Scott J. Allen, Ph.D., Marcy Levy Shankman, Ph.D., Rosanna F. Miguel, Ph.D. 10.12806/V11/I1/TF1
The emotional intelligence, leadership, and higher education literatures have progressed fairly independently of one another. However, they are complementary and together can provide a useful framework for researchers and practitioners in these fields. This paper brings together these respective literatures to gain a more complete conceptualization of leadership in the context of higher education to present a new integrative (Boyer, 1990) and process-oriented theory of emotionally intelligent leadership (EIL). This theory blends two constructs, emotional intelligence and leadership, to form a new construct, EIL. Specifically, in this paper the authors (a) review and organize research and theory in emotional intelligence and leadership within the context of higher education, (b) propose an integrative, process-oriented EIL theory to provide a framework for conceptualizing and integrating future research and practice, (c) offer suggestions for future research, and (d) provide practical implications for leadership development in the context of higher education.
While EIL theory can be usefully applied in various contexts (e.g., executive education in the workplace), higher education has been selected as the starting point for two primary reasons. First, the study of leadership development in higher education is an emerging area of study; therefore, theoretical frameworks for conceptualizing and integrating future research and practice will add substantial value to the growth of the field. Second, the authors believe higher education is an ideal practice field for leadership development and these programs should be designed to equip individuals with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics to achieve desired results.
Research and Theory
Leadership development is consistently mentioned as a core focus and desired outcome for U.S. colleges and universities (Astin, 1997; Johnson, 2000; Shertzer & Shuh, 2004). Cress, Astin, Zimerman-Oster, and Burkhardt (2001) found that leadership development programs positively impact educational and personal development in addition to leadership skills. More recently, Dugan and Komives (2007) note that student leadership development programs have grown exponentially over the last 15 years, with one study estimating more than 1000 programs on college campuses in the United States alone.
Because involvement on campus is one important avenue for developing leadership, the authors situate EIL theory squarely in this important developmental period for youth (DiPaolo, 2009). However, research linking emotional intelligence, leadership and collegians are limited. The research that does exist investigates emotional intelligence (EI) as a predictor of variables such as workplace success (Liptak, 2005), social network size (Austin et al., 2005; Van der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002), mental health (Gupta & Kumar, 2010), and academic success and achievement (Jacques, 2009; Parker et al., 2004). While a few assessments are designed with youth in mind (e.g., The Hay Group’s ESCI-U & Bar-On & Parker’s EQ-i:YV), the authors found only one completed dissertation addressing the intersections mentioned above (Bissessar, 2009). Therefore, EIL theory offers a new approach to understanding leadership development in the context of higher education. It opens the door for future research studies to more closely examine the linkages between the components of the theory to increase our understanding of individual differences in leadership development. From this knowledge, leadership educators, scholars, and practitioners can determine which approaches to development and which capacities are most effective in various situations.
It is important to reiterate that while the authors are placing the theory in the context of the undergraduate collegiate environment in this paper, EIL theory has applicability in many other environments. The collegiate environment, because of its inherent qualities and the aforementioned reasons, was deemed a natural starting point to begin to explore the merits of the theory.
Emotions and emotionality are “perceived to be central to experiences at work and are studied as relevant predictors of performance” (Rajah, Song, & Arvey, 2011, p. 1107). Currently, there are two popular construct models of EI – an ability model (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and a mixed model (e.g., Bar-On, 2006; Goleman, 1995). The former proposes that EI overlaps with cognitive ability because EI itself is a type of intelligence (Joseph & Newman, 2010). The EIL theory as proposed in this paper aligns more closely to a mixed model, particularly because it combines two constructs, EI and leadership. Mixed models of EI consist of a wide variety of components, such as personality traits, individual capabilities, and personal characteristics (Day & Carroll, 2008).
The Ability Model of EI proposed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) asserts that EI consists of four hierarchical branches which demonstrate that some of the EI abilities are more psychologically complex than others. This ability model describes emotions and thoughts as intertwined (Caruso, 2003). Mayer and Salovey (1997) assert that emotional intelligence is comprised of four branches.
These are the “ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (p. 10).
The mixed model approach to EI is less favored by some in the academic community (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009), but is wide spread in its appeal to industry, training, education, and leadership development. These approaches conceptualize EI as a wide variety of personality traits, individual capabilities, and personal characteristics (Day & Carroll, 2008). These models highlight personality traits, characteristics, competencies, skills, and other attributes not associated with Mayer and Salovey’s (1990) model of EI. For instance, Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) include organizational awareness as a part of their model; however, Mayer and Salovey (1997) would not consider a component of EI.
These models seem to be responding to one critique of the ability model, which is that it describes only one aspect of ability. According to Caruso (2003), “the ability model [is] focused and narrow in scope. This leaves a lot of room for other approaches – whether trait or competency based – to better understand and develop people” (p. 7). Accordingly, other approaches may better understand and develop people because they recognize the multi-faceted nature of human beings. This critique suggests the need for an array of approaches to better understand the complexities and full scope of EI. The following sections highlight three of the more prominent approaches to the mixed models of trait emotional intelligence (Petrides et al., 2010), performance model (Goleman et al., 2002), and personality model (Bar-On, 2006). In part, EIL theory represents an integration of these mixed models.
Trait Emotional Intelligence suggests that self-perceptions and dispositions play a major role in determining one’s EI (Mavroveli, Petrides, Rieffe, & Bakker, 2007). Trait EI aims to comprehensively cover personality dimensions that relate to affect (Mavroveli et al., 2007). As such, trait EI focuses on an individual’s perception of his or her emotional abilities (Petrides, Vernon, Schermer, Ligthart, Boomsma, & Veselka, 2010). Drawing heavily on personality variables such as adaptability, assertiveness, emotional perception (self/others), optimism, self- esteem, and trait empathy, trait EI focuses on behavioral dispositions and self- perceived abilities (Mavroveli et al., 2007) as opposed to information processing (Zhou & George, 2003), which is the hallmark of Mayer and Salovey’s (1990) work.
The Performance Model of EI, first introduced by Goleman (1995) brought EI to mainstream society in his best-selling book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Goleman et al. (2002) refer to this model of EI as a competency or performance model and assert that individual differences in competency levels are primarily responsible for differences in performance. Research shows a number of results associated with the performance model of EI that suggest that those higher in EI are better performers at work (Cherniss, 1999; Goleman, 2001). As such, the performance model has received a great deal of attention in the corporate, education, and non-profit communities, the popular press, and from many in the academic and professional community (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005).
The final model included in the formulation of EIL theory is the personality model. According to Bar-On (2010), “emotional-social intelligence is a cross- section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how well we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands, challenges and pressures” (para. 1). Like other mixed models of EI, Bar-On (2006) integrates a combination of mental abilities (e.g., emotional self-awareness) with other attributes like independence, self-regard, and mood. Bar-On’s approach to EI includes five factors (intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, general mood) along with 15 overlapping competencies, skills, and other characteristics (Bar-On, 2010).
Historically, the literature on leadership has focused primarily on the leader as the focal point. However, in recent years followers and the context have become more prominent in the work of scholars who understand that focusing on only the leader can be limiting and an over-simplification of the complexity of leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Kellerman, 2004; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). This heuristic of leader-follower-context (Fiedler, 1972) provides a basis from which to begin our exploration of leadership. This structure of leadership (leader-follower-context) provides the framework for EIL theory.
An essential factor of EIL theory that is not present in many models of leadership is the inclusion of context as a focal element. Although several scholars have mentioned context in their work on leadership (Allen & Mease, 2001; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Day & Lance, 2004; Fiedler, 1995; Hartley & Hinksman, 2003; Heifetz, 1994; Hickman, 2010; House & Mitchell, 1974; Liden & Antonakis, 2009; London, 2002; Zenger, Ulrich, & Smallwood, 2000), the topic has largely been neglected in the intersection of the leadership and EI literature (Goleman, et al., 2002) and college student leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2011; HERI, 1996).
The classic work of Fiedler (1972) has been refreshed with more recent work that recognizes the importance of context or the larger system in which a leader and followers work (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Avolio and Gardner (2005) underscore the importance of context when they emphasize the reality that leadership occurs in a dynamic context. Given that the context is the environment in which leaders and followers work, the ability to accurately diagnose both the internal group dynamics and external environmental forces or factors will contribute to success or failure (Day & Lance, 2004; Goleman et al., 2002; Hartley & Hinksman, 2003; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; London, 2002; Zenger, Ulrich, & Smallwood, 2000). For these reasons, the importance of considering the setting and situation in which leadership occurs is an essential component to understanding and demonstrating effective leadership (Hickman, 2010; Wren, 1995). Leadership is not a formulaic or textbook process, especially because the external forces in an environment are fluid and dynamic.
The majority of the research on leadership focuses on the individual leader’s behaviors or actions (Bass, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2007), personality traits and individual characteristics (Bass, 2008; Blanchard, Zigarmi & Nelson, 1993; Goleman, 2000), and so forth. The behaviors, practices or actions of leaders are the central focus of models by Kouzes and Posner (2007) and Bass (1985) who describe how leaders accomplish great results. For instance, according to Bass (1985), transformational leadership is defined by individualized consideration (IC), intellectual stimulation (IS), inspirational motivation (IM), and idealized influence (II). Likewise, Kouzes and Posner (2007) suggest that their five exemplary practices of leaders include modeling the way, challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart. Ultimately, these are actions or behaviors that leaders do to achieve results.
From a personality perspective, many scholars emphasize concepts such as optimism and self-efficacy or self-esteem, which are heralded by Avolio and Luthans (2006) and Goleman et al. (2002) as crucial ingredients for effective leadership. Self-awareness requires knowing oneself and one’s values as well as how one’s actions affect others. A focus on self suggests that self-awareness is an important attribute of effective leaders (Avolio, 2005; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Ciarrochi & Godsell, 2006; Conger, 1992; Gardner, 1983; Goleman et al., 2002; HERI, 1996; Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 2007; London, 2002; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2005; Rath & Conchie, 2008). Since this is a lifelong endeavor, the process of growth and development represents a long-term commitment to development rather than a one-time event (Avolio & Gibbons, 1989).
Like the topic of context, historically followers and the concept of followership has received minimal attention as a fundamental area of focus in the leadership literature (Bennis, 2000). In recent years followers and followership have received greater attention in the literature (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010; Meindl, 1995). However, a challenge is that with the term follower there comes a level of preconceived notions of obedience and meekness (Yukl, 2010). Gardner (1990) asserts that the term suggests passivity and dependence. Interestingly, followers themselves construct the role in various ways from passive or obedient to proactive (Carsten et al., 2010; Kelley, 1988). Perhaps as a result of these perceptions a specific focus on followers is a relatively new realm in leadership theory.
Some scholars and researchers take a more proactive view on the role of followers and suggest that to be successful socially, group effort is required; as a result, both leadership and followership are important (Chaleff, 2003). Others have focused on the concept itself and even presented a model for effective and less effective followership (Kelley, 1988; Kellerman, 2008). In one of the first major articles to focus on followers, Kelley (1988) suggests that the success of organizations is a result, at least in part, of how effectively followers follow. In essence, leaders and followers work together to facilitate results. Hence, it is important to underscore the role that followers play in leadership. After all, as Kellerman (2008) suggests, individuals are first followers.
The foundation for EIL theory is based on the blending of two critical constructs, EI and leadership. These two constructs form a new construct termed EIL. Integrative (Boyer, 1990) and process-oriented, the theory views leadership as dynamic and contingent upon three primary factors which interact in meaningful ways: context, self, and others (Fiedler, 1972). The three factors are comprised of 21 sub-factors, termed capacities (see Table 1). These factors and capacities stem from both the EI and leadership literatures discussed previously. EIL theory conceptualizes the construct of EIL as a combination of cognitive processes, personality traits, behaviors, and competencies that interact with one another and predict critical outcomes in leadership situations. The authors believe that to isolate any one of these would be limiting; demonstrating one’s EIL may include any of the capacities, or even all of them, depending upon the situation. After all, individuals bring a baseline level of cognition about emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), inherent personality traits (Bar-On, 2010; Petrides & Furnham, 2000), and performance levels/competencies (Goleman et al., 2002) to any leadership situation. To negate one is to diminish the complexities of identity, human performance potential, leadership, and EI. EIL theory asserts that these capacities influence an individual’s ability to diagnose leadership challenges, identify an appropriate course of action and to intervene as necessary to facilitate desired outcomes.
Table 1 provides the categorization of the three factors (context, self, and others) and 21 sub-factors or capacities. The 21 capacities were chosen based on a qualitative review of the literature on leadership and emotional intelligence. It is important to note that at least five of the capacities in Table 1 are proposed to be aspects of EI while the other 16 are considered to be aspects of leadership. The five proposed EI capacities are emotional self-control, emotional self-perception, flexibility, optimism, and empathy.
Three Factors and 21 Capacities of EIL
Being aware of the environment in which leaders and followers work
Environmental awareness: Thinking intentionally about the environment of a leadership situation (Bass, 2008; Burns, 1978; Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009; Tichy & Bennis, 2008; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Yukl, 2010)
Group savvy: Interpreting the situation and/or networks of an organization (Bass, 2008; Cragan & Wright, 1999; Schein, 1988; Tuckman, 1965)
Being aware of yourself in terms of your abilities and emotions
Emotional self-perception: Identifying your emotions and reactions and their impact on you (Bar-On, 2007; Goleman, 2000; Goleman et al., 2002; Petrides, Sangareau, Furnham, & Frederickson, 2006; Mayer & Salovey, 1997)
Honest self-understanding: Being aware of your own strengths and limitations (Avolio, 2005; Bass, 2008; Bennis & Nanus, 1997; Goleman, 2000; HERI, 1996; Komives & Wagner, 2009; McCauley & VanVelsor, 2004; Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Taylor, 2010; Yukl, 2010)
Healthy self-esteem: Having a balanced sense of self (Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Bass, 1960; Bass, 2008; Baumeister et al., 2003; Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Cowley, 1931; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991)
Emotional self-control: Consciously moderating your emotions and reactions (Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Bass, 2008; George, 2007; Goleman, et al., 2002; Kellerman, 2004; Lord & Hall, 2005; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004; Petrides et al., 2006; Yukl, 2010)
Authenticity: Being transparent and trustworthy (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass, 2008; George, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2010; Yukl, 2010)
Flexibility: Being open and adaptive to changing situations (Avolio, 2005; Bar-On, 2007; Bass, 1990; Bass, 2008; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson,1993; Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Kaplan & Kaiser, 2006; Goleman et al., 2002; Petrides, et al., 2006)
Achievement: Being driven to improve according to personal standards (Bar-On, 2007; Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Bass, 1990; Bass, 2008; Cleveland, 1985; Czikszentmihalyi, 1990; Fisher & Sharp, 1998; Stringer, 2001)
Capitalizing on differences: Building on assets that come from differences with others (Bass, 2008; Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Elron,1997; Mai-Dalton, 1993; McRae & Short, 2010; Offerman & Phan, 2002; Yukl, 2010)
Figure 1 below illustrates the proposed EIL model. As this model indicates, the three factors (termed “facets”) of EIL are viewed as interrelated. The 21 proposed capacities fall within these three factors. Measurement of these 21 capacities, and thus the three factors, will provide an assessment of an individual’s EIL.
Figure 1. The EIL Model.
According to the model, EIL is predictive of student leader behaviors (e.g., participation, engagement). These behaviors are then predictive of individual, group, and organizational outcomes (e.g., group success in attaining goals). This model has not been empirically tested at this time. We propose that researchers should begin examining these relationships and clarify what behaviors and outcomes can be predicted by EIL.
The Working Definition
Based on EIL theory, the current working definition of the proposed construct of emotionally intelligent leadership is:
With an intentional focus on context, self and others, emotionally intelligent leaders facilitate the attainment of desired outcomes. The 21 capacities equip individuals with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics to achieve desired results.
Assumptions of EIL Theory
The purpose of this section is to make explicit the foundational assumptions of EIL theory. The authors’ understanding and development of the theory is evolving and the following assumptions highlight some of the considerations and perspectives that have guided the process to date.
Leader, Followers, Context
At its core EIL theory asserts that leadership is a relationship between the leader, followers, and the context. For an individual to successfully approach the complexities of leadership, the authors assert that EIL will serve the individual well in working with others and adapting to the challenges and opportunities as needed. With attributes of EI as a foundation, EIL incorporates the idea that emotions influence thoughts, decisions, and behaviors. This continuum provides insight and awareness to the individual engaged in leadership. The ability, then, to monitor one’s own emotions while being aware of the emotional reactions and dynamics in others is a core element of EI and EIL theory.
Intentionality & Sense Making
Intentionality and deliberate choice of action is a key element of EIL theory. Likewise, EIL theory advocates for what Weick (1995) calls sense making in the process of demonstrating leadership. Sense making describes the process by which people seek to understand and clarify ambiguous or ill-defined situations or environments, including organizational contexts, crisis situations (Boin & Hart, 2003), and unstructured environments. Intentionality and sense making move individuals out of the domain of relying on their defaults. According to Meissen (2010), defaults are “the behaviors in which we naturally engage in many different situations that have worked for us so often in the past” (p. 79). The degree to which an individual possesses each of the 21 capacities influence an individual’s ability to choose intentionally an approach appropriate for the context. Returning to Meissen (2010), skillful intervention involves choosing to respond in a carefully designed manner to positively impact a situation. By doing so, EIL theory proposes that an individual will be more likely to intervene in an intentional manner yielding a better chance for successful outcomes.
EIL Can Be Developed
EIL can be developed. Like many other scholars (Avolio & Gibbons, 1989; Conger, 1992), the authors assert that this developmental process is a long-term and intentional endeavor. Ensuring that students actually use and internalize the information is a challenging endeavor (Posner, 2009; Williams, Townsend, & Linder, 2004). As for developing EI, opinions differ based on a scholar’s chosen theoretical model and perspective. The authors subscribe to the viewpoint that EIL can be developed with a long-term focus on deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe & Clemens, 1993), coaching, reflection, and intentionality.
The EI in EIL
As mentioned previously, EIL theory is a mixed model theory. Not all of the capacities included would be considered pure EI. EIL theory asserts that EI is a core foundation for effective leadership. To integrate the proposed EIL theory within the existing EI literature, the authors have identified the EIL capacities that most closely resemble components of the four primary models of EI (see Table 2). However, future research investigating the distinctions among the capacities is needed. The capacities listed are represented in three or more of the four models of EI so the authors have chosen to explore them first as a cluster of EI capacities.
Themes in Four Primary Models of Emotional Intelligence
EIL theory integrates two constructs, and encourages researchers to hypothesize links and interactions between EIL capacities as well as the three primary factors of context, self, and others. Preliminary factor analyses using an EIL Inventory developed by the authors have supported the distinction between the three primary factors of context, self, and others. The authors call for specifications among antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcomes of EIL, and the study of interactions among the various factors and sub-factors of EIL theory. In addition, future research will need to empirically examine these capacities to test our propositions that there is a distinction between EI and leadership and a distinction among each of the 21 capacities. While the theory proposes 21 capacities, research may show that some of these capacities overlap significantly enough to be merged together.
Further, there is a need to better understand the perceived outcomes of EIL as it relates to student leadership. For instance, which EIL factors best align with student perceptions of effective leaders and what are the results of said interventions? Little has been written on the topic of outcomes of effective student leadership. The field would benefit from a better understanding how students perceive and experience leadership.
In addition, how do students experience an under- or over-use of the EIL capacities? For instance, how is an over-achiever perceived by others? How does the over-use of various capacities impact a student’s ability to lead others? One hypothesis, for example, may be that individuals with a low capacity to demonstrate optimism and inspiration may have a difficult time engaging and motivating others to work above and beyond the minimum levels of participation. Further investigation is needed to understand how students perceive and experience the demonstration of EIL capacities.
Given the integrative nature of the EIL theory, and more specifically its integration of EI with leadership, do the individual factors (context, self, and others) or a specific combination of them predict effectiveness more so than others? Likewise, are some factors more aligned with certain types of results? For instance, consciousness of others may align better with the outcome of positive relationships while consciousness of self may be aligned with the outcome of goal attainment and producing measurable results. This research may be conducted via a multi-rater assessment that specifically addresses perceptions of an individual’s mastery of the facets with a number of leadership outcomes.
A final area for future research focuses on the developmental level of students. Are some capacities or factors more readily available depending on a person’s development level versus others? For instance, an individual at Kegan’s (1994) “imperial stage” may be more focused on self than others or context. As a result, there may be a hierarchy to EIL factors (context, self, and others) resulting in certain capacities or groups of capacities requiring higher order development. In fact, the constructive/developmental view of leadership has a number of implications for the study of leadership and student leadership development. Day and Lance (2004) suggest that individuals at lower levels of development will likely construct leadership out of a place of dominance: a transactional place. A more sophisticated level of leadership requires interpersonal influence which may be more inclusive and allow the leader more flexibility. Helping leaders understand and examine where they work from develops self-awareness and provides additional tools for success. This same line of inquiry could apply to the leadership identity development (LID) model as well (Komives et al., 2005).
The practical implications of EIL primarily revolve around the training, education, and development of leadership. Conger (1992) suggests four primary objectives for leadership development which include conceptual understanding, skill building, feedback, and personal growth. The authors assert that EIL theory can be used to develop leadership in all four areas depending on the objective of the practitioner.
EIL theory has already been applied in the classroom and as the organizing structure for a semester long academic course. Like many other formal courses, the primary focus of a classroom-based learning experience is conceptual understanding. These courses have been housed most often in student affairs, leadership studies, or first year experience-type courses. EIL theory has also been incorporated into leadership courses as another theory for consideration alongside models like the five practices set forth by Kouzes and Posner (2007) or the social change model of leadership (HERI, 1996).
Along with formal coursework, EIL theory has been applied in training and development workshops in the United States and abroad. The length of these workshops varies between one hour and three days. The audiences vary as well. Workshop participants are often formal and informal leaders on college/university campuses and are members of organizations such as residence life, Greek life, student government, programming board, athletics, and other organizations traditionally housed in student affairs. Similar to formal coursework, EIL theory often serves as the framework for the retreat or workshop content. To be more specific, the content may focus on EIL comprehensively as an approach to leadership or simply one or two of the EIL capacities. The focus of these interventions is personal growth, conceptual understanding, feedback, and skill building.
A final practical use of EIL theory is its use with leadership educators. Train-the- trainer programs have been delivered to camp counselors, resident advisors, and secondary educators in Singapore and the United States along with leadership educators and student affairs professionals whose primary work occurs on the college campus. The focus of these interventions revolves around the appropriate use of the theory, resources available to educators, and various activities and tools for development. Naturally, the primary focus of these interventions is how to set up a learning environment and learning opportunities to foster personal growth, conceptual understanding, feedback, and skill development in others (Conger, 1992).
From the outset, one of the goals for the authors and this work was to provide undergraduate students and those who work with students a user-friendly and straightforward framework that incorporates the best of EI and leadership theory and practice. What resulted was a unique, integrative, and process-oriented theory that blends emotional intelligence with leadership. This theory consists of a multi- faceted and dynamic construct – emotionally intelligent leadership. With an intentional focus on context, self, and others, emotionally intelligent leaders facilitate the attainment of desired outcomes. The 21 capacities equip individuals with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics to achieve desired results. Future research is needed to clarify the relationships, interactions, mediators, moderators, and outcomes of these variables to further our understanding of the theory. This will allow practitioners to construct and implement useful tools and approaches to developing leaders in a wide variety of contexts.
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for the careful feedback and comments on earlier drafts of this work – Richard Couto, Don DiPaolo, Susan Komives, Paige Haber, Michael Hackman, Beth Martin, Tony Middlebrooks
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247-261.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 441-452.
Astin, A. W. (1997). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 547–558.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full range leadership: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Avolio, B., & Gibbons, T. (1989). Developing transformational leaders: A life span approach. In Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The Elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 276- 308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader. New York: McGraw Hill.
Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psichothema, 18 (Suppl), 13-25.
Bar-On, R. (2007). The Bar-On model of emotional intelligence: A valid, robust and applicable EI model. Organisations & People, 14, 27-34.
Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bennis, W. (2000). Managing the dream. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Baumeister, R., Campbell, J., Krueger, J., & Vohs, K. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1- 44.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper Collins.
Bissessar, C. S. G. (2009). College students’ emotional intelligence, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as measurement of students’ transformational leadership. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69, 4240.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. B. (1993). Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 21-36.
Boin, A., & Hart, P. (2003). Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 544-553.
Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope and compassion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Influence: Science and practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Ciarrochi, J., & Godsell, C. (2006). Mindfulness-based emotional intelligence: Research and training. In Sala, F., Druskat, V. U., & Mount, G. (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 21-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics: The heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Cleveland, H. (1985). The knowledge executive: Leadership in an information society. New York: Dutton.
Conger, J. (1992). Learning to lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Couto, D., & Eken, S. (2003). To give their gifts. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Cowley, W. H. (1931). Traits of face-to-face leaders. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 304-313.
Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1999). Communication in small groups: Theory, process, skills. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2001). Developmental outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership activities. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 15-27.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2008). Faking emotional intelligence (EI): Comparing response distortion on ability and trait-based EI measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 761-784.
Day, D. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
Day, D., & Lance, C. (2004). Understanding the development of leadership complexity through latent growth modeling. In Day, D., Zaccaro, S., & Halpin, S. (Eds.), Leader Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow (pp. 41-69). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students: Findings from a national study. A Report from the Multi- Institutional Study of Leadership. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
DiPaolo, D. G. (2009). When student leaders don’t. Journal of Leadership Education 7(3), 11-19.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2011). Leadership Theories. In Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Wagner, W., Slack, C., & Associates. Handbook for student leadership development (pp. 35-57). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 100-131.
Elron, E. (1997). Top management teams within multinational corporations: Effects of cultural heterogeneity. Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 393.
Ericsson, K. S., Krampe, R. T., & Clemens, T-R. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Fiedler, F. (1972). The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency model interpretation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(4), 453– 470.
Fiedler, F. (1995). Reflection by an accidental theorist. Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 453-461.
Fischer, R., & Sharp, A. (1998). Getting it done: How to lead when you’re not in charge. New York: Harper Business.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.
George, B. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2000) Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 78-90.
Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, Groups, and Organizations (pp. 13-26). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gupta, G. & Kumar, S. (2010). Mental health in relation to emotional intelligence and self efficacy among college students. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36(1), 61-67.
Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work: Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 137-162.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard Business Review, 87(7/8), 62-69.
Hickman, G. R. (2010). Leading change in multiple contexts: Concepts and practices in organizational, community, political, social, and global settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) (1996). A social change model of leadership development, guidebook III. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3, 81-98.
Jacques, E. T. (2009). The relationships between emotional intelligence and the academic performance and selection of a major of college students. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 70, 1193.
Johnson, C. W. (2000). Exploring leadership development for college students who want to make a difference. NASPA Journal, 38(1), 143-147.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2006). The versatile leader: Make the most of your strengths without overdoing it. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York: Harper Business.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec., 142-148.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996a). Executive coaching as an emerging competency in the practice of consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 59–60.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996b). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 134–144.
Kogler Hill, S. E. (2010). Team leadership. In Northouse, P. Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.) (pp. 241-270). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. (2009). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2007). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 593-611.
Kotter, J., & Cohen D. S. (2002). The heart of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes J., & Posner, B. (2010). The truth about leadership: The no-fads, heart- of-the matter, facts you need to know. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Lang, M. (2009). Conflict management: A gap in business education curricula. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 240-245.
Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. S. (2004) Measuring empathy – Reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911-919.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1587-1605.
Lipman-Blumen, J., & Leavitt, H. J. (1999). Hot groups: Seeding them, feeding them, and using them to ignite your organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Liptak, J. J. (2005). Using emotional intelligence to help college students succeed in the workplace. Journal of Employment Counseling, 42(4), 171-178.
London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professional growth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591-615.
Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1993). Managing cultural diversity on individual, group, and organizational levels. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 189–215). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17(3), 387-404.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker, F. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence, psychological well-being and peer-rated social competence in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 263- 275.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34). New York: Basic Books.
McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
McRae, M. B., & Short, E. L. (2010). Racial and cultural dynamics in group and organizational life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meissen, G. (2010). Leadership lexicon. The Journal of Kansas Civic Leadership Development, 2(1), 78-81.
Nash, L., & Stevenson, H. (2004). Success that lasts. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 101-110.
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Offerman, L., & Phan, L. U. (2002). Culturally intelligent leadership for a diverse world. In R.E. Riggio, S.E. Murphy, & F.J. Pirozzolo, (eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 187-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. A. (2004). Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 163–172.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 313-320.
Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait emotional intelligence and children’s peer relations at school. Social Development, 15(3), 537-547.
Petrides, K., Vernon, P., Schermer, J., Ligthart, L., Boomsma, D., & Veselka, L. (2010). Relationships between trait emotional intelligence and the Big Five in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 906-910.
Posner, B. Z. (2009). From inside out: Beyond teaching about leadership. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(1), 1-10.
Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Arvey, R. (2011). Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the past decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1107- 1119.
Roberts, D. C. (2007). Deeper learning in leadership: Helping college students find the potential within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rost, J. (1991). Leadership for the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition, and personality, 9(3), 185–211.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation (Volume 1): Its role in organization development. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Seligman, M. (1998). Learned optimism: How to change your Mind and your life. New York: Pocket Books.
Shertzer, J. E., & Shuh, J. H. (2004). College student perceptions of leadership: Empowering and constraining beliefs. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 111-131.
Stringer, R. (2001). Leadership and organizational climate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, S. N. (2010). Redefining leader self-awareness by integrating the second component of self-awareness. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(4), 57-68.