the coding of all relevant variables. Coded information included correlations, reli- ability estimates, sample size, the source of both EI and leadership ratings, and the inventories used to assess EI and leadership. Where relevant, we also coded intercorrelations among facet scores of EI and leadership inventories to allow us to calculate unit-weighted composites for those studies that only reported correlations at the facet level.

Our final database was comprised of correlations derived from 62 independent samples, representing data from 7,145 leaders. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Bass & Avolio, 1995) was the most frequently used measure of transformational leadership (k= 39) with only one other inventory, the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI, Kouzes & Posner, 2003), being used in more than one study (k=7). A large variety of inventories were used to assess EI with the most frequently used being the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso

Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT, Mayer et al., 2002) (k = 12), Wong and Law’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS, k = 7), the Bar-On (1997) Emotional Quo- tient Inventory (BOEQI, k = 8), the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal (k = 3), and the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT, Palmer & Stough, 2001) (k = 4).

Analytic Procedure The Hunter and Schmidt (1990, 2004) psychometric meta- analytic method was used in this study. This method allows estimation of the amount of variance attributable to sampling error and artifacts such as unreliability in both the predictor (EI) and criterion (leadership) variables, while also providing the best estimates of the population correlations in the absence of measurement error (i.e., ρ). Because not all studies reported reliability data, we used reliability estimates from those stud- ies that did report internal consistency estimates to create arti- fact distributions for both the predictor and criterion variables. That is, rather than correct individual correlations using the relevant sample reliability estimates, we corrected the dis- tribution of correlations using the distributions of reliability estimates for the criterion and predictor variables (i.e., the interactive meta-analytic procedure; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) to improve the accuracy of the results. For cases in which sub- scale composites were formed, we calculated Mosier (1943) reliability estimates when subscale intercorrelations were available and used the mean of the subscale reliabilities if the intercorrelations were not available.

By correcting robs and SDobs for measurement error and measurement error variability, we were able to examine whether the variability in observed correlations is due to systematic artifactual biases or reflects the existence of sub- stantive moderators. Moreover, correcting SDobs for the occasionally substantial differences in sample sizes across studies yields a more accurate estimate of whether or not the differences observed in the literature are merely the result of sampling error. At the same time, we note that readers should be cautious when interpreting SDρ estimates as indicators of moderator effects, especially for meta-anal- yses with a small number of studies, as is the case for some of our analyses (Oswald & Johnson, 1998).

RESULTS Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership

Meta-analytic results for the relationship between EI and transformational leadership are shown in Table 1. A visual inspection of the data showed a clear difference in the size of correlations between those studies that relied on same- source ratings for both EI and transformational leadership

Harms and Credé 9

and those that used multisource ratings (i.e., EI ratings and transformational leadership ratings came from different sources). The most typical of these studies were designs that relied on self-ratings for both EI and transformational leader- ship (same-source) and designs that relied on self-ratings of EI and subordinate- or peer-ratings of transformational lead- ership (multisource). We therefore conducted separate meta- analyses for same-source and multisource data.

The relationship between EI and transformational leadership was moderately strong for correlation; CV = credibility interval; MLQ= Multifactor Leadership Ques- tionnaire. The relatively large SDρ value for same-source ratings suggested the possible presence of substantive mod- erator effects, and we therefore also conducted separate meta-analyses to compare the effects of different measures on the estimated relationship.

Effect of Leader Rank A number of studies in our analysis used coaches, princi- ples, ministers, nurses, supervisors, and student leaders for their samples. To test whether or not the relationship between EI and transformational leadership was moderated by type of leader, we ran separate analyses for those sam- ples that specifically used managers and higher-ranking positions in the business sector and those that used other types of leaders. The results of these meta-analyses are pre- sented in Table 1. For leaders with management positions or higher, there was a strong relationship when same source

ratings were used (k = 33, N = 3,626, ρ = .52), but a weak relationship when multi-source ratings were used (k =14, N = 2,013, ρ = .08). These results were only slightly smaller than those of the full sample.

Effect of Type of Emotional Intelligence Assessed To evaluate the potential moderating effect of different types of EI, we conducted separate analyses of the relation- ship between leadership style for trait-based and ability- based measures of EI. The results of these meta-analyses are presented in Table 1. Both types of EI measures showed markedly lower validity estimates when multisource ratings were used. For trait-based measures of EI, effects for same source ratings showed a strong relationship (k = 38, N = 4,424, ρ = .66) between EI and transformational leadership, but a weak relationship for multi-source ratings (k = 20, N = 2,491, ρ = .11). Ability-based measures of EI showed lower validity estimates than trait-based measures when same- source ratings were used (k =10, N = 1,066, ρ = .24) and had no relationship with transformational leadership when multi-source ratings were used (k = 4, N = 441, ρ = .05).

Effect of Publication Type It is often assumed that meta-analyses overestimate validity relationships because they tend to be derived from pub- lished sources with significant effects. Similar studies that failed to find those effects tend to remain unpublished and,

Table 1. Relationships Between Overall Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership

Source of EI and TL Ratings k N r– ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV

All samples 62 7,145 0.36 0.41 0.26 0.08 0.74 All samples same 47 4,994 0.48 0.56 0.23 0.26 0.85 All samples different 22 2,661 0.11 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.17 MLQ only same 33 3,999 0.47 0.54 0.21 0.27 0.81 MLQ only different 14 1,549 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.21 Managers and higher only same 33 3,626 0.45 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.81 Managers and higher only different 14 2,013 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.10 Ability-based EI Measure same 10 1,066 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 Ability-based EI Measure different 4 441 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 Trait-based EI Measure same 38 4,424 0.58 0.66 0.19 0.42 0.91 Trait-based EI Measure different 20 2,491 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.19 Unpublished only same 34 3,619 0.48 0.56 0.25 0.23 0.88 Unpublished only different 10 1,476 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.10 Published only same 11 1,220 0.48 0.55 0.13 0.39 0.72 Published only different 12 1,182 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.26

NOTE: EI = overall emotional intelligence; TL = overall transformational leadership; k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; Mean r– = mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ = standard deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV = credibility interval; MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

10 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1)

therefore, meta-analyses “oversample” larger effects. This is known as the “file drawer” problem. In this study, the majority of studies used in the overall meta-analysis were from unpublished sources such as dissertations. As a consequence, it is unlikely that these results represent an overestimate of the true relationship between EI and trans- formational and transactional leadership. Nevertheless, we tested the effect of publication source to establish whether there was any bias in the effect sizes reported in published studies. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 1. When comparing studies that used same-source ratings, the results were strikingly similar for publication types. Both unpublished (k = 35, N = 4,115, ρ = .59) and published stud- ies (k = 11, N = 1,220, ρ = .55) showed high effect sizes. However, when multisource ratings were used, both unpub- lished (k = 10, N = 1,476, ρ = .09) and published studies (k = 12, N = 1,182, ρ = .16) showed substantially lower validity estimates with transformational leadership.

Effect of Emotional Intelligence Inventory To assess the potential moderating effect of specific inven- tories of EI on the relationship between EI and leadership style, we conducted separate analyses of the relationship for each of the most frequently used inventories of EI. The results of these meta-analyses are presented in Table 2. The number of studies and total sample sizes for each of these analyses were relatively small and results should be inter- preted with some caution; nevertheless, it appears that the EI–transformational leadership relationship was signifi- cantly weaker for the MSCEIT than for other inventories. It should be noted that although SDρ estimates are zero for some relationships in Table 2, these should not be inter- preted to necessarily mean the complete absence of vari- ability across situations. Rather, they are an artifact of the Hunter and Schmidt (1990) meta-analytic method for anal- yses involving a small number of studies.

Effect of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Given the preponderance of the MLQ as the measure of transformational leadership in this area we also conducted meta-analyses of the studies that assessed the relationship between EI and the MLQ. Results for these meta-analyses are also presented in Table 1 with the size of relationships being largely unchanged. For same-source ratings the rela- tionship was of moderate strength (k = 33, N = 3,999, ρ = .54), while it remained weak for multi-source ratings (k = 14, N = 1,549, ρ = .09).

In addition to this, we also conducted meta-analyses of the subscales of transformational leadership and the other components of the full range model of leadership assessed by the MLQ. The results for these meta-analyses are pre- sented in Table 3.

For the facets of transformational leadership, the pat- tern of results was largely the same as for overall trans- formational leadership. That is, for same-source data, the observed relationships were of moderate strength while being of low strength for multisource data. EI exhibited weak relationships with both management-by-exception (passive) and management-by-exception (active), although the negative relationship with management-by-exception (passive) was so strong that the 90% credibility intervals for both same-source and multisource data did not con- tain zero. EI exhibited a moderately strong negative rela- tionship with Laissez-Faire leadership for same-source ratings (k = 14, N = 1,304, ρ = –.36) and a weak relation- ship for multi-source ratings (k = 8, N = 617, ρ = –.17).

Interrater Agreement Given the substantial and consistent differences in the strength of observed relationships for same-source and multisource ratings, we decided to examine the level of

Table 2. Relationships Between Transformational Leadership and Emotional Intelligence Moderated by Rating Source and Emotional Intelligence Measure

Measure Rating Source k N r– ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV

MSCEIT Same 10 1,066 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 MSCEIT Different 4 441 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 WLEIS Same 6 564 0.49 0.54 0.13 0.37 0.70 WLEIS Different 5 1,099 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.11 BOEQI Same 6 640 0.56 0.67 0.08 0.58 0.77 BOEQI Different 4 267 0.18 0.20 0.12 0.05 0.35 SUEIT Same 4 512 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.37 0.64 EIA Same 3 135 0.45 0.47 0.28 0.11 0.83

NOTE: No reliability information available from included studies for this analysis. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; r – = mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ = standard deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV = credibility interval; MSCEIT = Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; WLEIS = Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale; BOEQI = Bar-On Emotional Quo- tient Inventory; SUEIT = Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test; EIA = Emotional Intelligence Appraisal.

Harms and Credé 11

agreement between self-ratings and other-ratings in more detail for both EI and transformational leadership. Eight data sources provided relevant data: Barbuto and Burbach (2006); Buford (2001); Burbach (2004); Danehy (2005); Elbers (2007); Fox, Staebler Tardino, and Maloney (2008); Sosik and Megarian (1999); and Wu, Liu, Song, and Liu (2006).

For these data, we calculated meta-analytic estimates of interrater agreement self-ratings and other-ratings of both EI and transformational leadership. The results for this analysis (see Table 4) show very low levels of agreement between self- and other-ratings of both EI (ρ = .16) and transformational leadership (ρ = .14).

DISCUSSION

Given the widespread interest surrounding EI as a predictor of organizational outcomes, and leadership in particular (Spector, 2005), we examined the relationship between EI and transformational leadership, along with other components of the full range model of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Recently, it was argued that “leadership theory and research have not adequately considered how leaders’ moods and emotions influence their effectiveness as leaders” (George, 2000, p. 1028). The resulting studies conducted using EI measures to address this deficit have produced somewhat mixed results. Some have taken the positive findings as

Table 3. Relationships Between Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Components and Overall Emotional Intelligence Moderated by Rating Source

MLQ Subscale Rating Source k N r– ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV

Idealized influence (attributed) same 15 1576 .30 .38 .18 .15 .61 Idealized influence (attributed) different 2 284 –.00 –.00 .00 –.00 –.00 Idealized influence (behavioral) same 15 1576 .36 .46 .15 .27 .65 Idealized influence (behavioral) different 2 284 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Idealized influence (overall) same 17 1815 .33 .42 .15 .22 .61 Idealized influence (overall) different 7 730 .08 .10 .00 .10 .10 Individual consideration same 17 1815 .35 .45 .14 .28 .63 Individual consideration different 7 730 .08 .10 .10 –.02 .22 Inspirational motivation same 17 1814 .36 .43 .16 .23 .63 Inspirational motivation different 7 730 .12 .14 .15 –.05 .33 Intellectual stimulation same 17 1815 .32 .40 .15 .21 .59 Intellectual stimulation different 7 730 .08 .10 .00 .10 .10 Contingent reward same 12 1272 .29 .35 .18 .12 .59 Contingent reward different 6 622 .10 .13 .18 –.10 .36 Management by exception (active) same 10 871 –.08 –.10 .07 –.19 .01 Management by exception (active) different 3 333 .02 .02 .00 .02 .02 Management by exception (passive) same 10 871 –.17 –.22 .06 –.30 –.14 Management by exception (passive) different 3 333 –.09 –.12 .00 –.12 –.12 Laissez faire same 13 1204 –.30 –.37 .18 –.60 –.14 Laissez faire different 8 617 –.12 –.17 .00 –.17 –.17 Extra effort same 8 869 .31 .36 .20 .11 .61 Extra effort different 3 304 .14 .18 .15 –.01 .37 Effectiveness same 8 869 .32 .37 .17 .15 .60 Effectiveness different 3 304 .10 .14 .06 .06 .21 Satisfaction same 8 869 .31 .35 .20 .09 .61 Satisfaction different 3 304 .09 .12 .10 –.01 .25

NOTE: k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; ; r – = mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ = standard deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV = credibility interval.

Table 4. Relationships Between Self and Other Ratings for Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership

Rating Construct k N r – ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV

Emotional intelligence 3 175 .15 .16 .00 .16 .16 Transformational leadership 4 202 .12 .14 .05 .07 .21

NOTE: k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; r – = mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ = standard deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV = credibility interval.

12 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1)

proof that EI was significantly related to transformational leadership (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005), whereas others remain entirely skeptical of the validity of the construct of EI itself, much less its role in leadership outcomes (Locke, 2005). In such a situation, where the results of empirical research are not entirely clear, meta-analyses can offer insight into the possible reasons for such confusion in addi- tion to providing a more precise estimate of the relation- ships in question.

Overall, our results linking EI with transformational lead- ership variables were not as strong or as compelling as advo- cates of EI testing predicted. Although we found a moderate relationship between EI and transformational leadership behaviors, this was only present for studies where results may have been inflated by the methodological confounds of com- mon method bias and socially desirable responding. In studies where the raters of EI and transformational leadership were not the same, the relationship was small but significant, with effect sizes comparable to those found between personality traits and transformational leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004).

Across the various facets of transformational leadership, the results were broadly the same with studies using same- source raters showing moderate effects and studies using multiple raters showing small or nonsignificant effects. For other components of the full range model of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997), the results of our meta-analysis broadly supported our hypotheses. Contingent reward had a positive relationship with EI at comparable levels to that of transformational leadership. Management-by-exception (active) showed no significant relationship with EI, and the passive forms of leadership, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership were negatively related to EI.

Where data were available, we tested to see whether the type of EI being assessed or the use of a particular EI mea- sure had an effect on the validity estimates. Overall, trait measures of EI were more strongly related to transforma- tional leadership for both same-source and multisource rat- ings than were ability-based measures of EI. The Bar-On (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory had the highest valid- ity estimate for both methods. Both trait- and ability-based measures showed similar reductions in validity when mul- tiple sources for raters were used.

We also tested whether or not organizational rank of the leader being assessed affected the validity of EI ratings. Results showed that there was little difference in validity estimates when only those who were ranked manager or above were considered. One other potential moderator, source of publication, also failed to show any significant effects on the results.

It was noted that the self–other agreement for both EI and transformational leadership was quite low. This was not entirely unexpected as prior studies of self–other agreement on transformational leadership have found similar or even lower levels of consensus (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992).

In a similar way, prior research has demonstrated that observable traits, such as extraversion, show higher levels of consensus across raters than do less observable traits such as emotional stability (Funder, 1995; John & Robins, 1993). Moreover, Watson and colleagues (Watson, Hub- bard, & Wiese, 2000) have shown that self–other agreement for positive and negative emotions is typically lower than that of Big Five traits. Low agreement across sources is not indicative of lack of validity. Sources can differ in their esti- mates or attributions of behavior and still show validity if they are using different cues (Funder, 1995). It has been argued that one of the reasons that there is seldom much agreement on ratings of leadership effectiveness is that dif- ferent kinds of raters use different criteria (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). For instance, subordinates tend to base their assessments of leader effectiveness on the character and trustworthiness of the leader, whereas their upper level supervisors base their ratings of effectiveness on technical competence and productivity. Nonetheless, the lack of con- sensus across raters of each of the constructs of interest could partially explain the lower validity estimates seen in studies where multiple raters were used.

Although these results fail to support some of the more extreme claims of EI proponents concerning the potential role of EI in effective leadership, they did not rule out the possibly that EI may play an important role. Although there have been a number of studies conducted assessing the role of EI in transformational leadership, very few have actually been conducted using each of the different measures of EI. Moreover, for each measure of EI, almost no studies have been conducted using a multimethod framework, so com- parisons of effect size estimates across methods are not entirely reliable. As newer EI assessment tools are devel- oped and older tests are refined with criteria prediction in mind, it could be expected that validities will improve. Indeed, it has been pointed out that it is unfair to judge the current state of research in EI using results from early mea- sures (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). Nevertheless, these results do reflect the current state of research aimed at linking EI to both transformational and transactional leadership.

It must also be noted that this meta-analysis has limita- tions that may have affected the results. One potential prob- lem is that, to date, there exists no well-designed study that validates the proposed EI–leadership relationship (Antona- kis et al., 2009). For example, the majority of the studies that were used in this meta-analysis relied on self-reports as both predictors and criteria. As shown in the results of this study, this has resulted in greatly inflated validity estimates of the EI–leadership relationship compared with studies that used a more rigorous multimethod approach and the passive forms of leadership, management-by-exception (passive) and laissez-faire leadership were negatively related to EI. In addition to this, the majority of studies used in this investigation were from unpublished sources such as

Harms and Credé 13

dissertations and may have lacked the methodological rigor seen in peer-reviewed publications. Although this is a potential concern, we did not find substantially different validity estimates across the two types of sources. A related concern is that there may be a number of unpublished stud- ies that we were unable to include in this study and that these studies may have shown divergent effects from those reported here. Although this is also a concern, we note again that the majority of studies in this meta-analysis were from unpublished sources and that no substantial difference was found between published and unpublished sources.

Despite these generally weak results, this study does sug- gest a number of theoretical implications for further research on the topic of the potential effect of EI on transformational leadership or any number of other leadership outcomes. First, it is essential that researchers select their criteria appropriately (Landy, 2005) and assess phenomena using the most relevant source (Roberts, Harms, Smith, Wood, & Webb, 2006). EI, which occurs mostly within the individual, should be assessed using self-reports or performance data. Transformational leadership measures, on the other hand, are behavioral in nature and best studied from the point of view of those who are meant to be affected by them. As a consequence, further research needs to focus more on using multiple ratings sources to establish an accurate picture of the nature of this relationship. Second, only in rare cases was EI tested for incremental validity above and beyond mea- sures of intelligence and personality. Given that previous research has demonstrated that measures of EI often fail to add validity beyond such measures (Antonakis, 2004; Antonakis et al., 2009), further research aiming to test the relationship between EI and leadership would benefit from such controls. Third, only a few of the studies included in this meta-analysis were conducted outside the United States and almost none outside the English-speaking world. Fur- ther research needs to make efforts to test the validity of EI and related constructs in different cultural contexts to estab- lish the universality and possible cultural moderators of the phenomena under investigation (Sadri, Weber, & Gentry, 2008). Finally, further research should look for possible moderators of the relationship between EI and transforma- tional leadership such as the intensity of emotional displays or the role of gender and age of leaders and followers.

In terms of practical implications, this study suggests that the claims made by EI proponents are largely over- stated, in particular those who market EI assessment tools as management screening or training devices. It has even been suggested that “given the sparse empirical evidence, it is unethical and unconscionable to use these measures in applied settings” (Antonakis et al., 2009, p. 248). In fact, even noted proponents of EI have stated that “management practitioners need to take care that they do not overempha- size the predictive value of emotional intelligence in work- place settings” (Jordan, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2006,

p. 205). Given these concerns and the limited evidence of the effectiveness of EI instruments as predictors of effective leadership styles, we would suggest that EI assessment devices be limited to usage for encouraging self-awareness and self-reflection in managers until better EI measures can be developed and validated.

In summary, the results of this study provide the first meta-analytic estimate of the relationship between EI and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Results indicate generally moderate validities when common method variance is present and low validities when common method variance is absent. EI was positively related to the various dimensions of transformational leadership and con- tingent reward behaviors but was either unrelated or nega- tively related to management-by-exception or laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Furthermore, we found that trait-based assessments of EI demonstrated higher levels of validity than did ability-based measures and that there was little agree- ment across raters for ratings of either EI or transformational leadership. Given the preponderance of evidence, it is evi- dent that claims of EI being the core of transformational lead- ership were overstated, but this study does demonstrate that EI may contribute to successful leadership at some level.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

References with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analyses. Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not pre-

dict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “Big Five”: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis, 12, 171-182.

*Antonakis, J. (2009). Which traits matter for the full-range lead- ership model? Paper presented at the European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Santiago.

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N., & Dasborough, M. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247-261.

Antonakis, J., & House, R. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership, 2, 3-33.

Ashkanasy, N., & Daus, C. (2005). Rumors of the death of emo- tional intelligence in organizational behavior are greatly exag- gerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441-452.

Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.

14 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1)

Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1993). Personal attributes as pre- dictors of superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645-668.

Avolio, B. (1994). The “natural”: Some antecedents to transforma- tional leadership. International Journal of Public Administra- tion, 17, 1559-1581.

Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Bailie, K., & Ekermans, G. (2006). An exploration of the utility of a self-report emotional intelligence measure. E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Emotional Intelligence, 2, 3-11.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A Test of Emotional Intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

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

*Barfoot, D. S. (2007). Antecedents of leader–follower trust in a Christian church organization. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

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

Bass, B. (1998). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.

Bass, B. (2002). Cognitive, social and emotional intelligence of transformational leaders. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 105-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

*Bellamy, A. R., & Bellamy, A. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: Recursive leadership pro- cesses within the context of employee work attitudes. Paper presented at the Midwest Academy of Management.

*BeShears, R. S. (2004). The ability of emotional intelligence to predict transformational leadership when personality, affect, and cognitive ability are controlled. Unpublished dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egali- tarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.

Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incre- mental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.

*Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. (2006). Does emo- tional intelligence—as measured by the EQI—influence trans- formational leadership and/or desirable outcomes? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27, 330-351.

Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leader- ship and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871.

*Buford, B. A. (2001). Management effectiveness, personality, leadership, and emotional intelligence: A study of the valid- ity evidence of the emotional quotient inventory. Unpublished dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

*Burbach, M. E. (2004). Testing the relationship between emo- tional intelligence and full-range leadership as moderated by cognitive style and self-concept. Unpublished dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

*Butler, C. J., & Chinowsky, P. S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in construction executives. Journal of Marketing in Engineering, 7, 119-125.

*Coetzee, C., & Schaap, P. (2005). The relationship between lead- ership behavior, outcomes of leadership and emotional intel- ligence. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31, 31-38.

*Condren, T., Martin, B., & Huchinson, S. (2006). What does emotional intelligence and gender have to do with leadership effectiveness . . . Or does it? Advancing Women in Leadership On-line Journal, 21.

*Cook, R. (2006). The effects of emotional intelligence on princi- pals’ leadership performance. Unpublished dissertation, Mon- tana State University.

*Curry, S. M. (2004). Examining the relationship between self- perceived emotional intelligence and leadership in school principals. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University, Vir- ginia Beach, VA.

*D’Alessio, F. (2006). The influence of personality, critical think- ing, and emotional intelligence in Peruvian managers’ leader- ship. Unpublished dissertation, University of Phoenix.

*Danehy, L. S. (2005). The relationship between emotional intel- ligence and leadership in NCAA division III college coaches. Unpublished dissertation, Wilmington College, Wilmington, OH.

Daus, C., & Ashkanasy, N. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 453-466.

Day, A., & Carroll, S. (2008). Faking emotional intelligence (EI): Comparing response distortion on ability and trait-based mea- sures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 761-784.

*Donahue, R., & Stevensen, L. (2006, July 1-4). The relationship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement and the mediating role of transformational leadership. Paper presented at the ACREW Conference, Tuscany, Italy.

*Downey, L. A., Papageorgiou, V., & Stough, C. (2006). Exam- ining the relationship between leadership, emotional intelli- gence, and intuition in senior female managers. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27, 250-264.

*Elbers, N. (2007). Charismatic leadership, emotional intelli- gence and values in organizations. Unpublished dissertation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Harms and Credé 15

*Ellis, M. (2007). The bilateral dimensions of transformational leadership in selected university constituents: An empirical study within the context of institutions of higher education. Unpublished dissertation, Capella University.

*Fox, K., Staebler Tardino, V., & Maloney, P. (2008). The impact of ability and trait based emotional intelligence on transfor- mational leadership behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Funder, D. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.

*Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership and Organization Development Jour- nal, 23, 68-78.

George, J. M. (2000, August). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1054.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leader-

ship: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

*Groves, K. S. (2005a). Gender differences in social and emo- tional skills and charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 30-46.

*Groves, K. S. (2005b). Linking leader skills, follower attitudes, and contextual variables via an integrated model of charis- matic leadership. Journal of Management, 31, 255-277.

*Groves, K. S. (2006). Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership and Orga- nization Development Journal, 27, 566-583.

*Hartsfield, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of transformational leadership: Effects of spirituality, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

*Hayashi, A., & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor leaders’ emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Journal of Expe- riential Education, 28, 222-242.

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

Hoffman, B. J., & Frost, B. C. (2006). Multiple intelligences of transformational leaders: An empirical investigation. Interna- tional Journal of Manpower, 27, 37-51.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psycholo- gist, 49, 493-504.

Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. New- bury Park, CA: Sage.

Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor- recting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Hur, Y. H. (2009). Optimizing managerial effectiveness through emotional intelligence. Unpublished dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands.

*Jacques, F. (2002). An examination of the relationship between self-differentiation and transformational leadership, through the lens of emotional intelligence. Unpublished dissertation, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

John, O., & Robins, R. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.

Jordan, P., Ashton-James, C., & Ashkanasy, N. (2006). Evaluat- ing the claims: Emotional intelligence in the workplace. In K. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed? (pp. 189-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transac- tional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

*Kanne, D. W. (2005). Emotional intelligence and the transfor- mational learning journey of 30 senior pastors who partici- pated in LEAD. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Kemper, C. L. (1999). EQ vs. IQ. Communication World, 16, 15-22.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). Leadership Practices Inventory (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Landy, F. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.

*Leban, W. V. (2003). The relationship between leader behavior and emotional intelligence of the project manager and the suc- cess of complex projects. Unpublished dissertation, Benedic- tine University, Lisle, IL.

*Legier, J. T. (2007). Assessing leadership effectiveness: The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership behaviors on group and organizational performance. Unpub- lished dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on devel- oping emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Learn- ing & Education, 8, 225-237.

Locke, E. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid con- cept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.

*Lugo, M. (2007). An examination of cultural and emotional intel- ligences in the development of global transformational lead- ership skills. Unpublished dissertation, Walden University.

*Macik-Frey, M. (2007). Communication centered approach to leadership, the relationship of interpersonal communication competence to transformational leadership and emotional intelligence. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington.

*Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emo- tional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 387-404.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intel- ligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

16 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1)

Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey- Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) users manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intel- ligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.

*Meredith, C. L. (2007). The relationship of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behavior in non-profit execu- tive leaders. Unpublished dissertation, Capella University.

*Middleton, K. (2005). The service-learning project as a support- ive context for charismatic leadership emergence in nascent leaders. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 295-308.

Mosier, C. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychometrika, 8, 161-168.

*Moss, S., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior: The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differ- ences, 27, 93-107.

*Murensky, C. L. (2000). The relationships between emotional intelligence, personality, critical thinking ability, and organi- zational leadership performance at upper levels of manage- ment. Unpublished dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

*Nishiyama, Y. (2006). Gender, emotional intelligence and lead- ership styles of Japanese managers. Unpublished dissertation, University of Hawaii.

*Nowack, K. M. (2009). Unpublished raw data. (Available from Envisia Learning, Santa Monica, CA)

Nye, C. (2008). The powers to lead. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oswald, F. L., & Johnson, J. W. (1998). On the robustness, bias, and stability of statistics from meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: Some initial Monte Carlo findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 164-178.

Palmer, B., & Stough, C. (2001). Workplace SUEIT: Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test—Descriptive report. Melbourne: Swinburne University, Organisational Psychol- ogy Research Unit, Australia.

*Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emo- tional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22, 5-10.

Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 29, 313-320.

Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.

Petrides, K., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273-289.

Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transforma- tional leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267-289.

*Purkable, T. L. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership style, and coping mechanisms of executives. Unpublished disserta- tion, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.

*Reed, T. G. (2005). Elementary principal emotional intelligence, leadership behavior, and openness: An exploratory study. Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Roberts, B. W., Harms, P. D., Smith, J., Wood, D., & Webb, M. (2006). Methods in personality psychology. In M. Eid, & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment: A multimethod perspective (pp. 321-335). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

*Rubin, R. S. (2003). Paddling upstream in leadership research: Exploring antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Unpublished dissertation, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO.

Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personal- ity on transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845-858.

Sadri, G., Weber, T., & Gentry, W. (2008). Empathy as a cross- cultural leadership behavior: An empirical analysis. Unpub- lished manuscript.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagina- tion, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches. In J. Antonakis, A. Ciancolo, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 171-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Schechter, A. F. (2005). The influence of transformational lead- ership, emotional intelligence, trust, meaning and intention to quit on organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished dis- sertation, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

*Schmitz, S. A. (2004). The relationship between emotional intel- ligence and leadership practices in non-profit human service organizations. Unpublished dissertation, Northcentral Univer- sity, Prescott Valley, AZ.

*Schulte, M. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence: A predictive or descriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new name for old knowledge. Unpublished dissertation, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX.

Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Thorsteinsson, E., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. (2007). Meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 769-785.

*Sivanathan, N., & Fekken, G. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning, and transformational leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 198-204.

Sosik, J. J., & Megarian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emo- tional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group Organization Management, 24, 367-390.

Spector, P. (2005). Introduction: Emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 409-410.

*Srivsastatava, K.B.L., & Bharamanaikar, S. R. (2004). Emo- tional intelligence and effective leadership behavior. National Academy of Psychology, India, 49, 107-113.

Harms and Credé 17

*Tang, H. V. (2007). A cross-cultural investigation of academic leaders’ emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness in Taiwan and the United States. Unpublished dissertation, Texas A&M University–Kingsville and Texas A&M University– Corpus Christi.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 304-311.

Van Rooy, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomo- logical net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95.

*Vrba, M. (2007). Emotional intelligence skills and leadership behavior in a sample of South African first-line managers. Management Dynamics, 16, 25-35.

Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agree- ment in personality and affectivity: The role of acquain- tanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 546-558.

*Webb, S. (2005). Examining emotional intelligence and leadership. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Weinberger, L. A. (2004, March 3-7). An examination of the rela- tionship between emotional intelligence and leadership style.

Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Develop- ment International Conference, Austin, TX.

Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and fol- lower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.

*Wu, W., Liu, Y., Song, L. J., & Liu, J. (2006). Effects of organi- zational leadership on employee commitment: The moderat- ing role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 7, 283-306.

Bios

P.D. Harms is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. His primary research interests include personality and leadership development, status attainment, power motivation, and the psychological experience of leadership.

Marcus Crede is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the State University of New York at Albany. His primary research interests include non-cognitive predictor of performance in aca- demic and work settings, the structure of such non-cognitive pre- dictors and the nature of performance, as well as issues relating to the measurement of non-cognitive attributes and performance.