2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 45

A R T I C L E S

Emotional Intelligence:
Sine Qua Non of Leadership or Folderol?
by Frank Walter, Michael S. Cole, and Ronald H. Humphrey

Executive Overview
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a divisive topic for many individuals interested in the subject of leadership.
Whereas practitioner-oriented publications have claimed that EI is the sine qua non of leadership,
academics continue to discuss EI’s relevance for understanding leadership emergence, behavior, and
effectiveness. Here we critically review recent empirical evidence to constructively frame what has become
a contentious debate about the relevance of EI. We also identify unresolved issues and highlight future
research directions that may promote our understanding of EI’s role for leadership. We close with a practical
discussion of possible applications of EI in leadership education, training, and development.

I
t has been argued that an “affective revolution” istent or very weak at best or contradictory at
(Barsade & Gibson, 2007) has taken hold in the worst” (2003, p. 359). Others, in contrast, have
leadership literature, with emotional intelli- developed conceptual frameworks linking the
gence (EI) of leaders increasingly seen as a critical concept of EI with leadership outcomes (e.g.,
issue in the domain (e.g., Ashkanasy & Daus, George, 2000) and have continued to empirically
2002; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; George, 2000). examine these relationships (e.g., Côté, Lopez,
Some practitioners have gone so far as to suggest Salovey, & Miners, 2010; Rubin, Munz, & Bom-
that EI explains up to 90% of the difference be- mer, 2005).
tween senior-level leaders classified as “star” per- This controversy about the role of EI for
formers and their average-performing counterparts
leadership is the central focus of this article. We
(Goleman, 2000). In fact, such claims have en-
believe EI-leadership researchers must pay
couraged practitioner-oriented writings to con-
tend that “emotional intelligence is the sine qua greater attention to unresolved issues and ad-
non of leadership” (Goleman, 1998, p. 93). And dress crucial avenues for future investigation.
yet, academic perspectives on the role of EI for To assist with this effort, we summarize the
leadership remain more qualified and controver- differing approaches toward EI prevalent in the
sial (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, literature and critically review recent empirical
2009). Locke, for example, argued that EI is “in- findings on the role of EI for leadership emer-
valid both because it is not a form of intelligence gence, behavior, and effectiveness. We con-
and because it is defined so broadly” (2005, p. clude with a discussion of important research
425), and Antonakis observed that empirical ev- directions and practical implications for leader-
idence for the relevance of leaders’ EI “is nonex- ship education, training, and development.
* Frank Walter (f.walter@rug.nl) is Assistant Professor of Management, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Michael S. Cole (m.s.cole@tcu.edu) is Assistant Professor at the Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University.
Ronald H. Humphrey (rhhumphr@vcu.edu) is Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Copyright by the Academy of Management; all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, e-mailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. Users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use only.
46 Academy of Management Perspectives February

Three Streams of EI Research: 2002; Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 2000) and typically
A Heterogeneous Field use self-assessments or other-report measures (e.g.,

T
he EI concept is characterized by widely differ- Bar-On, 2000; Wolff, 2005).
ing definitions and measurement approaches. Each EI stream has distinct advantages and
To simplify, Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) orga- disadvantages (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack,
nized this literature into three distinct categories, Hawver, & Story, 2010). Ability-based stream 1
or what they termed “streams” (see Table 1). The measures, for example, are less susceptible to fak-
first stream follows Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) ing and socially desirable responding (Day & Car-
definition of EI as a set of interrelated emotional roll, 2008), and they come closest to what is
abilities (i.e., accurately perceiving emotions, us- implied by the term emotional intelligence: a set of
ing emotions to facilitate thinking, understanding abilities for effectively dealing with emotions (Jo-
emotions, and managing emotions to attain seph & Newman, 2010; Mayer, Roberts, & Bar-
goals). This stream employs ability-based EI tests sade, 2008; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008).
that capture individuals’ performance in solving Accordingly, researchers have labeled stream 1
emotional problems (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, & Ca- measures as capturing “ability EI” (Jordan, Dasbor-
ruso, 2004; Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Stream 2 also ough, Daus, & Ashkanasy, 2010). Nonetheless,
draws on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) definition, ability-based EI measures have been criticized be-
but rather than employing ability-based tests it cause they assess individuals’ performance in solv-
uses self-assessments or other-reports of emotion- ing abstract test questions rather than actual be-
ally intelligent behavior (e.g., Jordan, Ashkanasy, havior (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Stream 2 EI
Härtel, & Hooper, 2002; Wong & Law, 2002). In measures based on self- or other-reports, in con-
contrast, Stream 3 includes approaches that define trast, allow individuals to rate their own or others’
EI in a broader sense. These “mixed” EI models behavior in complex social situations. Also,
subsume an array of different dispositions and stream 2 measures are more feasible to use in many
competencies (e.g., self-awareness, empathy, mood, settings because they are easily distributed and
decision making, and teamwork; Ashkanasy & Daus, readily adjustable (Law, Wong, Huang, & Li,

Table 1
Three Streams of EI Research
Stream of
EI Research EI Definition Measurement Approach Example Measures
Stream 1 A set of interrelated abilities for effectively Ability-based EI tests that capture MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2004)
dealing with one’s own and others’ individuals’ performance in solving DANVA (Nowicki & Duke, 2001)
emotions (i.e., perceiving, using, emotional problems.
understanding, and managing emotions;
Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Stream 2 A set of interrelated abilities for effectively Self-assessments or other-reports of WLEIS (Wong & Law, 2002)
dealing with one’s own and others’ emotional abilities and emotionally WEIP (Jordan et al., 2002)
emotions (i.e., perceiving, using, intelligent behavior.
understanding, and managing emotions;
Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Stream 3 An array of dispositions, competencies, Self-assessments or other-reports of EQ-i (Bar-On, 2000)
and perceptions related to the effective EI-related dispositions, ECI (Wolff, 2005)
management of emotions (e.g., self- competencies, behaviors, and
awareness, empathy, positive mood, perceptions.
decision making, etc.; Bar-On, 2000;
Goleman, 2000).
Note: Based on Ashkanasy and Daus (2005). DANVA ⫽ Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy; ECI ⫽ Emotional Competence
Inventory; EQ-i ⫽ Emotional Quotient Inventory; MSCEIT ⫽ Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; WEIP ⫽ Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Profile; WLEIS ⫽ Wong-Law Emotional Intelligence Scale.
2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 47

2008). On the other hand, such self- or other- tively influence followers’ feelings and address
report measures may capture respondents’ beliefs their concerns with greater proficiency (Hum-
and perceptions more than their emotional abili- phrey, 2008). An emotionally intelligent leader
ties (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & may be capable of expressing authentic sympathy
Salovey, 2006; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000), and support toward frustrated followers, but also
reflecting a type of “emotional self-efficacy” (cf. “irritation at slackers, or enthusiasm for good per-
Kirk, Schutte, & Hine, 2008). Finally, stream 3 formance” (Humphrey, Pollack, & Hawver, 2008,
approaches “essentially position [EI] as including p. 160). In line with these notions, scholars have
almost everything except cognitive ability” (Fer- noted that EI can help leaders generate and main-
ris, Perrewé, & Douglas, 2002, p. 56). Conse- tain follower confidence, cooperation, and trust
quently, some have labeled self- or other-reported (George, 2000); guide teams through situations of
stream 3 measures as broadly capturing “emotional ambiguity, confusion, and conflict (Humphrey,
and social competencies” (Jordan et al., 2010) or 2006; Pescosolido, 2002); and provide inspiration
“trait EI” (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Although and a sense of meaning, identity, and commit-
such measures often outperform alternative EI ment to followers (Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Amme-
measures’ predictive validity, this is likely attrib- ter, & Buckley, 2003).
utable to the wider construct space covered For these arguments to be valid, it is critical
(O’Boyle et al., 2010). Hence, the ambiguity as- that the effects of EI not be empirically redundant
sociated with stream 3 measures may hinder the with other individual characteristics. It is well
development of new theoretical insights (Fiori, known, for instance, that an individual’s cognitive
2009). ability and personality are crucial for leadership
(Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhart, 2002; Judge, Col-
Where Do We Stand: Current Knowledge on bert, & Ilies, 2004). Theoretically, EI is expected
Emotional Intelligence and Leadership to influence leadership outcomes through alterna-
tive channels—namely by enabling leaders to
Theoretical Background more effectively manage both their own and their

L
eadership has been described as an “emotion- followers’ feelings (George, 2000; Humphrey et
laden process” (George, 2000, p. 1046), with al., 2008; Law et al., 2008). Therefore, EI’s pre-
the skillful management of followers’ feelings dictive utility beyond cognitive ability and per-
representing a critical leadership function (Hum- sonality is considered to be its litmus test (An-
phrey, 2002, 2008). Accordingly, leaders’ emo- tonakis et al., 2009). In the following sections, we
tions and associated behavior have been found to move beyond theoretical considerations and re-
profoundly influence followers’ emotional reac- view the empirical literature on EI and leadership.
tions (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, In doing so, we focus on three distinct leadership
2005). Followers’ job performance, in turn, bene- criteria: leadership emergence, behavior, and ef-
fits from positive, optimistic feelings but suffers fectiveness.
from feelings of frustration and negativity (Mc-
Coll-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002; Pirola-Merlo, Emotional Intelligence and Leadership
Härtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002). Emergence
Given this fundamental role of emotions, EI Leadership emergence represents the degree to
may be crucial in the leadership process. Specifi- which a person is perceived as a leader and exerts
cally, a leader who can accurately identify and influence on other members of a group, even
understand others’ emotions should better grasp though he or she is not in a formal position of
subordinates’ problems and needs and, in conse- authority (Taggar, Hackett, & Saha, 1999). Rel-
quence, formulate more successful (emotional) re- atively few studies have examined the link be-
sponses (Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002). Sim- tween EI and leadership emergence, and most of
ilarly, a leader who can effectively display and this research has relied on student samples (see
manage emotions can more strongly and posi- Table 2). Our perusal of the relevant literature
48 Academy of Management Perspectives February

yielded only one published study (Côté et al., empathy (Kellett et al., 2006) and behavioral
2010) that utilized an ability-based EI measure strategies such as perspective taking, task coor-
(viz., stream 1). The bulk of research in this area dination, and supportive/developmental behav-
has applied stream 2 (e.g., Kellett, Humphrey, & ior (Wolff et al., 2002).
Sleeth, 2006) or stream 3 measures of EI based on
self- or other-reports (e.g., Higgs & Aitken, 2003; Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Behavior
Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2002; Offerman, The association between EI and specific leader-
Bailey, Vasilopoulos, Seal, & Sass, 2004; Wolff, ship behaviors has also received scholarly atten-
Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002). Côté and col- tion (see Table 3). This work has predominately
leagues’ work is likewise the only study to date focused on transformational leadership behavior
that examined the role of EI for leadership emer- (cf. Harms & Credé, 2010), which involves acting
gence while taking into account individuals’ cog- as a charismatic role model, communicating a
nitive ability and personality. In consequence, the captivating vision, and providing intellectual
majority of this research leaves open the possibil- stimulation and individualized support to follow-
ity of alternative explanations (due to unmeasured ers (Bass, 1985). EI research using stream 1’s abil-
variables; cf. Antonakis, 2003). These limitations ity-based instruments has produced mixed results.
notwithstanding, existing evidence has provided a Whereas some articles have shown EI and trans-
rather consistent picture. In fact, all published formational leadership behavior to be positively
articles support the notion that emotionally in- related (Leban & Zulauf, 2004), others have re-
telligent individuals are more likely to emerge ported non-significant results (Weinberger, 2009),
as leaders. Also, a handful of studies have and yet others have shown the relevance of EI to
moved beyond direct effects and have examined hinge on moderating factors such as leaders’ ex-
explanatory mechanisms (viz., mediators). This troversion (Rubin et al., 2005) and emotional
initial work suggests that the role of EI for intensity (Jin, Seo, & Shapiro, 2008). A majority
leadership emergence is transmitted through of stream 2 (Groves, 2005; Middleton, 2005;
Table 2
Summary of Studies Linking EI and Leadership Emergence
Leadership Emergence
EI Measurement Sample Description Measurement EI to
Sample Outcome Emergence
Article Instrument Source Size Sample Type Description Source Linkage
Stream 1
Côté et al. MSCEIT Self Study 1: 138 Undergraduate Conger-Kanungo Peer Supported
(2010) Study 2: 165 students leadership scale
Stream 2
Kellett et al. WEIP; Interactive Peer 231 Undergraduate and Task and relations Peer Supported
(2006) Empathy graduate students leadership
Stream 3
Higgs & Aitken EI Questionnaire — Self 40 Public service Leadership Assessment Supported
(2003) Managerial managers potential center
Kellett et al. ECI (Empathy) Peer 168 Undergraduate and General leadership Peer Supported
(2002) graduate students impression scale
Offerman et al. ECI Self 425 Undergraduate Leadership Peer Supported
(2004) students ranking
Wolff et al. Empathy Critical incident 382 MBA students Leader votes Peer Supported
(2002) interviews
Note: ECI ⫽ Emotional Competence Inventory; MSCEIT ⫽ Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; WEIP ⫽ Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Profile.
2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 49

Table 3
Summary of Studies Linking EI and Leadership Behavior
Leadership Behavior
EI Measurement Sample Description Measurement
Sample Outcome EI–Behavior
Article Instrument Source Size Sample Type Description Source Link
Stream 1
Jin et al. (2008) MSCEIT Self 178 Managers (part-time TL Subordinate Supported
MBA students)
Leban & Zulauf (2004) MSCEIT Self 24 Project managers TL, CR*, MBE, Subordinate; Partially
LF stakeholder supported
Rubin et al. (2005) DANVA Self 177 Managers TL, CR* Subordinate Partially
supported
Weinberger (2009) MSCEIT Self 138 Managers TL*, CR*, Subordinate Not supported
MBE*, LF*
Stream 2
Gardner & Stough SUEIT Self 110 High-level managers TL, CR, MBE, LF Self Supported
(2002)
Lindebaum & Cartwright WLEIS Subordinate, 45-58 Project managers TL* Subordinate, line Not supported
(2010) manager manager
Groves (2005) SSI Self 108 Senior organizational CL Subordinate Supported
leaders
Middleton (2005) SSEIT Self 64 Undergraduate CL Peers, parents, Supported
students teachers, etc.
Moss et al. (2006) SUEIT Self Study 1: 263 Government TL*, Corrective- Subordinate Partially
Study 2: 166 organization avoidant supported
managers leadership
Palmer et al. (2001) TMMS Self 43 Higher, middle, and TL, CR, MBE* Self Partially
lower level managers supported
Walter & Bruch (2007) WLEIS Self 34 Higher, middle, and CL Subordinate Supported
lower level managers
Stream 3
Barbuto & Burbach EI measure Self 80 Elected community TL Subordinate Supported
(2006) leaders
Barling et al. (2000) EQ-i Self 49 Higher, middle, and TL, CR Subordinate Supported
lower level managers
Brown et al. (2006) EQ-i Self 161 Managers and TL*, CR* Subordinate Not supported
supervisors
Mandell & Pherwani EQ-i Self 32 Managers TL Self Supported
(2003)
Sosik & Megerian Emotional Self 63 Managers TL Self; subordinate Supported
(1999) competencies
Note: CL ⫽ Charismatic leadership; CR ⫽ Contingent reward; DANVA ⫽ Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy; EQ-i ⫽ Emotional
Quotient Inventory; LF ⫽ Laissez-faire; MBE ⫽ Management by exception; MSCEIT ⫽ Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test;
SSEIT ⫽ Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; SSI ⫽ Social Skills Inventory; SUEIT ⫽ Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence
Test; TL ⫽ Transformational leadership; TMMS ⫽ Trait Meta Mood Scale; WLEIS ⫽ Wong-Law Emotional Intelligence Scale. * EI was not
found to significantly relate with this variable.
50 Academy of Management Perspectives February

Walter & Bruch, 2007) and stream 3 (e.g., Bar- EI’s role is anticipated to hinge on important
buto & Burbach, 2006; Barling, Slater, & Kello- boundary conditions and generative mechanisms
way, 2000; Sosik & Megerian, 1999) studies, how- that remain understudied to date. Moreover, em-
ever, have observed a positive linkage between pirical findings regarding EI’s relevance for other
self-reported EI and leaders’ transformational be- forms of leadership behavior remain mixed and
havior (but see Brown, Bryant, & Reilly, 2006, inconclusive. Further, it has become clear in con-
and Moss, Ritossa, & Ngu, 2006). Interestingly, ducting our review that self-report EI measures
Lindebaum and Cartwright (in press) found a sig- (i.e., streams 2 and 3)— criticized by many as not
nificant relationship between EI (stream 2) and tapping the “pure” EI concept (e.g., Daus & Ash-
transformational leadership only if both con- kanasy, 2005; Mayer et al., 2000)— dominate
structs were measured using the same source (e.g., published research on leadership behavior. We are
leader ratings), but not when using different aware of only four articles that have used ability-
measurement sources (e.g., leader and follower based stream 1 measures; of these studies, one is
ratings). Hence, one should be cautious when based on a very small sample (Leban & Zulauf,
interpreting single-source studies drawing on self- 2004) and one is published as a conference pro-
reports of EI that have purported to find EI and ceeding (Jin et al., 2008). Finally, despite well-
transformational leadership to be positively re- argued reasons as to why it is important to account
lated (e.g. Gardner & Stough, 2002; Mandell & for known covariates (Antonakis, 2003), no study
Pherwani, 2003; Palmer, Walls, Burgess, & in this area has simultaneously controlled for cog-
Stough, 2001). nitive ability and personality, leaving open the
Transformational leadership behavior has re- possibility of spurious relations.
ceived the lion’s share of attention in the EI
literature; other forms of leader behavior have Emotional Intelligence and Leader Effectiveness
received limited consideration. Stream 1 research, Published empirical research has also focused on
for example, has shown contingent reward behav- determining whether EI promotes leader effective-
ior (i.e., providing rewards that reflect subordi- ness, defined as “a leader’s performance in influ-
nates’ performance) to be unrelated to ability- encing and guiding the activities of his or her unit
based tests of EI (Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Rubin et toward achievement of its goals” (Judge et al.,
al., 2005; Weinberger, 2009). Stream 2 and 3 2002, p. 767). This research has shown promising
studies using self-report EI measures, however, results (see Table 4). Following stream 1, various
have demonstrated positive relationships between studies have demonstrated ability-based EI tests to
EI and contingent reward behavior (Barling et al., be positively related to managerial performance
2000; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Palmer et al., (Byron, 2007; Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle,
2001; but see Brown et al., 2006). Further, a few 2006; Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005; but see Wein-
studies have reported negative relationships be- berger, 2009). Studies utilizing survey instruments
tween stream 1 (Leban & Zulauf, 2004) and based on stream 2 (e.g., Sy, Tram, & O’Hara,
stream 2 (Gardner & Stough, 2002) measures of 2006; Wong & Law, 2002; Wong, Wong, & Peng,
EI and passive leadership styles, including man- 2010) and stream 3 approaches (e.g., Brown et al.,
agement-by-exception (i.e., providing corrective 2006; Hopkins & Bilimoria, 2008; Koman &
criticism and negative feedback) and laissez-faire Wolff, 2008; Offerman et al., 2004; Young &
(i.e., abdicating responsibility), whereas more re- Dulewicz, 2007) have likewise shown EI to be
cent research has reported non-significant link- positively associated with leader effectiveness.
ages (Moss et al., 2006; Weinberger 2009). And finally, there is preliminary evidence for pos-
Published research provides broad support for sible mediating mechanisms as well as boundary
EI’s role as an antecedent of transformational conditions. Byron (2007), for example, found man-
leadership behavior (see also Harms & Credé, agers’ perceived persuasiveness and supportiveness to
2010), although this association is most likely mediate the role of EI for managerial effectiveness,
more complex than previously believed—that is, and she found this relationship to hinge on manag-
2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 51

ers’ gender (see also Hopkins & Bilimoria, 2008; these studies are based on relatively small samples.
Koman & Wolff, 2008; Sy et al., 2006). Also, studies on EI and leader effectiveness have
Again, a majority of this published research has been limited in terms of the control variables
employed survey measures associated with stream used—for example, none of the published articles
2 or 3 approaches to EI; only four articles have has simultaneously controlled for both cognitive
used ability-based (i.e., stream 1) tests, and two of ability and personality. Demonstrating the rele-

Table 4
Summary of Studies Linking EI and Leader Effectiveness
EI Measurement Sample Description Leader Effectiveness Measure
Sample EI–Effectiveness
Article Instrument Source Size Sample Type Outcome Description Source Link
Stream 1
Byron (2007) DANVA Self 112 Managers Performance; satisfaction Subordinate; Supported
with manager supervisor
Kerr et al. (2006) MSCEIT Self 38 Supervisors Leadership effectiveness Subordinate Supported
Rosete & Ciarrochi MSCEIT Self 41 Executives Performance Supervisor Supported
(2005)
Weinberger (2009) MSCEIT Self 138 Managers Extra effort*, satisfaction*, Subordinate Not supported
effectiveness*
Stream 2
Carmeli (2003) SSEIT Self 98 Senior public Job performance Self Supported
managers
Semadar et al. SUEIT Self 136 Managers Job performance* Supervisor Not supported
(2006)
Sy et al. (2006) WLEIS Self 187 Restaurant Job performance, Supervisor, Supported
managers subordinate satisfaction subordinate
Wong & Law (2002) WLEIS Self 146 Middle-level Subordinate performance*, Self, Partially supported
administrators OCB, job satisfaction* subordinate
Wong et al. (2010) WLEIS Self 3866 Senior and frontline Job satisfaction Subordinate Supported
teachers
Stream 3
Boyatzis (2006) Unpublished 360-degree 43 High-level Financial performance Financial data Partially supported
EI measure managers
Brown et al. (2006) EQ-i Self 161 Managers and Various leader Subordinate Supported
supervisors effectiveness measures
Hopkins & Bilimoria ECI 360-degree 105 Upper level Performance Supervisor Supported
(2008) executives
Koman & Wolff ECI 360-degree 81 Military officers Performance Supervisor Supported
(2008)
Langhorn (2004) EQ-i Self 161 Restaurant general Profit, team/customer Various Partially supported
managers satisfaction, turnover sources
Offerman et al. ECI Self 428 Undergraduate Leadership effectiveness Peer Supported
(2004) students
Young & Dulewicz LDQ Self 261 Naval officers Performance Appraisal Supported
(2007) system
Note: DANVA ⫽ Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy; ECI ⫽ Emotional Competence Inventory; EQ-i ⫽ Emotional Quotient
Inventory; LDQ ⫽ Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire; MSCEIT ⫽ Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; OCB ⫽ Organiza-
tional Citizenship Behavior; SSEIT ⫽ Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test. * EI was not found to significantly relate with this
variable.
52 Academy of Management Perspectives February

vance of using appropriate controls, Semandar, nation of more complete theoretical models, and
Robins, and Ferris (2006) found managers’ self- (c) exploration of innovative research areas.
reported EI (stream 2) and performance to be
unrelated after considering key covariates related Greater Methodological Rigor
to individuals’ social effectiveness (e.g., self-mon-
itoring and leadership self-efficacy). Incorporating Relevant Control Variables. A key concern lev-
ied against research on EI and leadership is its
Implications Drawn From Research to Date frequent neglect of relevant control variables
There is a broad body of empirical research that (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2009). Although a recent
contributes to a better understanding of the link- meta-analysis has found EI to relate to job perfor-
ages between EI and important leadership criteria. mance over and above cognitive ability and per-
The overall picture emerging from the available sonality (O’Boyle et al., 2010), leadership studies
literature seems balanced. On one hand, pub- still need to more widely incorporate these impor-
lished evidence contradicts extreme claims that EI tant controls. In fact, only one published article
has no value for leadership theory and practice across all three leadership criteria has simultaneously
(e.g., Antonakis, 2003; Locke, 2005). Clearly, ac- controlled for both cognitive ability and person-
ademic researchers are frequently reporting signif- ality (Côté et al., 2010). We contend, as have
icant relationships between EI and leadership others (Antonakis, 2003), that empirical findings
emergence, behavior, and effectiveness. From this can be misleading when known covariates are
base, it seems reasonable to conclude that EI has ignored. Hence, it is vital for future EI-leadership
the potential to contribute to the leadership field, research to incorporate both cognitive ability and
and we concur with Ashkanasy and Dasborough’s personality measures as study covariates. It is
evaluation that “the accumulating bulk of re- equally important for future studies to build on
search . . . is supportive of emotional intelligence previous research by controlling for other vari-
in general, and its role in leadership in particular” ables that are consistently shown to influence the
(Antonakis et al., 2009, p. 258). leadership outcome of interest. For example, a
On the other hand, non-significant findings study wishing to examine the relationship be-
reported by some scholars, along with initial tween EI and leader emergence may account for
evidence for possible moderating and mediating constructs known to enhance individuals’ effec-
factors, suggest that the EI construct is not tiveness in social situations—including self-mon-
equally relevant for leadership across all work itoring, leadership self-efficacy, and political/so-
conditions. In addition, a number of unresolved cial skill (Côté et al., 2010; Semadar et al., 2006;
issues give rise to important reservations about see Ferris et al., 2002, for an overview). Until
the empirical research conducted to date. If EI relevant covariates are more widely incorporated,
is to become an established concept and widely the EI-leadership field will remain plagued by crit-
used by leadership researchers, future work must ics’ suspicions and, by extension, will be unable to
address these misgivings. Thus, in the next sec- more firmly conclude that EI is indeed relevant
tion, we outline what we believe are key chal- and practically useful for leadership.
lenges and opportunities for further research on A Greater Emphasis on Ability-Based EI Tests. Self- and other-
EI and leadership. report (i.e., stream 2 and 3), not ability-based (i.e.,
stream 1), approaches toward EI dominate the
Where Should We Go From Here? published leadership literature. This is of special
Criticisms and Future Directions concern because many EI supporters contend that

W
e maintain that advances in three broad only stream 1 measures validly capture the core
directions will help the EI-leadership litera- meaning of EI as a set of emotion-related abilities
ture address existing criticisms and create (e.g., Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Jordan et al.,
important new knowledge. These directions con- 2010; Mayer et al., 2000). It is therefore important
cern (a) greater methodological rigor, (b) exami- for future research to replicate and extend previ-
2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 53

ous findings vis-à-vis increased application of vein, research has only started to address potential
stream 1 instruments. boundary conditions associated with the role of EI
We acknowledge that using ability-based EI for leadership, examining leader (e.g., Rubin et
tests may present considerable challenges. First, al., 2005) and follower (e.g., Moss et al., 2006)
such instruments may find less acceptance by a characteristics as moderating variables. Beyond
study’s participants (e.g., managers) than self-re- such characteristics, future research should ex-
ports because stream 1 inventories assess actual tend these ideas by taking into account aspects
test performance. Hence, it is crucial to credibly of the larger work context (e.g., organizational
guarantee anonymity and/or confidentiality to culture) as potential moderators (cf. Jordan et
study participants. Second, certain ability-based al., 2010).
instruments are time-consuming (e.g., the MSCEIT Initial evidence also points toward fascinating
consists of 141 items; Mayer et al., 2004), render- connections between the leadership criteria dis-
ing them difficult to employ in field samples cussed here, wherein leaders’ specific behaviors
where participants are “on the clock.” Neverthe- mediate the relationship between EI and leader-
less, we anticipate that the benefits of using ship emergence/effectiveness (Byron, 2007; Wolff
stream 1 inventories far outweigh associated costs. et al., 2002). Taking this idea a step further, we
Further, tests of specific EI abilities are often con- wish to underscore the fact that boundary condi-
siderably shorter than ability-based tests capturing tions and mediating processes are not mutually
all possible EI dimensions. Rubin et al.’s (2005) exclusive (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). For exam-
study, for example, is based on 24 items capturing ple, the relationship between EI and leadership
individuals’ emotion recognition capability. Where emergence/effectiveness may be indirect (e.g.,
theoretically appropriate, such shorter measures en- through specific behaviors), and this indirect re-
able the use of stream 1 approaches even in other- lation might hinge on yet another variable (e.g.,
wise difficult situations. individual or context characteristics). Studies ex-
More Complete Theoretical Models amining such complex relationships would greatly
Focusing on Underrepresented Leadership Criteria. The bulk of advance our theoretical understanding by clarify-
research on EI and leadership has focused on ing—in an integrative manner—how and under
transformational leadership behavior and leader what circumstances EI influences leadership out-
effectiveness; other criteria (leadership emergence comes.
and other types of behavior) have received con- Examining the Relative Importance of Separate EI Dimensions. Con-
siderably less attention. Also, even though theo- ceptual discrepancies notwithstanding, each stream
rists have suggested that both leaders’ and follow- defines EI as a multidimensional construct. Mayer
ers’ EI shapes leadership outcomes (Riggio & and Salovey (1997), for example, distinguished
Pirozzolo, 2002), empirical research has rarely ex- the dimensions of perceiving, using, understand-
amined such ideas (for an exception, see Sy et al., ing, and managing emotions. Nevertheless, re-
2006). Therefore, studies examining alternative, search has yet to systematically examine the rel-
novel leadership phenomena will push EI research ative contribution of these different EI dimensions
toward new areas and, thereby, make important for leadership criteria. One could speculate, for
contributions to this line of inquiry. example, that the dimensions of EI differ in rele-
Uncovering Generative Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions. Var- vance depending on the specific leadership crite-
ious articles have demonstrated that EI can influ- rion (leader emergence, behavior, or effective-
ence leadership outcomes, but only a few studies ness) under consideration—and research that
have empirically examined why the respective re- examines such differences will advance a finer
lationships occur (e.g., Kellett et al., 2006; Sy et grained understanding about the connections be-
al., 2006). Echoing Côté et al. (2010), we believe tween EI and leadership.
researchers should focus on opening the “black We highlight two critical issues in addressing
box” of the EI-leadership linkage. In a similar this important research question. First, from a
54 Academy of Management Perspectives February

conceptual perspective, careful theoretical devel- Incorporating Recent Insights from Neuroscience. Some innova-
opment is sorely needed. Stream 3 conceptualiza- tive research has recently explored aspects of brain
tions of EI, in particular, typically comprise a large functioning as a foundation of EI (e.g., Bar-On,
number of dimensions. To avoid capitalizing on Tranel, Denburg, & Bechara, 2003; Bechara,
chance (a Type I error), scholars should—a Tranel, & Damasio, 2000; Killgore & Yurgelun-
priori— develop theory-based predictions about Todd, 2007). Although literature on the neuro-
when, where, and why a specific dimension should logical origins of organizational behavior is in a
(or should not) be relevant for leadership criteria. very early stage (Becker & Cropanzano, 2010),
Second, from a methodological perspective, EI’s this research holds important implications for the
dimensions are often highly correlated (Joseph & science and practice of leadership (cf. Rock &
Newman, 2010), and these correlations may result Schwartz, 2006; Waldman et al., 2009). Future
in biased conclusions from multivariate analyses. work in this area may, for instance, uncover bio-
Notably, recent advances in a data analytic ap- logical foundations of leaders’ emergence, influ-
proach termed dominance analysis (e.g., Johnson ence, and effectiveness. Also, evidence for a
& LeBreton, 2004) directly address this problem neurological basis of emotionally intelligent lead-
by delivering meaningful estimates of predictor ership would hold important consequences for
importance even when predictors are highly cor- leadership training and development. It may be
related. possible to develop emotionally intelligent lead-
ership behavior by training individuals to con-
Novel Research Areas
sciously exploit specific brain circuits more effec-
Examining Cultural Impacts on the Role of EI for Leadership. Schol- tively. To achieve this, however, cognitive
ars have cautioned that what is considered emo- learning approaches are unlikely to be sufficient,
tionally intelligent in one cultural context may requiring the “hard work of changing your behav-
not be in another (Brackett & Geher, 2006; ior” (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008, p. 78) through
Wong, Wong, & Law, 2007). For example, aware- experiential learning and diligent practice in ev-
ness of slight changes in others’ moods may con- eryday life.
tribute to outstanding leadership in many, but not EI and Leadership Ethics. Consistent with an increased
all, countries (Aditya & House, 2002). Hence, interest in corporate social responsibility (Devin-
specific aspects of EI may differ across cultures in ney, 2009), researchers and practitioners are
their relevance for leader emergence, behavior, focusing considerable attention on ethics in lead-
and effectiveness. ership (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006). It is intrigu-
With research on EI and leadership conducted ing, in this context, to also consider the role of EI.
mostly in Western countries, the generalizability Some authors have suggested that emotionally
of existing findings remains unclear (Harms & intelligent leaders are more likely to establish car-
Credé, 2010; Law et al., 2008). Accordingly, a key ing interpersonal relations, to act in tune with
research opportunity involves adopting a cross- emotional expectations, and to behave in ethi-
cultural perspective when examining the role of cally responsible ways (Gardner, Fischer, & Hunt,
EI for leadership. A first step is constructive rep- 2009; Humphrey, 2008). Consistent with recent
lication of previous findings in other cultures. concerns about a “dark side” of EI (Austin, Far-
Beyond this, future research on EI and leadership relly, Black, & Moore, 2007; Jordan et al., 2010),
should consider specific cultural dimensions (e.g., however, it also seems reasonable to assume that
power distance, individualism, or masculinity; one’s emotional abilities could be used to manip-
Hofstede, 2001) as potential moderators. We be- ulate others. To test these notions, future research
lieve that such work will contribute to a more should examine the connections between EI and
informed, theory-driven understanding of the measures of ethical (Brown & Treviño, 2006) or
cross-cultural significance of EI for leadership authentic (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Werns-
emergence, behavior, and effectiveness. ing, & Peterson, 2008) leadership behavior. If EI
2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 55

is found to promote (un)ethical leadership behav- leaders’ awareness of EI and stimulate self-reflec-
ior, this would suggest significant alterations to tion; when other-ratings are used, leaders may
organizations’ EI development activities (Linde- gain important feedback on key stakeholders’ per-
baum, 2009). Interestingly, Austin and her col- ceptions (Kellett et al., 2006). A similar logic
leagues (2007) reported a negative relationship applies for broader measures of EI reflecting stream
between EI and Machiavellianism (i.e., manipu- 3, although definitional ambiguities associated
lative behavior in order to promote self-interest), with this final approach render it difficult to em-
somewhat alleviating concerns about a potential ploy for targeted interventions (Joseph & New-
dark side of EI. man, 2010).
We also caution leadership professionals and
trainers against uncritically accepting claims
Implications for Leadership Education, about EI’s relevance that are not backed by scien-
Training, and Development tific evidence. The literature discussed in this ar-

L
eadership courses, training, and development ticle intimates that EI is helpful for understanding
programs drawing on EI concepts abound, and why certain individuals emerge as leaders, engage
in many instances these courses/programs have in productive leadership behaviors, and are effec-
preceded solid scientific evidence (Riggio & Pi- tive in leadership positions. At the same time, EI
rozzolo, 2002). As the present review shows, em- proponents are increasingly acknowledging that
pirical work on the EI-leadership link has begun to the EI concept is but one of various factors (in-
accumulate in recent years, and evidence does cluding personality, cognitive ability, and func-
affirm EI’s relevance for leadership phenomena. tional skills) that influence leadership outcomes
Nevertheless, we concur with Ashkanasy and Das- (Caruso et al., 2002). Also, the pattern of findings
borough’s evaluation that this research remains in reported in the published literature suggests that
its early stages (see Antonakis et al., 2009), and EI does not unequivocally benefit leadership
numerous questions remain unanswered. Although across all work situations. Hence, incorporating EI
leadership courses and programs can benefit from in leadership education, training, and develop-
incorporating discussions of the EI concept, we be- ment should proceed on strictly evidence-based
lieve that teachers, trainers, and professionals must grounds, and it should not come at the expense of
carefully consider the current state of research (and other equally or even more important leadership
associated pitfalls) when doing so. antecedents.
It seems crucial to recognize that the field of EI
has not yet reached consensus regarding key def- Conclusion

W
initional and measurement issues. Crucial assump- e conclude that in spite of conflicting per-
tions associated with the EI concept vary even spectives on the definition and measure-
among its supporters—and it is important to be ment of EI, and in the midst of a continued
very clear about the stream of EI being used in a debate on EI’s construct validity, empirical re-
specific training or course. The appropriateness of search on EI and leadership has produced notable
an EI stream depends on the purpose of its use findings. Even though the scholarly literature does
(O’Boyle et al., 2010), and we believe it is incum- not support hyperbolic claims regarding EI’s rele-
bent upon leadership program designers and vance for leadership processes, evidence does sug-
teachers to justify their choice of EI approaches gest that EI has potential to help scholars better
(and associated measures). With stream 1 instru- understand leadership emergence, specific leader-
ments directly tapping into individuals’ emotional ship behaviors, and leader effectiveness. That said,
abilities, employing such an assessment helps we also believe a lot remains to be accomplished.
management trainers and professionals obtain a By continuing to examine the EI-leadership link-
precise understanding of leaders’ EI capabilities age, scholars can promote further confidence in
and identify potential for improvement. Stream 2 the relevance of EI and contribute new insights
self-report measures, in contrast, are useful to raise toward important questions that have not been
56 Academy of Management Perspectives February

sufficiently addressed to date. The knowledge tion at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 192–214).
gleaned from such efforts will certainly assist ed- San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). Organizational
ucators, trainers, and management professionals in neuroscience: The promise and prospects of an emerging
more effectively utilizing EI concepts as part of discipline. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1055–
their leadership development efforts. The oppor- 1059.
tunity lies in front of us. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions,
and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317–334.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). Using tipping points of emotional
References intelligence and cognitive competencies to predict fi-
nancial performance of leaders. Psicothema, 18, 124 –131.
Aditya, R. N., & House, R. J. (2002). Interpersonal acumen Brackett, M. A., & Geher, G. (2006). Measuring emotional
and leadership across cultures: Pointers from the GLOBE intelligence: Paradigmatic diversity and common
study. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo ground. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer
(Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 215–240). (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life (pp. 27–50).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. New York: Psychology Press.
Antonakis, J. (2003). Why “emotional intelligence” does Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., &
not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social
Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley (2003). functioning: A comparison of self-report and perfor-
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 355– mance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of
361. Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780 –795.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. (2006). Does
(2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? emotional intelligence—as measured by the EQI—influ-
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247–261. ence transformational leadership and/or desirable out-
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in the
comes? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 5,
workplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy of
330 –351.
Management Executive, 16, 76 – 86.
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the
leadership and emotional intelligence: A potential path-
death of emotional intelligence in organizational behav-
way for an increased understanding of interpersonal in-
ior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Be-
fluence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867– 871.
havior, 26, 441– 452.
Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership:
Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emo- A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17,
tional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Person- 595– 616.
ality and Individual Differences, 43, 179 –189. Byron, K. (2007). Male and female managers’ ability to
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional “read” emotions: Relationships with supervisor’s perfor-
intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of mance ratings and subordinates’ satisfaction ratings.
elected officials. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51– 64. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80,
Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transfor- 713–733.
mational leadership and emotional intelligence: An ex- Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional
ploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes.
Journal, 21, 157–161. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18 788 – 813.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotions and social intelligence: In- Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Emo-
sights from the emotional quotient inventory. In R. tional intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E.
Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emo- Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple
tional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and intelligences and leadership (pp. 55–74). Mahwah, NJ:
application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 363– Lawrence Erlbaum.
388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Côté, S., Lopez, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. H.
Bar-On, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership emer-
(2003). Exploring the neurological substrate of emo- gence in small groups. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 496 –
tional and social intelligence. Brain, 126, 1790 –1800. 508.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the
matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspec- ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organi-
tives, 21, 36 –59. zational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expec- 453– 466.
tations. New York: Free Press. Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2008). Faking emotional
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Poor intelligence (EI): Comparing response distortion on abil-
judgment in spite of high intellect. Neurological evi- ity and trait-based EI measures. Journal of Organizational
dence for emotional intelligence. In R. Bar-On & Behavior, 29, 761–784.
J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corpo-
intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and applica- ration a myth? The good, bad and ugly of corporate social
2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 57

responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psy-
44 –56. chology, 23, 151–168.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for inte- Jin, S., Seo, M., & Shapiro, D. L. (2008). Revisiting the link
grating moderation and mediation: A general analytical between leaders’ emotional intelligence and transforma-
framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological tional leadership: The moderating role of emotional in-
Methods, 12, 1–22. tensity. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.
Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002). Social Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use
effectiveness in organizations: Construct validity and of relative importance indices in organizational research.
research directions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238 –257.
Studies, 9, 49 – 63. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Hooper,
Fiori, M. (2009). A new look at emotional intelligence: A G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional intelligence: Scale
dual-process framework. Personality and Social Psychology development and relationship to team process effective-
Review, 13, 21– 44. ness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Re-
Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relation- view, 12, 195–214.
ship between leadership and emotional intelligence in Jordan, P. J., Dasborough, M. T., Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy,
senior level managers. Leadership & Organizational Devel- N. M. (2010). A call to context. Industrial and Organi-
opment Journal, 23, 68 –78. zational Psychology, 3, 145–148.
Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. (2009). Emo- Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional
tional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity? intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 466 – 482. model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54 –78.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership. The role of Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W.
emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027– (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and
1055. quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business 765–780.
Review, 76(6), 93–102. Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theo-
Business Review, 78(2), 78 –90. retical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. (2008). Social intelligence and 542–552.
the biology of leadership. Harvard Business Review, Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002).
86(9), 74 – 81. Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to
Groves, K. S. (2005). Linking leader skills, follower atti- leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 523–544.
tudes, and contextual variables via an integrated model Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006).
of charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 31, Empathy and the emergence of task and relations lead-
255–277. ers. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 146 –162.
Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emo-
and transformational and transactional leadership: A tional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leader-
meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational ship & Organization Development Journal, 27, 265–279.
Studies, 17, 5–17. Killgore, W. D. S., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. (2007). Neural
Higgs, M., & Aitken, P. (2003). An exploration of the correlates of emotional intelligence in adolescent chil-
relationship between emotional intelligence and leader- dren. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7,
ship potential. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 814 – 140 –151.
823. Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Devel-
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing val- opment and validation of an emotional self-efficacy
ues, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 432– 436.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Koman, E. S., & Wolff, S. B. (2008). Emotional intelligence
Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Social and emo- competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level
tional competencies predicting success for male and fe- examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on
male executives. Journal of Management Development, 27, team performance. Journal of Management Development,
15–35. 27, 55–75.
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional Langhorn, S. (2004). How emotional intelligence can im-
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493–504. prove management performance. International Journal of
Humphrey, R. H. (2006). Promising research opportunities Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16, 220 –230.
in emotions and coping with conflict. Journal of Man- Law, K. S., Wong, C., Huang, G., & Li, X. (2008). The
agement & Organization, 12, 179 –186. effects of emotional intelligence on job performance and
Humphrey, R. H. (2008). The right way to lead with emo- life satisfaction for the research and development scien-
tional labor. In R. H. Humphrey (Ed.), Affect and tists in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25,
emotion: New directions in management theory and research 51– 69.
(pp. 1–17). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intel-
Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., & Hawver, T. H. (2008). ligence abilities and transformational leadership styles.
58 Academy of Management Perspectives February

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 554 – and team performance. Human Performance, 17, 219 –
564. 243.
Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001).
developing emotional intelligence. Academy of Manage- Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leader-
ment Learning and Education, 8, 225–237. ship & Organization Development Journal, 22, 5–10.
Lindebaum, D., & Cartwright, S. (2010). A critical exam- Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of
ination of the relationship between emotional intelli- group emotion. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 583–599.
gence and transformational leadership. Journal of Man- Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional
agement Studies, 47, 1317–1342. intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of
Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction.
invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, European Journal of Personality, 17, 39 –57.
425– 431. Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002).
Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between How leaders influence the impact of affective events on
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership team climate and performance in R&D teams. Leadership
style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psy- Quarterly, 13, 561–581.
chology, 17, 387– 404. Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., &
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leader-
Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review ship effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Jour-
of Psychology, 59, 507–536. nal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21– 40.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional Riggio, R. E., & Pirozzolo, F. J. (2002). Multiple intelli-
intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emo- gences and leadership: Implications for leadership re-
tional development and emotional intelligence: Educational search and training. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J.
implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting 241–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The neuroscience of lead-
scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The ership. Business & Strategy, 43, 1–10.
Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence
handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development,
and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes
assessment, and application at home, school, and in the
of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization De-
workplace (pp. 320 –342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
velopment Journal, 26, 388 –399.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emo-
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading
tional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications.
from within: The effects of emotion recognition and
Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197–215.
personality on transformational leadership behavior.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emo- Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845– 858.
tional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? Amer- Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing
ican Psychologist, 63, 503–517. the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact the prediction of managerial performance. Journal of
of leadership style and emotions on subordinate perfor- Organizational Behavior, 27, 443– 461.
mance. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545–559. Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader
Middleton, K. L. (2005). The service-learning project as a emotional intelligence and performance. Group & Orga-
supportive context for charismatic leadership emergence nization Management, 24, 367–390.
in nascent leaders. Academy of Management Learning & Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious
Education, 4, 295–308. leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group
Moss, S., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of members, group affective tone, and group processes. Jour-
follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership nal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305.
behavior. The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of
Individual Differences, 27, 93–107. employee and manager emotional intelligence to job
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (2001). Nonverbal satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Be-
receptivity: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accu- havior, 68, 461– 473.
racy (DANVA). In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership
Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and
183–198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899 –926.
O’Boyle, E., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, Waldman, D., Balthazard, P., Galvin, B. M., Peterson, S. J.,
T. H., & Story, P. (2010). The relation between emo- Thatcher, R., & Fannin, J. L. (2009, August). Linking
tional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analy- neuroscience and charismatic leadership behavior. Paper pre-
sis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, advance online sented at the Academy of Management Conference,
publication. Chicago, IL.
Offerman, L. R., Bailey, J. R., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Seal, C., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2007). Investigating the emotional
& Sass, M. (2004). The relative contribution of emo- basis of charismatic leadership: The role of leaders’ pos-
tional competence and cognitive ability to individual itive mood and emotional intelligence. In C. E. J. Härtel,
2011 Walter, Cole, and Humphrey 59

N. M. Ashkanasy, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and
emotion in organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 55– 85). Amsterdam, follower emotional intelligence on performance and
NL: Elsevier. attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13,
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, 243–274.
T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Wong, C., Wong, P., & Law, K. S. (2007). Evidence of the
Development and validation of a theory-based measure. practical utility of Wong’s emotional intelligence scale
Journal of Management, 34, 89 –126. in Hong Kong and mainland China. Asia Pacific Journal
Weinberger, L. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence, leader- of Management, 24, 43– 60.
ship style, and perceived leadership effectiveness. Ad- Wong, C., Wong, P., & Peng, K. Z. (2010). Effect of
vances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 747–772. middle-level leader and teacher emotional intelli-
Wolff, S. B. (2005). Emotional competence inventory (ECI): gence on school teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational
Technical manual. Hay Group. Retrieved January 21, 2010, Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 59 –70.
from http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/eci_ 360.html. Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2007). Relationships between
Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). emotional and congruent self-awareness and perfor-
Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence mance in the British Royal Navy. Journal of Managerial
in self-managing teams. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505–522. Psychology, 22, 465– 468.