Anda di halaman 1dari 12

Abstract Nowadays leadership is considered to be the most important factor responsible for the success of any organization.

For the past two decades it has been outlined that one of the most vital elements influencing leadership effectiveness is Emotional Quotient, which is also known as Emotional Intelligence. Since the very first studies of correlation between Emotional Quotient and leadership performed in 1990 by Peter Salovey, a professor of Psychology at Yale, and by John D. Mayer, a psychologist at the University of New Hampshire, no exhaustive conclusion was made. The only fact which is indisputable is that the correlation between EQ and leadership should be studied in the view of leadership styles. The purpose of this work was to analyze the correlation between EQ and leadership, which is according to James Burns (1978), divided into three categories: transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. First of all clear definitions of EQ, leadership and leadership styles are given in order to avoid misunderstanding. Afterwards the analysis of the studies which have been recently performed by the scholars is carried out. The outcome shows that the impact of Emotional Quotient on leadership differs greatly, depending on the leadership style imposed by the leader. The correlation weakens on the way from transformational to laissez-faire approach. The project will contribute to human resource development theory and will encourage more thorough research on this topic in the future.

EQ and Leadership Styles

Nowadays leadership is regarded as a crucial factor for the organizations, which want to maintain a competitive edge. To some extent this may account for the fact that factors influencing leadership effectiveness are now in the spotlight of many studies dedicated to business and psychology. The question which scholars have been trying to solve for many decades is why some people perform successfully in the leadership roles while others show quite mediocre results. Numerous kinds of factors have already been identified which influence leadership effectiveness the most, yet in the past two decades a new word appeared in nearly every scientific article related to leadership it is Emotional Quotient or Emotional Intelligence. Emotional Quotient was adduced as a counterpart to Intelligence Quotient, a high score of which is also regarded as a vital element of leadership effectiveness. Ever since scholars have been debating the subject of the relations between EI and leadership and eventually have come to the conclusion that the relationship between EI and leadership differs, depending on the leadership style embraced by the leader whether it is transformational, transactional or laissez-faire leadership style. First of all in order to better understand the interaction between leadership styles and EQ it should be clearly defined how the terms EQ, leadership and leadership styles are interpreted in this work. Emotional Quotient The way how the term Emotional Intelligence appeared in the scientific life is worth mentioning. Until 1975 when a theorist and Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon gave his speech on the irrational at work, little interest was expressed towards the role of the emotions in the organizations. Ever since emotions entrenched as a force influencing behavior as much as rational factors. The term Emotional Intelligence was first coined by Salovey, a professor of Psychology at Yale, and Mayer, a psychologist at the University of New Hampshire

EQ and Leadership Styles (1990), and afterwards their idea was popularized by a psychologist and science journalist Yukl (1995). In contrast to IQ, there is no unified definition of EQ. In this work EQ will be considered in the light of two existing models, which were used in the studies analyzed

further. The two models arose due to the fact that after the publications of Salovey and Mayer (1990) there was a division between practical and theoretical scholars of EQ depending on how narrowly they identified EQ. A thorough research of two different models, which are mostly commonly known as ability-based and trait (or mixed) models, was executed by scholars Zeidner, Matthews and Roberts (2004) in their book, Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. The differences between ability-based and trait models will be described further. The ability-based model The ability-based model looks at EQ at a narrow angle. In this model EQ is described as a, well defined and conceptually related set of cognitive abilities for the processing of emotional information and regulating emotion adaptively (Zeidner et al., 2004, p. 375). The ability-based model is quite similar to intelligent tests which score intellect by evaluating responses to different scenarios. Mayer and Salovey (1997), who were the first ability-based theorists, introduced a four-branch ability model, which includes, the ability to (a) perceive emotion, (b) use emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understand, and (d) manage emotion (p. 199). A MSCEIT test was contrived as a measurement tool for this model, where a respondent is scored on the four-branch ability model described above. (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) The mixed model

EQ and Leadership Styles In contrast to the ability-based, trait or mixed models, according to a famous Russian EQ theorist Lyusin (2006), evaluate variances of behaviors which emerge in different situations. EQ in the mixed model is usually very difficult to measure, as it is observed in a broad angle. For example, in order to evaluate EQ in a mixed model the researcher has to

score such aspects as, self-awareness, self-motivation, self-regulation, empathy, social skills, assertiveness, stress tolerance, impulse control, coping with stress, reality testing, social problem solving. (Zeidner et al., 2004, p. 375). EQ-I, which is the most widely known measurement tool for a mixed-model, was introduced by Bar-On (1997), nowadays a Senior Assessment Consultant at the Center for Social and Emotional Education (CSEE) in New York. A researcher using this tool has two score numerous aspects, several of which have been just mentioned. All the aspects group into five main categories: self-knowledge, stress management, interpersonal skills, adaptability, and general mood (Bar-On, 1997, p. 134). EQ is afterwards calculated depending on the separate group scores and the overall score. Leadership There are many definitions of leadership. The most common one, which will be used in this work, is the definition given by Martin Chemers (1997), an expert in leadership. According to Chemers leadership is a, process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of common task (1997, p. 37). In this work leadership will be analyzed in the light of leadership styles. A leadership style is how the leader behaves in situations, where he has to use his leadership qualities. Leadership styles differ depending on the personal qualities, convictions and experience of the leader. Further leadership styles will be divided into three categories, which were coined by an expert in leadership styles James Burns (1978), depending on the method the leader uses to motivate the followers: transformational, transactional or laissez-faire styles.

EQ and Leadership Styles Transformational Style Transformational leadership style was first defined by Burns (1978) as a style where,

leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation (p. 231). That means that transformational leaders motivate their followers by stirring up strong emotions. The leadership scientists Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) gave an exhaustive explanation of the methods used by transformational leaders: they seek to raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values such as liberty, justice, equality, peace, not to base emotions such as fear, greed, jealousy, or hatred (p.176). So the followers are intellectually stimulated to redirect their self interest towards the group goals. Transactional Style Transactional leadership is a contrast to the transformational leadership style. The theory was developed by a world-wide known leadership guru Bass (1985) according to whom the followers are supposed to be motivated by economic means. This leadership style focuses on the exchange of resources which means that the followers are mainly motivated through the system of punishment and rewards. In contrast to the transformational style where the leaders mostly rely on the organizational culture, transactional leaders rely on the organizational structure, which means that they try to control the irrational factors in the organizational relationships and force the followers to operate strictly in accordance with the job description. As a result a transactional leader uses negotiations not to inspire people but to boost their self-interest. Laissez-faire Style

EQ and Leadership Styles According to Bass and Avolio (1993) laissez-faire is a style where the leader keeps aloof from his followers. In fact, the leader in this style does not perform any supervising

tasks as a result all the decision-making, feedback, punishment and reward components are absent, therefore the followers are expected to manage themselves. In accordance with Bass and Avolio (1993), the best example of a laissez-faire manager is the king Louis XV of France who used to say: Apres moi, le deluge (after me the deluge translation of the author). Their explanation of this phrase is the following: as we can remember from the French history, Louis XV did little to avoid the French revolution, which cost him, not only his kingdom, but also his life - a laissez-faire manager would have done the same if he had been in the shoes of Louis. EQ and Leadership Styles Having clearly defined the terms EQ and leadership, we may proceed to the core analysis of this work, investigating the relationship between EQ and leadership styles. For the better understanding, the purpose of the study can be interpreted as a question, whether EQ is in charge of the effectiveness of a leader who may embrace different leadership styles. The following section of the course paper is dedicated to the answer of this question. EQ and Transformational Leadership Style There were three main studies conducted to evaluate the correlation between EQ and transformational leadership style. The first research assessing the relationship between EQ and leadership was performed by two leadership psychologists Sosik and Magerian in 1999. They used a focus group of 63 managers, who were evaluated by their subordinates and superiors. All of the 63 managers used transformational leadership approach to motivate their subordinates. EQ was analyzed in a broad, trait-model approach, and was evaluated with the help of EQ-I tool. The result of their research showed that the best rated managers had a high

EQ and Leadership Styles level of EQ, whereas those with the lowest rating had a poor EQ score. Alluding to their research Sosik and Magerian (1999) drew a conclusion that there is a very strong correlation between EQ and transformation leadership style effectiveness. The second research was performed by an EQ scholar Buford in 2001, who also analyzed the relationship between EQ and transformational leadership. The research was conducted among 54 managers evaluated by their subordinates only. EQ was analyzed in mixed model perspective, with the help of EQ-I tool. Bufords research showed the same result as the research conducted by Sosik and Magerian (1999): the better performance of a

manager the better score of EQ he has. Due to this Buford came to a conclusion that there is a strong correlation between EQ and transformational leadership effectiveness. However, the third study shows a completely different outcome: the last research on the transformational leadership analyzed in this work was recently performed by Lisa Weinberger (2009), a PhD in Human Resource Development. In Weinbergers research 151 managers, who had more than three subordinates, were evaluated. A narrow ability-based perspective of EQ was used, which is opposite to the methodology used in previous researches. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, &Caruso, 2002) was used as a measurement tool. In this research managers of three different leadership styles were represented. A Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x) was used as an assessment tool for leadership. (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Weinberger found no correlation between EQ and transformational leadership style, that means that no matter whether a transformational leader is effective or not, on the average he has an equal amount of EQ. From the three researches listed above a conclusion can be made that there is quite a strong correlation between EQ and transformational leaders effectiveness, because most of

EQ and Leadership Styles the studies prove this correlation. The discrepancy portrayed above may be due to the fact that the third study was conducted in accordance with the ability-based model. EQ and Transactional Leadership Style Two studies were evaluated in order to draw the conclusion about relationship between EQ and transactional leadership style. The first research was performed by Bharwaney and Paddock in 2004, Founding Directors of EI World. In their study 150

managers were evaluated by their subordinates. Bhareaney and Paddock used a mixed-model approach to EQ using EQ-I as an assessment tool. They found out that the effective transactional leaders have the following combination of EQ-I elements: High assertiveness and high reality testing, high independence and high problem-solving, high self-regard and low empathy, low emotional self-awareness and low flexibility. (Bhareaney and Paddock, 2004, p. 31). The research showed that those managers who had higher results on assertiveness, reality testing, independence, problem solving and self-regard performed better in the leading roles. The elements, on which even the effective managers had poor scores, are the features of a transactional leader. If a person scores high on these elements he should be regarded as a transformational leader. The overall result of this research is that there is a strong connection between transactional leadership style and EQ. In contrast to the previous example, the research carried out by Liza Weinberger (2009), who was quoted earlier, proves that there is no connection between EQ and leadership. The managers who were rated as well-performing transactional leader had a dispersed score of EQ, and no correlation between EQ and the effectiveness could be found. If relationships between transformational and transactional leadership to EQ are compared, Weinberger stresses that there is less correlation between EQ and transactional leadership style than between EQ and transformational style, because transactional leaders depend on

EQ and Leadership Styles their emotions less, as the methods used by transactional managers are far away from emotional management. From the studies listed above a conclusion can be made that there is little correlation

between EQ and transactional leadership style, as the two researches which are mostly known in this sphere give opposite results. Furthermore the most recent research by Weinberger (2009) proves the absence of correlation. However, the amount of analysis is insufficient to make a verdict and more research is needed. EQ and Laissez-faire Leadership Style Very few studies on laissez-faire style and EQ were performed in contrast to the previous two styles. The newly publicized studies on the topic are the research by Liza Weinberger (2009), which was previously quoted, and the research conducted by leadership scholars Goleman, McKee and Boyatzis (2002). Weinberger had the same result on laissezfaire as well as for transactional style no correlation was found, because no exact mathematical dependence could be found, as the EQ scores of the respondents were too dispersed. Goleman et al. in their studies came to the same conclusion. They used a focus group of 23 managers, who all were regarded by their subordinates as laissez-faire leaders. A mixed model perspective and EQ-I as an assessment tool were used. The managers scored negatively on the basic EQ elements initiative and self-efficacy, which according to the methodology means that there is no connection between EQ and laissez-faire style. A conclusion can be made that according to both studies there is no correlation between EQ and laissez-faire leadership style. It is also doubtful whether further studies may reveal the correlation, because according to Bass and Avolio (1993) a laissez-faire leader does not use neither emotional nor intellectual methods to manage the followers.

EQ and Leadership Styles Having analyzed separately EQ, transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles and then their correlation, the conclusion can be made that the strength of


relationship between EQ and leadership differs, depending on the leadership style imposed by the leader. In this research it has been clarified that the correlation weakens on the way from transformational to laissez-faire leadership style. However, the studies analyzed in this work were performed using different interpretations of EQ and because of this, the results produced cannot be regarded as exhaustive. The issue of correlation between EQ and leadership is very difficult to analyze, more advanced research should be performed, using a standardized methodology to evaluate EQ and leadership styles.

EQ and Leadership Styles References


Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Technical report for the MLQ (2nd ed.). Redwood: Mind Garden. Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On emotional quotient inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence.Technical Manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems Bharwaney, G., & Paddock, C. (2004). Emotional maps of effective (and ineffective) leaders. Competency & Emotional Intelligence, 11(3), 42-47 Buford, B. (2001). Management effectiveness, personality, leadership, and emotional intelligence: A study of the validity evidence of the emotional quotient inventory (eq-i). Dissertation International, 62, 12B. (UMI No. 3034082). Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Chemers M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. Goleman, D., McKee, A., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2002). Primal leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Herbert. S. (1975). Rational Decision-Making in Business Organizations. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from The Official Web Site of Nobel Prize. Web-site: Lyusin, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence as a mixed construct: Its relation to personality and gender. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 44.

EQ and Leadership Styles Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. New York, NY: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): Users manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi Health Systems. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9. Sosik, J., & Magerian, L. (1999). Understanding Leader Emotional Intelligence and Performance. Group & Organization Management, Vol.24, No. 3. Weinberger, L. N. (2009). Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Style, and Perceived Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2009 11: 747 Yukl, G. (1995). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3.,). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53.