Emotional Intelligence and Leadership - Coursework Example

RUNNING HEAD: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND LEADERSHIP Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Name: Course: Institution: Date: Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Introduction Emotional intelligence (EI) has been defined by Mayer and Salovey (1997) as 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. As the definition suggests, there are four aspects of EI, the ability to appraise and express emotion, the use of emotion to enhance cognitive processes and decision making, knowledge about, and management, of emotions(Mayer and Salovey 1997). Mayer and Salovey present EI as the ability of a person or a leader to use emotions to facilitate their reasoning and reasoning intelligently about emotions. In essence, EI connects emotions and reasoning and gauges the extent to which a person’s cognitive ability is informed by their emotions and the extent to which they manage their emotions cognitively (George 2000). A recurrent theme in EI literature is that EI is correlated with effective leadership. This essay will assess the value of EI in leadership. First, the essay will discuss the relationship between EI and leadership styles, indicating that transformational leadership is the most effective in relation to EI. The essay will then debate whether EI is an innate ability or an acquired skill and whether conclusive empirical evidence exists to support the claim that emotionally intelligent leaders are more successful. It will be argued that EI can be learned. The essay will evaluate Antonakis’ argument that current research into the relationship between EI and leadership is not conclusive and examine other skills beyond EI that are relevant to leadership such as personality, charisma, conflict resolution skills, cross cultural competence, an understanding of power and communicative competence. In conclusion, it will be argued that EI is an important determinant of effective leadership. Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Research has indicated that emotionally intelligent leaders are more effective (Palmer et al 2001, Gardner and Stough 2002). They are generally happier, higher performing, more committed to their organization and more successful in taking advantage of positive emotions and translating them into better organizational performance (Gardner and Stough 2002). This has implications for various leadership styles- transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. EI can be used as both a measure of the effectiveness of leaders and as a tool for developing effective leadership skills. Transformational leader arouses the needs and motivate their followers to achieve dramatic change through performance beyond current standards and expectations while transactional leaders fulfill the needs of their members in exchange for realization of basic expectations. Laissez faire leadership, as the name suggests, is characterized by a negative relationship between leaders and followers, where leaders are either unavailable to provide support or assistance, absent when required or unwilling to take responsibility. Transformational leadership requires a higher EI ability and is generally considered the most effective leadership style. Transformational leaders are more sensitive to the emotional states of their subordinates and are able to act on them or manage them to motivate them, implement change or achieve high performance standards (Gardner and Stough 2002). Is Emotional Intelligence an Innate or Acquired Skill? Is EI learned? Or is it an innate ability that a leader possesses? In his first letter to Neal Ashkanasy and Marie Dasborough, Antonakis argues that the awareness of and sensitivity to the emotional states of others and the ability to act on and manage them, or EI, is not an innate ability but a learnable skill just like other emotion based skills (Antonakis, Ashkanasy and Dasborough 2009). He posits that EI is a skill which is dependent on the IQ or the intelligence of a leader and is not intelligence itself. This view is supported by Palmer et al (2001) who refer to different frameworks of EI emanating from Mayer and Salovey’s that suggests that EI is a function of different mental abilities or competencies which develop over time and are shaped by factors such as age, experiences and IQ. They demonstrate that EI consists of competencies and emotion based skills, such as appraising and expressing emotions, which can be trained or refined in leadership training programs for effective leadership. Based on these arguments, one can conclude that EI is learnable. To succeed, leaders need to possess these emotion-based skills. Successful leaders are effective leaders, and given the empirical evidence presented that shows the positive correlation between EI and effective leadership, EI is both an attribute and a tool of successful leaders (Antonakis, Ashkanasy and Dasborough 2009). Despite skepticism showed and doubts raised over the methodology and validity of EI measures in empirical tests which have tested the correlation between EI and effective leadership, EI has generally been correlated with work and performance success especially in leadership. The EI abilities outlined in Mayer and Salovey’s framework enable a leader to be aware of their mental states and to act on them in critical roles such as in implementing organizational change, to motivate their followers, mobilize support behind organizational goals and objectives, communicate organizational vision and inspire higher performance standards (Mayer and Salovey 1997). Evaluating the Evidence on Emotional Intelligence and Leadership In (Antonakis, Ashkanasy and Dasborough 2009, p.247), John Antonakis critically evaluates the empirical evidence collected on the relationship between EI and leadership. Specifically, he expresses his skepticism over the validity of the research conducted that suggests a positive correlation between EI and effective leadership questioning whether leaders need EI to be successful. Antonakis’ professes his strong doubt that EI is useful in determining effective leadership based on his critical evaluation of the epistemological conceptualizations and the methodologies used in studies that have explored the subject. Although he admits that leadership as a science needs EI, he dismisses the measures of EI used by most researchers and claims that in the end analysis, EI is irrelevant to leadership as compared to other abilities such as IQ. He further argues that the methodology used to investigate EI has not provided substantial concluding evidence of the relationship between EI and leadership thus casting serious doubt over the validity of the results as measured against criteria such as construct validity, criterion validity, discriminant validity and convergent validity of these tests(Antonakis, Ashkanasy and Dasborough 2009). In essence, his main argument is that other abilities such as intelligence and personality have more influence on leadership based on the lack of credibility, validity or poor methodology behind the evidence for the relationship between EI and leadership (Antonakis, Ashkanasy and Dasborough 2009). In response, I would argue that in spite of the field exploring relationships betweeno EI and leadership still being in its infancy, as indicated in the replies by Neal Ashkanasy and Marie Dasborough, progress has been made in refining the methodologies and the constructs used in such studies. Most significantly, even though there are many epistemological and methodological issues to be resolved, there seems to be a general consensus that supports the relationship between EI and leadership by Leban and Zulauf (2004), Palmer et al (2000) and Gardner and Stough (2002) and that no studies which meet the stringent criterion specified by Antonakis himself have conclusively refuted this notion. However, despite claims that the abilities investigated under EI should be treated separately, their validity as a group has been verified. Therefore, in response, I would argue that for all preliminary purposes, research into EI and leadership cannot be thrown out based on these criticisms alone but that they are important precursory indicators. Relevance of other Skills beyond EI in Effective Leadership Besides EI, there are various leadership skills that shapes relevant to leaders. One of the principal skills identified by Antonakis is personality. Personality can be defined as the organization of the major psychological systems such as cognition, intelligence and motives of an individual (Mayer et al 2008). Contemporary models of personality by Mayer explains the breadth of personality in how it motivates and employs emotions for energy, is guided by the knowledge and intelligence of the leader, creates and caries out plans of action and shapes executive management through self management. Five commonly studied personality traits or the “big five” personality variables in the five factor model of personality are; extroversion versus introversion, neuroticism versus emotional stability, openness versus closed, conscientiousness versus carelessness and agreeability versus disagreeability (Judge et al 2002). Antonakis illustrates for example, that when a leader is more neurotic, they tend to be more hostile and panicky especially in a business context. Judge et al (2002) also found that extroversive leaders are more likely to be leaders in groups or in emergency situations as they are more bold and assertive. Personality therefore determines how leaders manage their emotions, and shape their actions. Therefore, leaders need to cultivate a personality that enables them to effectively shape the actions and decisions of their organizations and to manage and control their reactions in times of crisis. Charisma is another leadership skill frequently cited as essential for effective leadership. Yorges et al (1999) have demonstrated the impact charismatic leaders have on their followers and concluded that for leaders to be great, they have to be charismatic. Charisma in a leader implies that they are aware of their followers’ emotional state and can inspire them intellectually and emotionally to achieve goals. Charismatic leaders tend to display qualities or traits such as greater self confidence, passion, persistence, determination and optimism which sets them apart from other leaders (Yorges et al 1999). Shamir et al (1993) have identified some of the effects charismatic leaders have on their followers based on charismatic theories. Charismatic leaders inspire emotional attachment from their followers, motivate and arouse the emotions of their followers, enhance bonding among followers with respect to articulated organizational goals and inspire confidence, self esteem and trust in the leader among the followers (Shamir et al 1993). However, charisma alone is not sufficient to ensure effective leadership. Yorges et al (1999) demonstrate that the effect of charismatic leaders is contingent on their follower’s perception of them. Specifically, if followers feel that the leader is sacrificing their own interests for the greater good of the organization, they are more likely to be inspired by them. Yorges cites the case of former Chrysler executive Lee Laccoca who was able to turn around the fortunes of the troubled automaker for the better by taking an annual salary of a dollar. Chrysler employees considered this move austere and genuine and were subsequently inspired by Laccoca’s charismatic leadership (Yorges et al 1999). Besides EI, charisma and personality, there are other skills necessary for effective leadership. This includes conflict resolution skills. A leader should be able to effectively manage and resolve the incidence of conflict or friction from both within their organizations or among their followers and between their followers and external sources. Intra-organizational and inter-organizational conflict is a reality which every leader faces and how they react to such situations is a determinant in their success or failure as a leader (DenHartog et al 1999). A leader should be able to effectively manage conflict among their followers while appearing firm and decisive yet subtle, impartial and unbiased. A good leader is essentially an effective arbiter in conflict situations. A leader who is perceived by their subordinates as heavy-handed or prejudicial in resolving conflicts is less likely to mobilize the required legitimacy and support from his followers and is more prone to further conflict or rebellion (Shamir et al 1993). Intercultural or cross cultural competence is also another important skill for leaders. Cultural values surrounding what constitutes good leadership tend to vary from society to society and from person to person especially in a multicultural organization. As argued by Den Hartog et al (2004) perceptions of what constitutes effective leadership vary from culture to culture. Therefore, a leader should be able to relate to their followers, responding to and accommodating the variance in cultural expectations. For example, a leader should be more innovative in their behavior while dealing in individualistic culture contexts (or dealing with followers from such cultures) but conversely tread more carefully when dealing with conservative cultures such as those that are gender sensitive. Den Hartog et al (2004) provide an example of how the Dutch Prime Minister would ride to work in a bicycle- in one culture this is appropriate while in another it may be unacceptable. In feminine cultures, the leader should also be more considerate and consultative while in masculine cultures they are expected to be strong and decisive. A leader also needs to understand the distribution of power in their organizations. Understanding power is especially relevant for a leader in implementing change or decisions which have been made. Pfeffer (1992) demonstrates that for a leader to function effectively, they must understand the political landscape of the organization-the distribution of power and authority. Leaders who have acquired the skill of understanding power will be able to manage using power in creating shared organizational goals. This skill will enable the leader identify potential hindrances to implementation of decisions and enable them structure and mobilize the power structure to achieve organizational goals (Pfeffer 1992). Another skill which is not frequently cited in effective leadership is communication. A good leader should be able to communicate effectively with their subordinates or followers. Good communication skills are important in communicating shared organizational goals. A leader should be able to communicate articulately at both the organizational and interpersonal level with their followers. Conclusion Most of the research into EI and leadership has indicated that EI is positively correlated with effective leadership. The implied association is that emotionally intelligent leaders are more effective as they are aware of their own emotional states and those of their followers and can manage them to achieve organizational goals (George 2000). Studies by scholars such Palmer et al (2001) have indicated a strong correlation between EI and transformational leadership as the most effective leadership style. However, Antonakis (2009) has raised serious questions over the validity of research and the empirical evidence generated into the relationship between EI and leadership. It has been suggested that other variables such as intelligence, personality, charisma, conflict resolution skills, cross cultural competence, understanding of power and communicative competence are the more relevant to leadership. However, the field of research into the relationship between EI and continues to make advances which reinforce the claim that EI is a central concept in leadership training for effective leadership. References Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N.M. & Dasborough, M.T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2): 247-261. Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J. & Ruiz-Quintanilla (1999). Culture Specific and Cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly 10 (2): 219-256. Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23 (2): 68-78. George, J.M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8): 1027–1055. Leban, W. & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25 (7):554 – 564. Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Q ualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4): 765-780. Mayer, J. and Salovey, P. (1997).What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey, P. & Sluyter, D. (Eds) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators. New York, Basic Books: 3-31. Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D. & Barsade, S.G. (2008). Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology 59 (1): 507-536. Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. & Stough, C.(2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22 (1): 5-10. Pfeffer, J. (1992), Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review 34(2): 29-50. Shamir, B.,House, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic l eadership: A self concept based theory. Organization Science 4(4): 577-594. Yorges, S.L., Weiss, H.M. & Strickland, O.J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(3): 428-436. Read More