2.5 page Leadership research paper
Brandon91002
Emotionalintelligencemanagementofsubordinatesemotionsandleadership.pdf
Leadership & Organization Development Journal Emotional intelligence, management of subordinate’s emotions, and leadership effectiveness Peter Edelman, Daan van Knippenberg,
Article information: To cite this document: Peter Edelman, Daan van Knippenberg, (2018) "Emotional intelligence, management of subordinate’s emotions, and leadership effectiveness", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 Issue: 5, pp.592-607, https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2018-0154 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2018-0154
Downloaded on: 25 April 2019, At: 17:23 (PT) References: this document contains references to 55 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2044 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2018),"Emotional intelligence and authentic leadership: a meta-analysis", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 Iss 5 pp. 679-690 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/ LODJ-02-2018-0066">https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-2018-0066</a> (2006),"Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 265-279 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/01437730610666028">https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730610666028</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:312564 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
Emotional intelligence, management of subordinate’s
emotions, and leadership effectiveness
Peter Edelman Berenschot Groep BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands, and
Daan van Knippenberg Bennett S. LeBow College of Business, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address two of the major questions in the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership effectiveness: does EI conceptualized and assessed as an ability influence leadership effectiveness when controlling for cognitive intelligence and Big Five personality traits? And, what are mediating processes in this relationship? Design/methodology/approach – Ability test data for EI for 84 leaders in an assessment center were used to predict unobtrusive observations of leader responses to subordinate’s emotions in a role play, and expert ratings of leadership effectiveness, controlling for cognitive ability and Big Five personality traits. Findings – EI predicted the appropriateness of leader responses to subordinate’s emotions, and these responses mediated the relationships of EI and leadership effectiveness, controlling for cognitive ability and Big Five personality traits. Research limitations/implications – The assessment center context represents a relatively artificial environment and follow-up research in field settings would be particularly valuable. Practical implications – EI can be assessed as a selection tool for leadership positions. Leadership development programs can also focus on developing the skills associated with EI. Originality/value – The study provides stronger evidence for the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness than previous research, bolstering the confidence in conclusions regarding this relationship. The study also contributes to the development of process models of the influence of EI on leadership effectiveness by providing evidence regarding mediation. Keywords Leadership, Affect, Emotional intelligence, Emotion, Leadership effectiveness Paper type Research paper
Research in leadership has a long history in the study of leadership effectiveness (leader’s success in mobilizing and motivating followers for collective ends) from a cognitive perspective. Increasingly, however, leadership researchers are recognizing that effective leadership may also have a strong emotional component. Effective leadership may in important part rely on leader’s ability to proactively and reactively manage follower emotions (Humphrey, 2008; van Knippenberg and Van Kleef, 2016). In the long tradition of studying personality and individual differences as a core determinant of effective leadership (e.g. Judge et al., 2002, 2004; van Knippenberg, in press), this has led to the emergence of a focus on emotional intelligence (EI) — the ability to recognize, understand and manage own and others’ moods and emotions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990) — as an individual difference predictor of leadership effectiveness (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Walter et al., 2011).
As Walter et al. (2011) outline in their review of the literature, however, this research has been plagued by a number of problems. Most prominently among these problems is the fact that EI is most appropriately conceptualized as the ability to recognize, understand and manage own and others’ emotions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; cf. MacCann et al., 2014),
Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 39 No. 5, 2018 pp. 592-607 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-04-2018-0154
Received 23 April 2018 Accepted 28 April 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
592
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
but more often than not measured through self-ratings. Self-ratings are inappropriate as ability measure and more akin to personality ratings that raise the question whether EI uniquely contributes to the prediction of leadership effectiveness above and beyond personality (Antonakis et al., 2009; Locke, 2005). Research since the Walter et al. review has not addressed this issue (e.g. Boyatzis et al., 2012; Cavazotte et al., 2012; Hur et al., 2011; Li et al., 2016; Maulding et al., 2012). As a consequence, the current state of the science is that despite much claims about the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, we need yet to unambiguously establish this relationship by assessing EI through ability testing and controlling for other individual difference measures that are well established as predictors of leadership and correlates of EI. Moreover, we need yet to identify the mediating processes in the EI–leadership effectiveness relationship.
These are the issues we aimed to address in this study by providing a stronger test of the EI–effectiveness relationship and developing and testing theory about the process mediating this relationship. Our first objective was to provide a test of the relationship between EI conceptualized and assessed as an ability and leadership effectiveness controlling for the most studied individual difference predictors of leadership: cognitive ability (Judge et al., 2004) and Big Five personality traits (Judge et al., 2002). Our second and related objective was to establish mediation in this relationship, focusing on leader’s actions to manage follower emotions. In doing so, our study makes two important contributions to research on EI and leadership effectiveness. First, we provide stronger evidence for the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness than previous research, bolstering the confidence in conclusions regarding this relationship. Second, we contribute to the development of process models of the influence of EI on leadership effectiveness by providing evidence regarding mediation.
Theory and hypotheses Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness Once one accepts the conclusion that the appropriate conceptualization of EI is that of an ability only, and that appropriate measurement of ability is through an ability test rather than subjective assessment, the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness is remarkably uncharted territory, however. Walter et al.’s (2011) review indicates that research on EI and leadership effectiveness has largely relied on subjective ratings rather than ability testing (e.g. Higgs and Aitken, 2003; Kellet et al., 2002; Li et al., 2016; Offerman et al., 2004; Wolff et al., 2002). The most appropriate type of research that conceptualizes and measures EI as an ability, and indeed the only research that can be considered truly valid in assessing the relationship between EI and other constructs, is largely missing. The studies that are exceptions to this rule and did take an ability approach to EI measurement have yielded results that are promising in establishing correlations between EI and leadership effectiveness (Kerr et al., 2006; Rosete and Ciarrochi, 2005), even when not all of these studies observed this relationship (Weinberger, 2009). Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) also included cognitive ability and a personality measure in their study. Unfortunately, however, the 16PF5 personality measure they employed does not fully capture the Big Five model of personality (i.e. extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience; the most established approach to leadership and personality; Judge et al., 2002) in that it lacks in the measurement of agreeableness (Rossier et al., 2004), which is a correlate of EI and therefore a particularly important omission. In their study of leadership emergence, Coté et al. (2010) did control for cognitive ability and Big Five personality, yielding further indications of the promise of this perspective. Leadership emergence cannot be equated with leadership effectiveness, however, and findings for the one cannot be assumed to generalize to the other (Judge et al., 2002). Thus, despite promising first results, the question whether EI predicts leadership effectiveness above and beyond established individual difference predictors remains unanswered (Walter et al., 2011).
593
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
It is especially this question that has provoked critique on the evidence for the EI–leadership effectiveness relationship. Antonakis (2004) and Antonakis et al. (2009) even called EI of no use if its measurement cannot demonstrate incremental validity beyond established psychological factors. This point is underscored by correlations between EI and other constructs observed in the literature. Mayer et al. reported correlations of about r ¼ 0.35 with verbal intelligence and r ¼ 0.10–0.20 with perceptual/ organizational intelligence. Mayer and Salovey (1993) found modest correlations with the Big Five personality traits openness to experience (r ¼ 0.25) and with agreeableness (r ¼ 0.28). These correlations are low enough to establish EI as an independent construct, but high enough to indicate that it is desirable to establish that correlations between EI and leadership effectiveness are not attributable to this covariation. This is especially true in view of the fact that both cognitive ability ( Judge et al., 2004) and Big Five traits ( Judge et al., 2002) have been meta-analytically established as predictors of leadership effectiveness. This then underscores Antonakis’s (2004) and Antonakis et al.’s (2009) argument, and indicates that the more appropriate test of the EI–leadership effectiveness relationship is one that controls for both cognitive ability and the Big Five. An additional consideration in this respect is that, as we elaborate below, EI may also derive part of its influence from leaders’ use of their own emotions, and a more indirect reason to control for the Big Five is that extraversion is associated with positive affect and neuroticism (i.e. low emotional stability) with negative affect (Steel et al., 2008). Clearly, affectivity cannot be equated with the display of affect, but these associations too suggest it would be important to control for the Big Five personality traits.
In addition to the problems of scarce evidence, inconclusive results and lack of relevant controls, another issue that is important to address is that there currently are no studies that examined mediating mechanisms in the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. Establishing mediation is important because it further establishes the validity of the EI perspective. That is, the EI perspective is better supported if we not only establish a relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, but also establish that this relationship is mediated by processes closely associated with the EI perspective. We therefore also develop and test hypotheses about mediating processes.
The present study EI should be positively related to leadership effectiveness, because the ability to understand and manage emotions should have clear benefits in leader-follower interaction (cf. Caruso et al., 2002). We propose that these benefits can be understood from two perspectives that are closely aligned with the conceptualization of EI.
First, the ability to recognize, understand and manage emotions should be important in response to follower emotional expression. Follower emotion should be a regular ingredient in many of the challenges of leadership. Disappointment in response to negative feedback or frustration in the face of adversity in bringing tasks to a successful end may for instance discourage and demotivate followers, and leaders’ ability to defuse such counterproductive feelings or to channel such feelings in more productive directions may be an important element in leadership effectiveness. Leader responses to follower emotion may vary in how appropriate they are from the perspective of effective emotion management. What is appropriate would vary with the situation and emotion, in that it may vary from diffusing emotions that may have negative effects (e.g. discourage followers or invite tensions) to encouraging emotions that may have positive effects (e.g. energizing followers; cf. van Knippenberg and Van Kleef, 2016). We propose that EI as the ability to recognize, understand and manage emotion is positively related to the appropriateness of leader responses to follower emotion, because higher EI should render leaders more likely to recognize and understand follower emotion as well as to accurately assess what would be an
594
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
appropriate response to follower emotion. The appropriateness of responses to follower emotion should thus mediate in the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. More appropriate responses should render it more likely that the leader is effective in realizing his or her intended goal in interaction with the follower (e.g. motivating goal pursuit, building high-quality relations), because they will invite more positive follower responses to leadership.
Second, the ability to recognize, understand and manage emotions captured by EI should be important in using affective displays to influence followers. Leader affective displays have been identified as an influence in leadership effectiveness (for a review, see van Knippenberg and Van Kleef, 2016). Leader displays of positive affect have been consistently linked to more positive evaluations of leadership both in comparison with the absence of such displays (Bono and Ilies, 2006) and in comparison with negative affective displays (e.g. Eberly and Fong, 2013; Visser et al., 2013; cf. Lewis, 2000). For effects on follower performance too, leader affective displays have been shown to be influential, although displays of positive affect are not under all conditions more effective than displays of negative affect in motivating follower performance (e.g. Koning and Van Kleef, 2015; Van Kleef et al., 2009; Venus et al., 2013; Visser et al., 2013; cf. Newcombe, and Ashkanasy, 2002). Thus, as Humphrey et al. (2008) argued in their conceptual analysis of leadership and emotions, an important element of effective leadership may be that leaders are good judges of which affective displays are appropriate in a given situation, and able to show such appropriate affect to influence followers (also see Côté and Hideg, 2011). In many situations this may be positive affect, but it need not be. EI may capture an important part of leaders’ ability to effectively use such affective displays (cf. Brotheridge’s, 2006, suggestion that EI may be important in the accurate assessment of situational demands). Thus, we may advance the appropriate use of affective displays as another element of the leadership process that mediates the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness.
In sum, then, we expected that EI is positively related to leadership effectiveness, and we expected that this relationship obtains because leaders with higher EI respond more appropriately to follower expression of emotion, and display emotions that are more appropriate to the situation (see Figure 1 for a graphic display of our research model):
H1. EI is positively related to leadership effectiveness, controlling for cognitive ability and Big Five personality traits.
H2a. The relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness is mediated by the appropriateness of leader reactions to follower expressions of emotion.
H2b. The relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness is mediated by situationally appropriate leader affective displays.
Emotional intelligence
Appropriate affective display
Appropriate response to
emotion
Leadership effectiveness
Figure 1. Research model
595
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
Method Participants This study was conducted as part of an assessment center program at the Assessment and Development department of an acknowledged consultancy firm in the Netherlands. One of the services this company offers to its clients is leadership assessments through psychometric testing and expert observations of role play. The company granted us access to assessees in the leadership assessment center for research purposes. This allowed us to draw on the regularly used cognitive ability and personality testing in this assessment center, to add a measure of EI, and to adapt an assessment center role play to assess leader responses to follower emotions.
Assessees in the leadership assessment came from a variety of public sector and private sector organizations, and were selected on the basis of client companies’ desire for a leadership assessment. For the duration of the study, we asked assessees during an intake interview whether they were willing to participate in a scientific study about leadership as part of the leadership assessment they were entering. A total of 87 percent of the assesses agreed to this. Participants were 84 individuals holding a leadership position for at least a year in the public or private sector. More men (n ¼ 68) than women (n ¼ 16) participated, which reflected the reality of the research population that was male dominated (as is a reality throughout the world for leadership positions; e.g., Fritz and van Knippenberg, 2017). Their age ranged from 29 to 59 with a mean of 43 (SD ¼ 7.04). As their highest level of education, 23.8 percent had a master degree, 41.5 percent a bachelor degree and 34.7 percent a polytechnic degree.
Procedure The assessment program that all participants went through included a competence-based interview, cognitive intelligence tests and a personality test. Specifically for this study, an ability-based EI measure was added. The assessment also included a written management case (in-basket exercise) and two role play exercises. In one of the role play exercises, the leader had to confront a subordinate with failure feedback, and this role play was used to test our hypotheses through relatively unobtrusive observation of our proposed mediating and dependent variables. Participants received ten minutes of preparation time to read a short instruction for each role play. Before the start of the role play the assessment psychologist explained to the participant that he or she should try to react as if he or she was in the workplace. To provide a specific reference point to assess leaders’ responses to follower emotion (H2a), the role players (confederates in this study) were instructed to show non-verbal signs of worry and anxiety (looking away and avoiding eye contact, restless changing of position and picking clothes) and use the following line during role play to signal a negative feeling state or emotion: “It keeps me awake at night.” The role play was played according a fixed script, which was followed accurately to guarantee intern validity within the assessment as well as within this study.
Measures Emotional intelligence. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0 (MSCEIT) was used to measure EI. The MSCEIT is an ability test that measures the four elements of EI: perceiving emotion accurately, using emotion to facilitate thought, understanding emotion and managing emotion, and generally seen as a valid measure of EI (e.g. Iliescu et al., 2013).
The MSCEIT consists of eight subtests, two per element, and measures the ability to solve emotional problems. The first element, emotion perception, was tested by showing participants faces and pictures/designs, which indicated how well participants can perceive
596
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
and appraise certain emotions. The second element, using emotions, was tested by having participants identify the specific emotions that may affect people’s behavior or performance on cognitive tasks. The third element, understanding emotions, was measured through the blends and changes subtests. Here, participants had to demonstrate an understanding of how individuals may experience several emotions simultaneously, and how some emotions, when combined form other emotions. Participants also had to identify how emotions change over time. The fourth element, managing emotions, was measured by providing participants with social situations and required them to select the most appropriate social response to achieve desired outcomes.
The reported split-half reliability for the MSCEIT EI score is 0.91 (Mayer et al., 2002, as cited in Rossen and Kranzler, 2009). The test-retest reliability of the MSCEIT is also very high, 0.86 after three weeks (Brackett and Mayer, 2003). In this study the consensus-based scoring method was used because we were interested in the emotion perception of employees who are no emotion experts.
Leadership effectiveness. Leadership effectiveness was measured by scoring participants on the basis of a role play. This role play was developed by the consultancy firm and specifically designed to for leadership assessments. There were three roles to fulfill within this role play, that of commercial director (participant), marketing manager (confederate 1) and observant (confederate 2). The aim of this role play was that the commercial director approached the marketing manager with failure feedback (about not receiving his or her budget proposal) in an effective way. The confederates in this study were two experienced assessment psychologists, with at least three years of experience in the field of leadership assessments. The advantage of this approach was that we could use expert raters with specific training and instructions for ratings rather than rely on the more typical subjective ratings obtained in field research (cf. van Knippenberg and Van Kleef, 2016).
Both confederates indicated independently on a five-point Likert scale how effective participants were as a leader on the basis of two items that were grounded by a series of behavioral indicators: quality of task-oriented leadership (examples of behavioral indicators: “appeals on responsibilities,” “corrects and adjusts”) and quality of relationship-oriented leadership (examples of behavioral indicators: “listens, shows respect and understanding,” “has a constructive attitude towards the employee”). Because affective display and leaders effectively dealing with negative follower emotion (worry/anxiety) also had to be rated by the assessment psychologists, we combined ratings of the two raters only to determine interrater reliability, but used the one rater’s data for the mediating variables and the other rater’s data for the dependent variable to reduce issues with same-source data.
Interrater reliability. To assess interrater reliability, we computed Cohen’s κ. Because items in this study are rated on a five-point scale, we chose to calculate weighted Cohen’s κ, which does not only correct for agreement by chance but also takes into account partial consensus. The interrater reliability for leadership effectiveness was good; Cohen’s κ ¼ 0.92.
Leader affective display and response to follower emotion. Affective display and the extent to which participants responded appropriately to follower emotion (the expression of worry and anxiety) were also assessed by behavioral observation of participants in the role play. To assess affective displays, we made a distinction between positive and negative affect. In the context of the role play (i.e. the challenge to prevent follower demoralization and redirect negative emotions to more productive motivation), we considered the display of positive affect more situationally appropriate, but in anticipation of potential questions regarding negative affect, we included negative affect in our measurement too. Assessors rated the participants independently on a five-point totally disagree-totally agree scale for the following statements: “The participant shows positive emotions,” “The participant
597
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
shows negative emotions” and “The participant responds effectively when follower shows uncertainty.” Examples of behavioral indicators for appropriate responses were: “acknowledges the emotion,” “pays attention to the emotion” and “shows understanding.” The interrater reliability for positive affect, negative affect and appropriate responding were also good (respectively 0.87, 0.88 and 0.88).
Control variables Cognitive ability. To control for cognitive ability, we used the Abalet, a test developed by an acknowledged test developer in Belgium, Cebir. The Abalet measures someone’s inductive reasoning ability, which is a central facet of general intelligence. More specifically, the Abalet measures someone’s capability to discover patterns in the configuration of letters. Items could vary in letter sequence and spatial position. The Abalet is an adaptive test, which adapts itself to the level of the participant and does not contain a fixed number of items. Participants received 30 minutes to solve as many items as they could, with a maximum of 153 items. The outcome of the test is compared with norm scores, which leads to the end score. The reliability of the test is calculated individually for every participant, for the Dutch norm group at least 95 percent of the participants show a reliability that is ⩾0.80. The Abalet correlates with other general intelligence tests, such as the Raven.
Big Five personality factors. To assess the Big Five personality variables (i.e. extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience) we used the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, consisting of 240 items. Each item had to be rated on a five-point scale. Costa and McCrae (1992) showed evidence for the structural validity and reliability of the five dimensions.
Age and gender. There is evidence that EI is related to age (Cabello et al., 2016; Mayer et al., 1999) and gender (Bracket et al., 2006; Cabello et al., 2016). We therefore added age and gender to the analysis as controls.
Data analysis We used regression analysis to test H1. Leadership effectiveness was regressed on EI in an analysis with gender (dummy-coded), age, cognitive ability and the Big Five personality variables as controls added to the regression analysis.
To test H2a and H2b, we took a two-step approach. First, we conducted a regression analysis to predict leadership effectiveness from the proposed mediating variables response to follower emotion and positive affect, as well as from negative affect as an extra check to determine that it would be the display of positive affect and not affect per se that mediates. In addition, the predictors for the test of H1 (i.e. EI and controls) were included. This regression analysis is not a formal test of our mediation hypotheses, but gives a first indication whether the proposed path from the mediators to leadership effectiveness exists.
Next, we conducted multiple mediation analysis following Preacher and Hayes (2008) and Hayes (2009) as the formal test of our hypotheses. The multiple mediation analysis took the same controls into account as the regression analyses, and focused on the three process variables as potential mediators (i.e. strictly speaking negative affect is a control here too, because our conceptual analysis would favor positive affect as capturing the mediation proposed in H2b). Following Preacher et al., the statistical significance of the bootstrapped point estimates for the indirect effects are used to determine mediation.
Results Pearson correlation coefficients were computed among study variables. The results of the correlational analyses, means and standard deviations are shown in Table I.
598
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
V ar ia bl es
M SD
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
1. A ge
43 .1 2
7. 04
− 0. 11
− 0. 13
− 0. 04
0. 06
− 0. 29 **
0. 29 **
− 0. 06
0. 02
− 0. 20
− 0. 02
0. 01
− 0. 07
2. G en de r
0. 19
0. 40
0. 14
0. 15
0. 00
0. 02
− 0. 07
0. 04
0. 10
− 0. 04
0. 05
0. 05
0. 12
3. C og ni ti ve
ab ili ty
70 .0 0
12 8. 00
0. 10
− 0. 21
− 0. 18
− 0. 14
− 0. 05
0. 15
− 0. 05
0. 02
− 0. 02
0. 15
4. N E O op en ne ss
16 3. 43
15 .3 8
0. 00
0. 33 **
0. 18
− 0. 05
0. 22 *
0. 19
0. 07
0. 03
0. 04
5. N E O co ns ci en ti ou sn es s
17 8. 49
12 .9 1
0. 32 **
0. 31 **
− 0. 41 **
0. 06
0. 07
− 0. 05
0. 09
0. 06
6. N E O ex tr av er si on
17 1. 92
14 .5 6
0. 09
− 0. 30 **
− 0. 13
0. 36 **
0. 04
0. 03
− 0. 02
7. N E O al tr ui sm
16 9. 75
11 .2 6
− 0. 25 *
0. 14
0. 04
− 0. 03
− 0. 03
0. 07
8. N E O ne ur ot ic is m
10 5. 07
15 .8 1
0. 02
− 0. 03
− 0. 09
0. 05
0. 06
9. E m ot io na l in te lli ge nc e
0. 44
0. 06
0. 20
− 0. 07
0. 13
0. 27 *
10 .L
ea de rs hi p ef fe ct iv en es s
2. 48
0. 49
− 0. 03
0. 14
0. 30 **
11 .N
eg at iv e af fe ct
2. 54
0. 88
− 0. 44 **
− 0. 15
12 .P
os it iv e af fe ct
3. 03
0. 93
0. 34 **
13 .R
es po ns e to
em ot io n
2. 55
0. 94
N o te s:
n ¼ 84 .G
en de r: 0 ¼ m al e, 1 ¼ fe m al e. *p
o 0. 05 ;* *p
o 0. 01
Table I. Means, standard deviations and
Pearson correlations
599
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
Test of H1 The results of linear regression analysis, displayed in Table II, show that EI accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in leadership effectiveness when controlling for gender, age, intelligence and personality. The positive relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness (β ¼ 0.26, po0.05) supported H1.
Test of H2: multiple mediation analysis Table II also displays results for our second regression analysis in which negative affect, positive affect and response to follower emotion were added as predictor variables. Results indicated that only one of the three process variables was significantly, and positively, related to leadership effectiveness: responses to follower emotion (β ¼ 0.25, po0.05). Multiple mediation analysis provided a test of H2a as well as H2b even though first evidence is not supportive here (i.e. positive affect was not related to leadership effectiveness). Results of this analysis are presented in Tables III and IV.
Results of this analysis showed a significant positive effect of EI on the responses to follower emotion (b ¼ 4.10, po0.05) as well as from responses to follower emotion to leadership effectiveness (b ¼ 0.13, po0.05). The bootstrapped point estimates for the indirect effects used to determine mediation are shown in Table IV. We found that responses to follower emotion mediated the effect of EI on leadership effectiveness (point estimate ¼ 0.56, po0.05). In other words, people who score higher on EI were more effective leaders because they respond more appropriately to the follower emotions. Results of mediation analysis thus supported H2a, but not H2b in that there were no significant paths from EI to positive affect or from positive affect to leadership effectiveness, nor an indirect effect mediated by positive affect.
Discussion The relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness is important, but surprisingly understudied from the perspective that EI should be conceptualized and operationalized as an ability and studied with appropriate ability (cognitive intelligence) and personality (Big Five factors) controls. Moreover, the mediating process model of the EI–leadership effectiveness relationship was distinctly underdeveloped and an empirical investigation of mediation for this relationship was lacking. In this study, we addressed these issues. We found that EI is positively related to leadership effectiveness when controlling for cognitive intelligence and Big Five personality traits, and we established the appropriateness of responses to follower emotions as a mediator in this relationship. These findings offer a good basis for the further investigation of the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness.
Theoretical implications As Antonakis (2004) and Antonakis et al. (2009) argued, it is important to establish the incremental validity of EI in leadership effectiveness above and beyond relevant ability and personality predictors. By establishing a positive relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness controlling for the best established ability predictor of leadership effectiveness (cognitive intelligence; Judge et al., 2004) as well as the best established personality predictors of leadership effectiveness (the Big Five personality factors; Judge et al., 2002), we provide a firmer, more robust basis for the future study of the EI–effectiveness relationship. Shortcomings of past research have raised doubts about the value of EI for leadership effectiveness (e.g. Antonakis et al., 2009; Walter et al., 2011), and such doubts would discourage the further development of the EI perspective on leadership effectiveness. On the basis of the current evidence, however, these doubts can
600
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
M od el 1
M od el 2
b SE
b β
R 2
F b
SE b
β R 2
F
A ge
− 0. 01
0. 01
− 0. 10
0. 21
2. 13 *
− 0. 01
0. 01
− 0. 10
0. 27
2. 14 *
G en de r
− 0. 11
0. 13
− 0. 09
− 0. 14
0. 13
− 0. 11
In te lli ge nc e
− 0. 00
0. 00
− 0. 02
0. 00
0. 00
− 0. 06
N E O op en ne ss
0. 00
0. 00
0. 02
0. 00
0. 00
0. 04
N E O co ns ci en ti ou sn es s
− 0. 00
0. 01
− 0. 04
− 0. 00
0. 01
− 0. 07
N E O ex tr av er si on
0. 01
0. 00
0. 37 **
0. 01
0. 00
0. 36 **
N E O al tr ui sm
− 0. 00
0. 01
− 0. 02
− 0. 00
0. 01
− 0. 04
N E O ne ur ot ic is m
0. 00
0. 00
0. 06
0. 00
0. 00
0. 03
E m ot io na l in te lli ge nc e
2. 31
0. 99
0. 26 *
1. 76
1. 00
0. 20
N eg at iv e af fe ct
0. 02
0. 06
0. 03
P os it iv e af fe ct
0. 02
0. 06
0. 04
R es po ns e to
em ot io n
0. 13
0. 06
0. 25 *
N o te s:
n ¼
84 .D
ep en de nt
va ri ab le is le ad er sh ip
ef fe ct iv en es s. *p
o 0. 05 ;* *p
o 0. 01
Table II. Linear regression
analysis
601
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
be addressed, and we can more firmly move on from the question of whether there is a relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness to the questions why (mediation) and when (moderation) that relationship obtains. Obviously, our analysis speaks to that first question. Considering answers to the mediation question also helps to consider the moderation question.
The relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness was mediated by appropriate responses to follower emotion. These findings suggest that leaders higher on EI use their ability to recognize and understand follower emotions to more effectively respond to follower emotion. By defusing counterproductive feelings or channeling such feelings in more productive directions, leaders high on EI are more effective in interaction with a follower. These findings are closely aligned with an understanding of EI, and thus give further confidence in our conclusions regarding the EI–effectiveness relationship.
Path and variable b SE b t p
Covariates Gender −1.14 0.13 −1.07 0.29 Age −0.01 0.01 −0.69 0.49 Intelligence −0.00 0.00 −0.49 0.63 Openness 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.75 Conscientiousness −0.00 0.00 −0.53 0.60 Extraversion 0.01 0.00 2.75 0.01 Altruism −0.00 0.01 −0.31 0.76 Neuroticism 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.83
Emotional intelligence to mediators (paths a) Negative affect −1.28 1.97 −0.65 0.52 Positive affect 2.25 2.07 1.09 0.28 Response to emotion 4.10 2.01 2.04 0.05
Mediators to leadership effectiveness (paths b) Negative affect 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.79 Positive affect 0.02 0.06 0.37 0.72 Response to emotion 0.13 0.06 2.15 0.04
Total effect of emotional intelligence on leadership effectiveness (path c) Emotional intelligence 2.31 0.99 2.35 0.02
Effect of emotional intelligence on leadership effectiveness when mediators included (path c′) Emotional intelligence 1.76 1.00 1.77 0.08 Note: n ¼ 84
Table III. Unstandardized path coefficients for the affective display and uncertainty multiple mediation analysis, including covariates
Mediators Bootstrapping Point estimate SE BCa 95% CI
Lower Upper
Negative affect −0.049 0.198 −0.570 0.276 Positive affect 0.091 0.234 −0.226 0.811 Response to emotion 0.560 0.377 0.023 1.527 Notes: n ¼ 84. CI, confidence interval; BCa, bias corrected and accelerated. Bootstrap resamples ¼ 5,000. All analyses took into account the covariates
Table IV. Bootstrap results for indirect effects of emotional intelligence on leadership effectiveness through mediators
602
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
More indirectly, this finding may speak to moderating influences. Appropriately responding to follower emotions requires at least some degree of emotionality on the side of followers. In context where followers do not experience emotions, or at least not emotions that require leader actions, EI may be less predictive of leadership effectiveness—at least in as far as its influence through responses to follower emotions is concerned. This may perhaps also be seen in the light of the fact that we did not observe a relationship between cognitive intelligence and leadership effectiveness. In combination, these findings can be understood to suggest that we studied a situation in which there was a clear call on leader EI (i.e. potentially problematic follower emotions), but a weak call on leader cognitive ability. Other leadership challenges may be of a less affective and a more intellective nature, and accordingly EI may be less influential for such more intellective challenges. Future research may thus fruitfully develop a conceptualization of leadership tasks or challenges in terms of how much they call on cognitive and how much they call on emotive abilities (i.e. these can be independent), and advance this as a moderating influence in the EI–effectiveness relationship (as well as in the cognitive ability–effectiveness relationship).
It is noteworthy that we did not find evidence of mediation by leader affective displays. Not only did EI not predict emotional displays, emotional displays also did not predict leadership effectiveness. In view of the evidence that leader affective displays may impact leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg and Van Kleef, 2016), one reading of these findings is that we may have studied a situation in which leader affective displays were of minor importance. If this is the case, we would have less reason to expect EI to predict affective displays, because high EI would only motivate affective displays that could be seen as appropriate to the situation.
Practical implications Our findings that leaders high on EI are more effective controlling for cognitive intelligence and Big Five personality traits have important implications for practitioners as well. Ability tests (e.g. the MSCEIT) can be used in recruitment and selection for leadership positions, adding predictive power above traditional measurements, such as cognitive intelligence tests and personality questionnaires.
The findings of our research may also provide a good basis for future developments to enhance leadership development programs. We found appropriate reactions to follower emotions to mediate the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, and it seems worthwhile to develop such skills in leaders (cf. Edelman and van Knippenberg, 2017). At the same time, we note, as per our discussion above, that our understanding of mediating processes, and thus of the skills to train, would benefit from further research.
Limitations and future directions Our study is not without limitations. The gain in data quality from controlled expert observation comes at the price of studying people in the setting of a role play. Despite the advantages of such a controlled setting, it could be argued that it is a simulation and not a real-life situation and that generalizability of findings to real-work settings is an open question. In a meta-analysis of Hermelin et al. (2007), however, assessment center scores were found to correlate with supervisory on-the-job performance ratings, speaking to their generalizability. Other research shows the predictive validity of work sample tests such as we used here for overall job performance (r ¼ 0.54; Schmidt and Hunter, 1998). These indications of the external validity of assessment center data give us confidence in the current conclusions. Even so, there is value-added in follow-up research replicating and extending the current findings in surveys in organizations (even when especially the assessment of leader responses to follower emotion may be more challenging in survey research).
603
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
To realize the possibility for structured behavioral observation, by necessity we limited ourselves to one leadership situation that could not possibly include all challenges that leaders meet on a regular basis. As our discussion of potential situational moderators in the previous highlights, the relationship between EI and effectiveness, as well as the specific mediating processes in this relationship, may be situationally contingent. Future research mapping the EI–effectiveness relationships over a variety of situations therefore has great value in further developing our understanding of this relationship.
Conclusion Two major issues remained unanswered in the study of the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness: does EI conceptualized and assessed as an ability influence leadership effectiveness when controlling for cognitive intelligence and Big Five personality traits? And, what are mediating processes in this relationship? With ability test data for EI, we found EI to predict leadership effectiveness controlling for cognitive intelligence and Big Five personality traits. Furthermore, we found the quality of leader responses to indications of counterproductive follower emotions to mediate the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. These findings offer a firmer basis for the future development of our understanding of the role of EI in leadership effectiveness.
References
Antonakis, J. (2004), “On why ‘emotional intelligence’ will not predict leadership effectiveness: an extension and rejoinder”, Organizational Analysis, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 171-182.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Dasborough, M.T. (2009), “Does leadership need emotional intelligence?”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 247-261.
Bono, J.E. and Ilies, R. (2006), “Charisma, positive emotions, and mood contagion”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 317-334.
Boyatzis, R.E., Good, D. and Massa, R. (2012), “Emotional. social, and cognitive intelligence and personality as predictors of sales leadership performance”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 191-201.
Bracket, M.A., Rivers, S.E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N. and Salovey, P. (2006), “Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: a comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 780-795.
Brackett, M. and Mayer, J.D. (2003), “Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1147-1158.
Brotheridge, C.M. (2006), “The role of emotional intelligence and other individual differences in predicting emotional labor relative to situational demands”, Psicothema, Vol. 18, Supplement, pp. 139-144.
Cabello, R., Sorrel, M.A., Fernández-Pinto, I., Extremera, N. and Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016), “Age and gender differences in ability emotional intelligence in adults: a cross-sectional study”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 9, pp. 1486-1492.
Caruso, D.R., Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (2002), “Emotional Intelligence and emotional leadership”, in Riggio, R.E., Murphy, S.E. and Pirozollo, F.J. (Eds), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership, Lawrence Elbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 55-74.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V. and Hickman, M. (2012), “Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 443-455.
604
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
Costa, P.T. Jr. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Côté, S. and Hideg, I. (2011), “The ability to influence others via emotion displays: a new dimension of emotional intelligence”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 53-71.
Coté, S., Lopez, P.N., Salovey, P. and Miners, C.T.H. (2010), “Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 496-508.
Eberly, M.B. and Fong, C.T. (2013), “Leading via the heart and mind: the roles of leader and follower emotions, attributions and interdependence”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 696-711.
Edelman, P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2017), “Training leader emotion regulation and leadership effectiveness”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 747-757.
Fritz, C. and van Knippenberg, D. (2017), “Gender and leadership aspiration: the impact of organizational identification”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1018-1037.
Hayes, A.F. (2009), “Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 408-420.
Hermelin, E., Lievens, F. and Robinson, I.T. (2007), “The validity of assessment centres for the prediction of supervisory performance ratings: a meta-analysis”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 405-411.
Higgs, M. and Aitken, P. (2003), “An exploration of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership potential”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 814-823.
Humphrey, R.H. (2008), “The right way to lead with emotional labor”, in Humphrey, R.H. (Ed.), Affect and Emotion: New Directions in Management Theory and Research, Information Age, Charlotte, NC, pp. 1-17.
Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M. and Hawver, C.E.J. (2008), “Leading with emotional labor”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-168.
Hur, Y., Van den Berg, P.T. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2011), “Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 591-603.
Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., Ispas, D. and Ion, A. (2013), “Examining the psychometric properties of the Mayer- Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test: findings from an Eastern European culture”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 121-128.
Judge, T.A., Colbert, A.E. and Ilies, R. (2004), “Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 542-552.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002), “Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 765-780.
Kellet, J.B., Humphrey, R.H. and Sleeth, R.G. (2002), “Empathy and complex task performance: two routes to leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 523-544.
Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N. and Boyle, E. (2006), “Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness”, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 265-279.
Koning, L.F. and Van Kleef, G.A. (2015), “How leaders’ emotional displays shape followers’ organizational citizenship behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 489-501.
Lewis, K.M. (2000), “When leaders display emotion: how followers respond to negative emotional expressions of male and female leaders”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 221-234.
Li, Z., Gupta, B., Loon, M. and Casimir, G. (2016), “Combinative aspects of leadership style and emotional intelligence”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 107-125.
Locke, E.A. (2005), “Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 425-431.
605
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
MacCann, C., Joseph, D.L., Newman, D.A. and Roberts, R.D. (2014), “Emotional intelligence is a second- stratum factor of intelligence: evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models”, Emotion, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 358-374.
Maulding, W.S., Peters, G.B., Roberts, J., Leonard, E. and Sparkman, L. (2012), “Emotional intelligence and resilience as predictors of leadership in school administrators”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 20-29.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1993), “The intelligence of emotional intelligence”, Intelligence, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 433-442.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999), “Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence”, Intelligence, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 267-298.
Newcombe, M.J. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2002), “The role of affect and affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: an experimental study”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 601-614.
Offerman, L.R., Bailey, J.R., Vasilopoulos, N.L., Seal, C. and Sass, M. (2004), “The relative contribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to individual and team performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 219-243.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rosete, D. and Ciarrochi, J. (2005), “Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness”, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 388-399.
Rossen, E. and Kranzler, J.H. (2009), “Incremental validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test version 2.0 (MSCEIT) after controlling for personality and intelligence”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 60-65.
Rossier, J., Meyer de Stadelhofen, F. and Berthoud, S. (2004), “The hierarchical structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1998), “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 262-274.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J. and Schultz, J. (2008), “Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134 No. 1, pp. 138-161.
Van Kleef, G.A., Homan, A.C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B. and Damen, F. (2009), “Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 562-580.
van Knippenberg, D. (in press), “The social psychology of personality and leadership: a person-in- situation perspective”, in Deaux, K. and Snyder, M. (Eds), Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
van Knippenberg, D. and Van Kleef, G.A. (2016), “Leadership and affect: moving the hearts and minds of followers”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 799-840.
Venus, M., Stam, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2013), “Leader emotion as a catalyst of effective leader communication of visions, value-laden messages, and goals”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Visser, V.A., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G.A. and Wisse, B. (2013), “How leader displays of happiness and sadness influence follower performance: emotional contagion and creative versus analytical performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 172-188.
606
LODJ 39,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
Walter, F.W., Cole, M.S. and Humphrey, R.H. (2011), “Emotional intelligence: sine qua non of leadership or folderol?”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Weinberger, L.A. (2009), “Emotional intelligence, leadership style, and perceived leadership effectiveness”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 747-772.
Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. and Druscat, V.U. (2002), “Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 505-522.
Further reading
Humphrey, R.H. (2002), “The many faces of emotional leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 493-504.
Hunt, E.B. (2011), Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 136-138. Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003), “A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 500-517.
Corresponding author Peter Edelman can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
607
Leader emotional
intelligence
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
at io
na l
U ni
ve rs
it y
A t
17 :2
3 25
A pr
il 2
01 9
(P T
)
