Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership: A Review of Empirical Studies

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate between the proponents and skeptics of emotional intelligence (EI) with regard to its contribution to leadership effectiveness in organizational settings. Not aiming to address all the leadership styles exhaustively, this research looked into the relationship between EI and transformational leadership (TL) by reviewing the accumulated research assets in the existing literature. After the staged review, 20 empirical studies covering five different continents were chosen for an in-depth analysis. The results show that most studies provide empirical support of the relationship, with variances in identifying subfactors of EI and TL that further explicate the EI–TL relationship. At the same time, the remaining studies are found to be skeptical, not fundamentally denying the relationship, but commonly pointing out the problem with EI measures and emphasizing the need for more valid and reliable assessment tools. Building on these findings, the present research suggests implications for practice and research in the human resource development (HRD) field.

Keywords

emotional intelligence transformational leadership EI measures leadership development

In the unprecedented economic era characterized with VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity), the topic of leadership seems to take center stage in various disciplines. As indicated by the main theme of the 2017 World Economic Forum, Responsive and Responsible Leadership, many thinkers recognize than ever the importance of influential leaders to tackle challenges, seize opportunities, and secure success. In the organizational context, research and practice alike have been in pursuit of the formula and programs for effective leadership. For example, Google has transformed the manager’s role by taking the traditional personnel-related power away from managers and reassigning their duties to primarily help solve problems (Bock, 2015); almost a half of human resource development (HRD) professionals ranked leadership development for managers at the top of their priority (Association for Talent Development [ATD], 2016); organizational scientists have long researched effective leadership to propose a variety of definitions, styles, and relationships.

There are numerous factors assumed to affect effective leadership, making it difficult to come to a consensus on adequate configuration for leadership development. In particular, a lingering question is why leaders with proven expertise are not necessarily successful in influencing others and attaining business goals. In this respect, Goleman (1998) proposed that performance of those in low-level positions in the organizational hierarchy tends to be associated with technical excellence, while it may not be the case for those on higher levels. Even worse, individual prowess and cognitive intelligence are often suspected to be a barrier to performance of organizational leaders who are interdependent with a variety of humans in crafting results. Suciu, Petcu, and Gherhes (2010) looked into the potential economic effect of leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI) and argued that leaders who underestimate EI are likely to fail due to their inability to move followers and satisfy customers.

Over the last few decades, the concept of EI has been around in the HRD field and is broadly assumed as a crucial attribute of effective leaders. For example, Clarke (2010) asserted that effective leaders act as role models in a group, paying attention to members’ emotions and making efforts to establish a positive climate. Furthermore, Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) claimed that transformational leaders are attentive to their own emotions, as this practice allows them to reflect on their emotional behaviors, perceive others’ emotions, and effectively react to their needs. As indicated by a myriad of programs aimed at improving leaders’ EI, these claims have garnered substantial support from many practitioners as well.

However, some researchers challenge the scientific rigor of EI-related propositions and argue that EI itself is conceptually incoherent among various definitions (e.g., Antonakis, 2004). Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2004) even maintain that EI seems to be more myth than science and that the proponents of EI stand on speculative scaffoldings, rather than on sufficient evidence. In fact, when it comes to scholarly work on the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, the results are mixed. For example, Barling, Slater, and Kelloway (2000) argued that important components of EI are positively associated with transformational leadership (TL) behaviors; Antonakis, Ashkanasy, and Dasborough (2009) found no significant evidence of EI’s contribution to TL behaviors; Harms and Credé (2010) added a variation that EI and TL have a marginal association. In brief, the existing body of research has yielded inconsistent results about EI and incurred an ongoing debate between the proponents and skeptics. This inconclusive tension underscores the urgency of an extensive investigation for a theoretical contribution, while advising the practical field that it would be premature to regard EI as a key determinant of effective leadership and embed it into leadership development efforts. What inheres in an application without solid evidence might include invalid schemes and unpredictable results, as well as ineffective use of resources. Said differently, it is necessary to take an in-depth look at the relationship between EI and leadership and to offer an integrated reference for both researchers and practitioners.

To this end, the present research attempts to look into the relationship by reviewing the accumulated research assets in the existing literature. In particular, not aiming to address all the leadership styles exhaustively, we focus on TL in relation to EI because all-inclusive scoping is likely to end up with completely incoherent interpretations and, moreover, because TL is featured with comprehensive aspects of effective leadership and, therefore, is regarded the most prevailing leadership style in recent research and practice (Carasco-Saul, Kim, & Kim, 2015).

In sum, the purpose of this research is to (a) take an overview of essential information about EI and TL, (b) extensively review empirical findings regarding the relationship between EI and TL, and (c) suggest implications for research and practice in the HRD field.

Method

Referring to Torraco’s (2005) guide to an integrative literature review, we conducted a staged review that proceeded from initial identification of pertinent articles to scanning their titles and abstracts for preliminary inclusion, to the further review of candidates for selection, and, ultimately, to the in-depth analysis of the selected articles.

More specifically, pertinent scholarly articles were identified using multiple ProQuest databases that include ABI/INFORM Complete, ERIC, ProQuest Education Journals, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES. With the research focus on the link between EI and TL, the keyword combination of “emotional intelligence” and “transformational leadership” was used to result in 118 articles found. There were such restrictions as peer-review, empirical study, and English publication, but no restriction was placed on publication dates considering the term “emotional intelligence” was coined by Salovey and Mayer in 1990. Then, the titles and abstracts of the articles were reviewed to determine whether each study (a) focused on the relationship between EI and TL, (b) had a research methodology, and (c) examined empirical data measured by instruments designed for EI and TL. In the following stage, the studies whose abstracts provided vague descriptions of the research frameworks and measurements were reviewed in-depth for inclusion or otherwise. The studies that focused mainly on other factors, such as the gender and new venture growth issues, were excluded, as were those purely conceptual with no report of measurements. As a result of this staged review of 118 articles, 20 empirical studies were chosen for further in-depth analysis.

Overview of EI and TL

Before examining the relationship between EI and TL, it is necessary to provide an overview of how EI and TL have been developed, defined, and measured.

EI

In the 1990s, the term “emotional intelligence” was coined by Salovey and Mayer (1990) who recognized EI as being comprised of multiple emotional abilities different from cognitive ones. Spurred by the publication of Emotional Intelligence by Goleman (1995), EI gained worldwide popularity and inspired many to have a fresh look at emotion from the perspective different from the traditional one.

Definitions of EI

EI is generally used with reference to the ability to perceive, understand, and manage the emotions of both the self and others to accomplish personal and collective goals (Brown & Moshavi, 2005). One step further, there are three different approaches to understanding EI: (a) EI as a trait, (b) EI as a competency, and (c) EI as an intellectual capability.

The first approach suggests that EI is an innate dispositional tendency that allows for emotional well-being (Bar-On, 1997). Proponents of this view argue that EI is significantly associated not only with cognitive intelligence but with certain personal qualities. Referring to the performance potential, instead of performance itself, they argue that understanding EI along with other cognitive intelligences offers a more comprehensive picture of an individual’s performance potential.

The second approach holds that EI is a set of acquired skills and competencies essential for leadership effectiveness and job performance (Goleman, 1995). Maintaining that leaders with high EI are most successful, this approach stresses that emotional competence is a learned ability that contributes to effective performance at work and spans four dimensions: (a) self-knowledge, (b) self-control, (c) social awareness, and (d) relationship management.

The third approach emphasizes that EI is distinct from both competency and personality (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). This approach considers EI as a new type of intelligence characterized by “the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 5).

These different approaches more explicitly manifested in the instruments that measure EI.

Measurements of EI

Among various EI measures, the most frequently used ones are the following: (a) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), (b) Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), and (c) Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) and Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Conte, 2005).

The EQ-i is based on Bar-On’s (1997) noncognitive intelligence model, views EI as an innate dispositional tendency, and relies solely on self-reporting in measuring EI. The EQ-i with 133 items is designed to measure the following five areas and their subcomponents: (a) interpersonal skills, (b) intrapersonal skills, (c) adaptability, (d) stress management, and (e) general moods.

The ECI views EI as a set of acquired competencies. It intends to measure the emotional competencies of individuals and identify high performers’ emotional competencies and positive social behaviors in the workplace. The ECI consists of 110 items assessing 20 competencies in the following four clusters: (a) self-awareness, (b) social awareness, (c) self-management, and (d) social skills (Conte, 2005). Unlike the EQ-i, the ECI is a 360-degree tool that includes self, peer, and supervisor ratings.

The MEIS and MSCEIT take an ability-based approach to EI, as they view EI as a new type of intelligence. Comprising 12 subsets with 402 items and eight subsets with 141 items, respectively, the MEIS and MSCEIT measure four EI branches, including (a) perceiving emotion, or the ability to identify emotions in the self and others, as well as in other stimuli; (b) facilitating thought, or the ability to use and communicate emotions in cognitive processes; (c) understanding the progression of emotion, or the ability to analyze emotional information and identify how emotions shift; and (d) managing emotions, or the ability to control the emotions and moods of the self and others for specific purposes (Brackett & Salovey, 2006). Both are markedly different from other EI measures in that, similar to the way used in cognitive ability tests, each item has the correct answer (Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005).

There are other tools used, such as the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), Trait Meta Mood Scale (TMMS), Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA), SMS-EQ, and EI-type scale.

TL

There has been a development in leadership research, whereby the perspective has shifted from trait and behavioral theories to current ones such as contingency, leader–member exchange, and TL theories, to name just a few (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015). Among this multitude, the TL model has been adopted by much of leadership literature that has attempted to look into the factors (and their combinations) for effective leadership. In fact, for the last several decades, TL has been most pervasive in leadership research (Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Harms & Credé, 2010).

Definitions of TL

Transformational leaders are described as those who encourage followers to increase their intellectual confidence, actively work to challenge the status quo and achieve higher performance, and pursue learning and development (Clarke, 2010; Dulewicz, Young, & Dulewicz, 2005; Harms & Credé, 2010). Many researchers (e.g., Bass, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bogler, Caspi, & Roccas, 2013) asserted that TL is constructed with the following key dimensions: (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration. Idealized influence, frequently referred to as charisma, involves not only a leader’s attributes, such as commitment to ideal achievement, but also actions consistent with his or her beliefs. Inspirational motivation is the extent to which a leader encourages his or her followers to achieve more by setting the bar high and inspiring confidence. Intellectual stimulation refers to how a leader mobilizes followers to question assumptions and challenge uncertainties. Finally, individualized consideration refers to a leader’s attention to the needs and concerns of followers by emotionally supporting them and keeping up sincere interactions. By taking a comprehensive approach to multiple, concurrent factors for effective leadership, TL is distinguished from other notable leadership styles, such as authentic leadership, ethical leadership, and charismatic leadership, that attend to (a) certain salient aspect(s).

Measurements of TL

Recognizing the multiple dimensions of leadership, Bass and Avolio (2000) proposed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and Form 5X (MLQ-5X) to identify an individual’s leadership style. These most widely used instruments (e.g., 16 out of 20 articles reviewed here) evaluate four TL dimensions of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, and use a 5-point behavioral scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently). According to the degree to which leaders behave in terms of the items stated in the questionnaire, the instruments identify three different leadership styles: transactional, laissez-faire, and TL.

In working with people and exercising their leadership, transactional leaders depend on contingent rewards, management by expectation (active), and management by exception (passive) as significant leverages. Contingent rewards refers to how frequently leaders use expectations and resultant economic rewards to encourage members to achieve their goals; management by expectation means how often leaders foresee members’ mistakes in advance and actively correct them; management by exception means the extent to which leaders passively react to members’ mistakes, rather than actively preventing them. Laissez-faire leadership is characterized as the absence of leadership and is distinguishable from management by exception. Laissez-faire leaders avoid accepting responsibility, making decisions, expressing their own opinions, or acting on members’ request for assistance. This type of a leader is typically absent when needed. As transformational leaders influence, inspire, stimulate, and care about followers, instead of proffering carrots and sticks for performance or letting go, they are apparently differentiated from those with transactional and laissez-faire styles of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2000; Bogler et al., 2013).

Relationship Between EI and TL

The analysis of the chosen studies suggests that the results be classified into two distinct groups: (a) those that found a significant relationship between EI and TL and (b) the others that are skeptical about their relationship. In what follows, we provide a gist of each of the studies along with the samples, measuring instruments, and other details.

Positive EI–TL Relationship

Among the 20 studies chosen, 15 argue the significance of EI in relation to TL based on the correlational and predictive findings about the EI–TL relationship.

Barling et al. (2000), drawing on data from 49 managers of a large pulp and paper organization via Bar-On’s self-report Emotional Intelligence Inventory and the MLQ 5X-Short, found that EI is significantly related to three dimensions of TL: inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and individualized consideration. Among these, inspirational motivation had the most significant correlation with EI—Pillai’s Trace F(2, 44) = 8.05, p < .01—followed by idealized influence—Pillai’s Trace F(2, 44) = 7.60, p < .01—and individualized consideration—Pillai’s Trace F(2, 44) = 3.69, p < .05.

In exploring their hypothesis that transformational leaders would possess higher EI levels than transactional leaders, Palmer, Walls, Burgess, and Stough (2001) studied 43 students and alumni of the Swinburne University Center for Innovation and Enterprise Programs. For the survey, they used the modified version of TMMS to assess an individual’s ability to reflect and manage emotions of self and others, and the MLQ to assess leadership style. Although their hypothesis was not fully supported, the authors found that some components of TL are correlated with those of EI, namely, idealized influence with monitoring emotion (r = .44, p < .01), inspirational motivation with both monitoring emotion (r = .42, p < .01) and managing emotion (r = .37,p < .05), and individualized consideration with both monitoring emotion (r = .55, p < .01) and managing emotion (r = .35, p < .05).

L. Gardner and Stough (2002) used the SUEIT that measures how an individual handles emotional information in the workplace and MLQ-5X for TL. Based on the analysis of the data from 110 high-level managers including 69 in the senior level or above, they reported that TL is positively correlated with EI (r = .675, p < .01) with intellectual stimulation having the strongest correlation with total EI scores (r = .586, p < .01) and that EI significantly predicts TL with the subscale of “understanding of emotions, external” being the most significant predictor of the variance in TL (β = .554, p < .01). They also provided empirical evidence of a negative correlation between laissez-faire leadership and EI (r = −.464, p < .01).

Sivanathan and Cynthia Fekken (2002) employed EQ-i and MLQ-5X to measure EI and leadership style of university residence staff. For data collection, 58 residence managers at Ontario University, the managers’ 232 employees, and 12 supervisors were asked to participate in the survey. The authors found that the EI levels of university residence staff were positively correlated with TL (r = .40, p < .01).

Duckett and Macfarlane (2003) researched managers in retail organizations in the United Kingdom to examine who the high-performing managers in the organization are. The researchers reviewed the results of annual performance appraisals of 20 managers and measured their EI using SMS-EQ profiles that have been used to hire and select managers in the retail companies and measure 13 dimensions of EI: energy, stress, optimism, self-esteem, commitment to work, attention to details, change, courage, direction, assertiveness, tolerance, consideration, and sociability. Duckett and Macfarlane (2003) mapped the dimensions of the SMS-EQ profiles against TL behaviors, analyzed the high-performing managers’ EI profiles, and reported a positive relationship between their EI and desired TL behaviors.

Using the MSCEIT and MLQ-5X to assess EI and TL, respectively, Leban and Zulauf (2004) collected the data from 24 project managers from six organizations to examine if the managers’ EI levels are related to TL behaviors. They found that one’s overall score on EI has a positive correlation with inspirational motivation (r = .364, p < .05), idealized influence (r = .362, p < .05), and individualized consideration (r = .419, p < .05).

Rubin, Munz, and Bommer (2005) gathered data from 145 managers from a large biotechnical company to examine the extent to which EI and personality of leaders influenced TL behaviors. The authors used DANVA to measure the ability of recognizing emotion; Big Five Inventory to measure the personality factor of extraversion; and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer’s (1996) instrument to measure six dimensions of TL: articulating a vision, providing a role model, communicating high-performance expectations, providing individualized support, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and providing intellectual stimulation. The results of this study showed that leaders with the ability of emotional recognition are more likely to engage in TL behaviors (β = .18, p < .05) and that the personality factor of extraversion positively influences the relationship between EI and TL (β = .19, p < .05).

Using the EQ-i for EI and the MLQ-5X for TL, Butler and Chinowsky (2006) collected data from 130 senior executives (either presidents or vice-presidents) out of the construction industry in the United States to investigate the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. Through a bivariate regression analysis, the researchers found that 34% of TL behaviors could be explained by the participants’ total EI scores (R² = .3429, p < .01) and that the TL score increased as the total EI did: specifically, when the total EI increased by one point on a 5-point scale, the TL score increased by .022.

Downey, Papageorgiou, and Stough (2006) collected data from 146 female project managers in Australia, using the SUEIT and the TMMS to measure their EI levels and the short version of MLQ-5X to assess their leadership styles. The reporting was that three dimensions of the SUEIT, understanding emotions (r = .304, p < .01), emotional management (r = .435, p < .01), and emotional control (r = .325, p < .01), as well as two subfactors of the TMMS, attention to feelings (r = .295, p < .01) and clarity of feelings (r = .375, p < .01), are positively correlated with all TL behaviors. Moreover, according to the results of regression analysis, EI was a significant predictor of TL: specifically, emotional management accounted for 20% of the variance in TL (β = .453, p < .01); a mixed model, with emotional management and attention to feelings combined, accounted for an additional 5% (β = .513, p < .01); a further combination of emotional management, attention to feelings, and clarity of feelings accounted for 27% of the variance in TL (β = .535, p < .01).

In looking at the correlation between EI and TL, Hackett and Hortman (2008) collected data from 46 assistant principals in elementary, middle, and high schools in a large school district of Georgia and used the ECI university edition (ECI-U) for EI and the MLQ for leadership styles. The results showed that EI levels were positively correlated with TL behaviors (r = .290- .695, p < .05) with two domains of the ECI-U (social awareness and relationship management) being most significantly correlated. Furthermore, 16 out of 21 EI subfactors of the ECI-U were found to be correlated with intellectual stimulation, and 13 subfactors were positively correlated with inspirational motivation.

Wang and Huang (2009) examined the relationship in a Taiwanese context and measured EI levels with the Wong and Law’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) and TL with MLQ-5X. The WLEIS assesses the following four dimensions of EI: self-emotion appraisal, others’ emotion appraisal, regulation of emotion, and use of emotion. Using data from 51 managers and 252 employees in small- and medium-sized textile companies, the researchers conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to find that EI significantly predicts TL (β = .264, p < .05) and that TL mediates the effects of EI on group cohesiveness.

Using the MSCEIT and MLQ-5X, Clarke (2010) conducted a study with 67 project managers from various national organizations in the United Kingdom, in which the participants were also asked to respond to a survey regarding behavioral competencies, including communication, teamwork, attentiveness, and conflict management. Through bivariate correlation and regression analyses, this study found a significant correlation between Branch 2 of the MSCEIT, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and two components of TL, idealized influence (r = .26, p < .05) and individualized considerations (r = .27, p < .05). Branch 2 was also found to be related to the behavioral competency of teamwork (β = .28, p < .05).

Hur, van den Berg, and Wilderom (2011) examined whether there is a correlation between EI and TL and whether TL mediates the relationship between EI and such managerial factors as leader effectiveness, team effectiveness, and service climate. The authors collected data from 55 leaders and 859 employees in a public-sector organization in South Korea, using 16 items from the WLEIS to measure EI and the short version of the MLQ-5X to measure TL. The results showed that EI is positively correlated with TL (r = .46, p < .01); EI significantly predicts the variance in TL even after controlling for leaders’ ages, their levels of education, and the sizes of their teams, β = .43, p < .01, ∆R² = .19; ∆F(1, 50) = 12.95, p < .001; and that TL mediates the relationship between EI and leader effectiveness, as well as between EI and service climate.

San Lam and O’Higgins (2013) examined a correlation between EI and TL with data from 50 managers and 273 employees across two Chinese construction companies. Using the MLQ and the Wong Emotional Intelligence Scale (WEIS) developed by Wong, Law, and Wong (2004), tailored to the Chinese context (San Lam & O’Higgins, 2013), and designed to measure four dimensions of EI (self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management), the authors found that there is a positive correlation between EI and TL in a Chinese context (r = .23,p < .01)

Ugoani, Amu, and Kalu (2015) investigated the correlation between EI and TL with data collected from 47 managers and employees in Aba, Nigeria. They developed their own questionnaire for the study using the survey design technique and found a strong correlation between EI and TL (r = .89, p < .01).

Despite some variance in discrete TL components related with EI, measuring instruments, and sample sizes and research contexts, the 15 studies overviewed above provide convincing empirical evidence that EI is positively related to TL.

Skepticism Regarding the EI–TL Relationship

However, unlike the studies in the previous section, the following five studies are skeptical about the relationship between EI and TL.

Barbuto and Burbach (2006) collected data from 80 public officials and their 388 employees in the United States and measured TL with the MLQ and EI with Carson, Carson, and Birkenmeier’s (2000) instrument that assesses five dimensions of EI: empathetic response, mood regulation, interpersonal skills, internal motivation, and self-awareness. The authors found a moderate correlation between EI and TL but, at the same time, a difference between the leaders’ self-reported and employees’ rater-reported results. For example, EI was found to be less related to the rater-reported TL subfactors of intellectual stimulation and idealized influence. In conclusion, Barbuto and Burbach argued that these findings weaken the claim that EI is correlated with TL.

Using the EQ-i and MLQ with 161 supervisors and their 2,411 employees in a large international technology company in the United States, Brown, Bryant, and Reilly (2006) investigated how EI and TL interact with leadership outcomes such as leadership effectiveness and employees’ satisfaction with their leaders. This study found that, when TL was considered in the hierarchical regression analysis, a leader’s EI significantly predicted leadership effectiveness, R² = .88, F(2, 158) = 557.20, p < .001, and employees’ satisfaction (β = −0.08, p < .01) with TL playing a mediating role in between. However, the researchers found no correlation between EI and TL and that neither the total EI scale nor its subscales predicted variance in TL scales.

In examining the EI’s correlation with diverse leadership behaviors, Harms and Credé (2010) conducted a meta-analysis to suggest a moderate relationship between EI and TL. They also pointed out that there was a distinct difference in degrees of correlation between those that employed the single source rating both for EI and TL and the others that used the multi-source rating, in which studies of single source rating tended to present a stronger relationship between EI and TL (r = .48, p < .1) than those of multi-source rating (r = .11, p < .1). They added that trait-based measures of EI were more strongly related to TL than ability-based measures. With this low level of agreement, Harms and Credé raised the concern about the validity of EI assessment tools and did not fully support the claims made by EI proponents.

Cavazotte, Moreno, and Hickmann (2012) examined whether the leader’s EI level is positively related to TL behaviors. The data were collected from 134 team managers and their employees in a large Brazilian energy company using WLEIS and MLQ-5X. The researchers found a significant EI–TL relationship when EI was considered alone, but no significant relationship when ability and personality elements were factored in. At the same time, the authors were concerned about the discriminant validity of the EI measurement, arguing that many EI factors could be explained by cognitive intelligence and personality traits. Acknowledging the possible bias of their findings due to the measurement issues, Cavazotte et al. recommended that future researchers should use ability-based measurements to mitigate the possibility.

Føllesdal et al. (2013) examined the extent to which EI influences TL, using multi-level analyses of data from 104 executives and their 459 employees through the Administrative Research Foundation in Norway. The MSCEIT and the official Norwegian version of the MLQ-5X were used to measure EI and TL, respectively. The authors found that EI levels did not predict TL when such factors as leaders’ ages, general cognitive ability, and personality factors were controlled for. They also argued that the MSCEIT has validity problems and might not be an appropriate tool for measuring EI.

The five studies overviewed above challenge the claim that EI is significantly related to TL. In addition, although the studies employed different EI measures, they commonly pointed to the validity issue of EI assessment.

Discussion

This research examined a total of 20 articles focused on the relationship between EI and TL. These studies were conducted across five continents: eight in North America (the United States and Canada), three in Asia (China, South Korea, and Taiwan), three in Europe (the United Kingdom and Norway), two in Oceania (Australia), and one in Africa (Nigeria). Including one meta-analytic study, three studies did not provide information on where they were conducted. The data were gathered from various industries, including public-service providers, university staff, private companies, and international organizations. There was no dominant industry surveyed in the studies. This wide range of research settings could serve as a solid ground for reliability and generalizability of the research findings.

Overall, the findings are divided into two groups. One group of 15 studies provides evidence that EI is a critical contributor to TL behaviors, with variances in identifying subfactors of EI and TL that further explicate the EI–TL relationship. Among the TL subfactors, for instance, some researchers found inspirational motivation to be most significantly correlated with EI (e.g., Barling et al., 2000), while others gave the credit to intellectual stimulation (e.g., L. Gardner & Stough, 2002). Despite this room for continued investigation, the results of this dominant group of studies provide empirical support of leveraging EI for leadership development. On the contrary, the other group adopted a skeptical stance about the relationship. In particular, these studies commonly pointed out the problem with EI measures and emphasized the need for more valid and reliable assessment tools. Not fundamentally denying the EI–TL relationship, they suspect that the relationship is overstated by the proponents of EI.

With all these findings and interpretations, the present research offers the HRD field a comprehensive understanding of the EI–TL relationship and suggests implications for practice and research.

Implications for Practice

In the organizational reality, the boss is a prime reason for employees to leave (Hay, 2002; Wefald, Reichard, & Serrano, 2011), and there are many other undesirable phenomena that leaders are blamed for. Considering that these are frequently associated with the emotional aspect of leaders and the sentiment of members, it is imperative to pay more attention to the matter of EI and its relationship with leadership in the workplace. The present research informs the HRD field that the majority of studies supported EI’s contribution to TL behaviors. In other words, leaders with high EI are more likely to effectively influence employees by providing visions, inspiring them, encouraging their pursuit of intellectual competence, and attending to their specific needs. Therefore, HRD professionals are advised to more confidently incorporate EI components into practices for leadership development. In particular, they are encouraged to explore further values for leadership development from such opportunities as EI assessment, self-reflection and meditation, mindfulness programs, and others that feature emotional interventions.

From the functional perspective, leadership is regarded as a major enabler of high performance and sound culture of an organization; from the interpretational perspective, it is a driver of people’s learning and engagement (Moss, 2008; Shuck & Herd, 2012). These are the fundamental reasons why the HRD field is concerned about effectiveness of current and potential leaders and why balanced attention should be paid to both indicators of material performance and human dynamics. In particular, given the EI’s role in association with leadership, EI-related aspects deserve to be embedded in the selection and promotion process, as well as in the regular evaluation process. For example, if the organization prefers transformational leaders over transactional or laissez-faire counterparts, it could address the EI of emerging leaders in the assessment center or evaluate their social relationships with their protégés. Unmatched with its widespread awareness, EI still seems to be regarded as good-to-have in practice, instead of must-have, under the full swing of performance-centered, result-based organizational atmosphere. However, the present research offers evidence for HRD professionals to spell out EI’s contribution to leadership effectiveness and, ultimately, to sustainable performance and healthy culture of an organization.

Implications for Research

EI is an area that still calls for a continued debate on its definition and attributes. Scholars thus far have been successful in shedding light on EI, looking at it from multiple angles and providing insightful references for the field. However, the research community has yet to reach a consensus on the fundamental conceptualization of EI as represented by the disagreement on whether it is a trait, a competency, or an intellectual capability. This theoretically inconclusive status leaves the field confused about how to address EI and indecisive on, for example, whether to put resources in buying leaders with high EI or in making leaders by developing their EI. In other words, the conceptual consensus would reduce the likelihood that strategic efforts would become stranded with resources wasted, while serving as a phenomenal step forward to robust theorization of EI.

This research found that, largely due to the issues with EI measures, the EI’s contribution to TL is questioned by both its advocates and opponents. Hunt and Fitzgerald (2013) pointed out that the lack of a broadly accepted EI assessment tool is one of the reasons for the mixed results regarding the EI–TL relationship. To be specific, the discriminant validity issue is concerning for self-reporting instruments (e.g., EQ-i and ECI), because quantitative studies are often susceptible to common method bias, especially when the data set is gathered from the homogeneous source with similar assessment methods. Ability-based EI measures (e.g., MEIS and MSCEIT) are also vulnerable to critique due to their scoring techniques and subfactors often overlapping with those of cognitive intelligence and personality. This overlap is a by-product of the disagreement in conceptualization of EI and reversely adds to the difficulty of reaching the agreed-upon definition. Therefore, alongside with pursuing the consensus in definition, testing and securing the validity of EI measures would continue to be an important area of research contribution.

Another research opportunity is implied on an entirely new level with the advent of the 4th Industrial Revolution (4th IR) characterized with massive connectivity, big data, meta-intelligence, to name a few (Schwab, 2017). As the introduction of the term at the World Economic Forum in 2016, many are concerned what it really means for us. Much attention so far seems to be around its mega-level ramifications with such arguments as that numerous jobs would disappear, that human beings at work would be substituted by artificial intelligence (AI) and robots, and that one would live a completely different working life (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Subsequent to these arguments is the question on what quality the future talent should possess to survive and succeed in these uncharted waters. To this question, the most common answer is that it must be creativity and socioemotional capabilities given the prospect that an individual’s intellectual capacity is likely to lose to AI and that important logical decisions might be made by the computer algorithm based on data analytics. At work, people would connect and collaborate with each other, rather than command and follow; information and intelligence would be shared, rather than distributed; the organizational structure would become horizontal, rather than vertical. Applied to the leadership context, this understanding suggests that EI should garner refreshed attention in the HRD field as not only a contributor to, but also an ultimate determinant of effective leadership in the new era of 4th IR. It also implies that researchers should critically revisit current leadership models, including TL, and come up with new leadership models that better fit the new norm. In fact, it might be the time for HRD to discuss what the 4th IR has to offer to all the established knowledge across the various dimensions of the field. Things are changing dramatically, and so should HRD.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biographies

Hyejin Kim is currently an HRD manager for SK Telecom in South Korea with nearly 20 years of professional experience in the field. She received her master’s degree in Workforce Education and Development at The Pennsylvania State University. Her area of expertise includes HRD planning, leadership development, organization development, and coaching.

Taesung Kim is currently an assistant professor in the department of Creative HRD at Incheon National University in South Korea. He received his Ph.D. degree in Workforce Education and Development at The Pennsylvania State University and has more than ten years of extensive experience in the HR field including the tenure with KPMG Korea as a director in the Learning and Development Center. His research area includes organization development and change, leadership development, work engagement, and professional ethics.

References

Antonakis

(2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “Big Five”: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis, 12, 171-182.

Antonakis

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

(2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247-261. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Tse

(2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In Ashkanasy

N. M.

Hartel

C. E. J.

Zerbe

W. J.

(Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 221-235). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Association for Talent Development. (2016). ACCEL: The skills that make a winning manager. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development Press.

Barbuto

J. E.

Burbach

M. E.

(2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51-64. doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.1.51-64

Barling

Slater

Kelloway

E. K.

(2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 157-161. doi:10.1108/01437730010325040

Bar-On

(1997). Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bass

B. M.

(1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

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

10.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(2000). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

11.

Bock

(2015). Work rules! Insights from inside Google that will transform how you live and lead. New York, NY: Twelve Hachette Book Group.

12.

Bogler

Caspi

Roccas

(2013). Transformational and passive leadership an initial investigation of university instructors as leaders in a virtual learning environment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41, 372-392.

13.

Brackett

M. A.

Salovey

(2006). Measuring emotional intelligence with the Mayer-Salovery-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Psicothema, 18, 34-41.

14.

Brown

F. W.

Moshavi

(2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871. doi:10.1002/job.334

15.

Brown

F. W.

Bryant

S. E.

Reilly

M. D.

(2006). Does emotional intelligence–as measured by the EQI–influence transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 330-351.

16.

Butler

C. J.

Chinowsky

P. S.

(2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in construction executives. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22, 119-125. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2006)22:3(119)

17.

Carson

K. D.

Carson

P. P.

Birkenmeier

B. J.

(2000). Measuring emotional intelligence: Development and validation of an instrument. Journal of Behavioral and applied Management, 2(1), 32-44.

18.

Carasco-Saul

Kim

(2015). Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 38-63.

19.

Cavazotte

Moreno

Hickmann

(2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 443-455.

20.

Clarke

(2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership and key project manager competences. Project Management Journal, 41, 5-20. doi:10.1002/pmj.20162

21.

Conte

J. M.

(2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440. doi:10.1002/job.319

22.

Downey

L. A.

Papageorgiou

Stough

(2006). Examining the relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence and intuition in senior female managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 250-264. doi:10.1108/01437730610666019

23.

Duckett

Macfarlane

(2003). Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership in retailing. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 309-317. doi:10.1108/01437730310494284

24.

Dulewicz

Young

Dulewicz

(2005). The relevance of emotional intelligence for leadership performance. Journal of General Management, 30, 71-86.

25.

Føllesdal

Hagtvet

(2013). Does emotional intelligence as ability predict transformational leadership? A multilevel approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 747-762. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.004

26.

Frey

C. B.

Osborne

M. A.

(2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280.

27.

Gardner

Stough

(2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 68-78.

28.

Goleman

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

29.

Goleman

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

30.

Hackett

P. T.

Hortman

J. W.

(2008). The relationship of emotional competencies to transformational leadership: Using a corporate model to assess the dispositions of educational leaders. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 8, 92-111.

31.

Harms

P. D.

Credé

(2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5-17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894

32.

Hay

(2002). Strategies for survival in the war of talent. Career Development International, 7, 52-55. doi:10.1108/13620430210414883

33.

Hunt

Fitzgerald

(2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: An investigation and review of competing claims in the literature. American International Journal of Social Science, 2(8), 30-38.

34.

Hur

van den Berg

P. T.

Wilderom

C. P.

(2011). Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 591-603.

35.

Leban

Zulauf

(2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 554-564. doi:10.1108/01437730410561440

36.

Matthews

Zeidner

Roberts

R. D.

(2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

37.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

(1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey

Sluyter

(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

38.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

Sitarenios

(2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion, 3, 97-105. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97

39.

Moss

(2008). Cultivating the regulatory focus of followers to amplify their sensitivity to transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 241-259.

40.

Palmer

Walls

Burgess

Stough

(2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22, 5-10. doi:10.1108/01437730110380174

41.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Bommer

W. H.

(1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.

42.

Rosete

Ciarrochi

(2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 388-399. doi:10.1108/01437730510607871

43.

Rubin

R. S.

Munz

D. C.

Bommer

W. H.

(2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845-858. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803926

44.

Salovey

Mayer

J. D.

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

45.

San Lam

O’Higgins

. (2013). Emotional intelligence and leadership styles in China. Asia Pacific Management Review, 18, 441-465.

46.

Schwab

(2017). The fourth industrial revolution. New York, NY: Crown Business.

47.

Shuck

Herd

A. M.

(2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 156-181.

48.

Sivanathan

Cynthia Fekken

(2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 198-204.

49.

Suciu

Petcu

Gherhes

(2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership. Annual Economic Science Series, 16, 549-556.

50.

Torraco

R. J.

(2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283

51.

Ugoani

J. N.

Amu

C. U.

Kalu

E. O.

(2015). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: A correlation analysis. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 6, 563-584.

52.

Wang

Y. S.

Huang

T. C.

(2009). The relationship of transformational leadership with group cohesiveness and emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37, 379-392. doi:10.2224/sbp.2009.37.3.379

53.

Wefald

A. J.

Reichard

R. J.

Serrano

S. A.

(2011). Fitting engagement into a nomological network: The relationship of engagement to leadership and personality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 522-537.

54.

Wong

C. S.

Law

K. S.

(2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.

55.

Wong

C. S.

Law

K. S.

Wong

P. M.

(2004). Development and validation of a forced choice emotional intelligence measure for Chinese respondents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21, 535-559.