1. Emotional intelligence: Value and limitations in leadership communication
Richard Rock
Communication Strategies for Leaders/ORG423
Colorado State University Global Campus
October 17, 2012
Hello. My name is Richard Rock. I am a business professional and student of social sciences at Colorado State University’s Global Campus. Today I am going to share my perspective on the value and limitations of emotional intelligence in leadership communication.
NEXT SLIDE

2. Agenda What is emotional intelligence (EI)?
Relationship between EI and leadership
Value and limitations of EI in leadership theory
Practical application of EI in leadership communication
Summary
Emotional Intelligence has taken off over the last 15 years, made successful by Daniel Goleman’s (1995) popular book: Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Goleman based his book on research by Mayer and Salovey (1990) that described emotional intelligence as another type of intelligence wholly different from g or general intelligence, a perspective that remains highly controversial in academic circles. The commercial success of Goleman’s book has spawned a variety of adaptions of Goleman’s work, including use of EI assessments in recruiting and performance appraisals, personal development programs, leadership development programs, K-12 educational programs, and as a topic in secondary education (Barrett, 2011). Moreover, with the widespread commercial success of Goleman’s (1995) book on EI, Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) went on to connect EI with leadership in the book Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. As an academic, this author sought to understand what emotional intelligence is, understand the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership, understand EI’s values and limitations in a leadership context, and identify how leaders can apply emotional intelligence knowledge to leadership communication.
NEXT SLIDE

3. What is Emotional Intelligence?
There are three definitions and models in the literature
Mayer-Salovey’s model is favored for its greater psychometric acceptability (Bass & Bass, 2008)
“Emotional intelligence refers to an ability to recognize the meanings of emotion and their relationships, and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them” (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000, p.267).
Goleman (2002)
Popular Psychology
Competency Model
Self-Awareness
Self-Management
Social Awareness
Relationship Management
Exaggerated claims
Unsubstantiated assertions
Lacks empirical support
Bar-On (1997)
Academic/Commercial
Mixed model of competencies, skills, and facilitators organized into 5-meta factors
Intrapersonal
Interpersonal
Stress Management
Adaptability
General Mood
Lacks discriminant validity from Big 5 personality measures
Uncorrelated to cognitive ability
Mayer-Salovey (2000)
Academic
Ability model
Perceive emotion
Understand emotion
Manage emotion
Use emotions to facilitate thinking
High reliability
Good discriminant validity from Big 5 personality measures
Correlated with cognitive ability
One of the problems with emotional intelligence is that there is little agreement on a definition. In fact, there are three different definitions and models for emotional intelligence in the literature. The first, of course, is from Goleman (1995) a journalist and clinical psychologist. Goleman’s perspective is EI organized into personal and social competencies including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social management. Although, Goleman adapted his work from the research of Meyer, DiPaulo, and Salovey (1990), the researchers claim that his popular conception is far in front of the research and suggest that Goleman has done a disservice to the field of EI. Moreover, Goleman’s perspective on EI is widely criticized in the literature for making exaggerated claims and lacking evidence. Indeed, Goleman claims that EI accounts “for 85% of what distinguishes that stars in top leadership positions from low-level performers”. However, there is little empirical support for the author’s assertions.
Bar-On’s (1997) perspective on EI is rooted in academic research, however developed for a commercial entity called Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Bar-On (1997) uses a mixed model of competencies, skills, and facilitators of emotional intelligence that are organized into five meta-factor, intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood. Bar-On’s (1997) model is criticized primarily because of its lack of viability as a measurable construct. Indeed, Bar-On’s work is criticized in the literature because it cannot be sufficiently discriminated from the Big 5 personality measures, and thus Bar-On’s EI may simply measure personality (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Day, Newsome, & Catano, 2002; Mayer, et al., 2000; Trabun, 2002). Moreover, Bar-on’s model shows no correlation to cognitive ability, a precursor for an intelligence measure (Day, et al., 2002; Mayer, et al., 2000; Trabun, 2002).
Finally, Mayer and Salovey’s (2000) model holds the most promise for EI research. Their instrument measures abilities and version 2 has demonstrated high reliability. Moreover, there is sufficient discriminate validity between their EI construct and the Big5. In addition, their measures are correlated with cognitive ability. However, their model is not free of academic criticism. Some researchers think that Mayer & Salovey are simply measuring g, while others point to the problem that their model lacks predictive ability (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009).
While each of the EI models have problems, Mayer and Salovey’s model is favored for its greater psychometric ability and thus serves as the best starting point for a definition (Bass & Bass, 2008).
NEXT SLIDE

4. Relationship Between Leadership & Emotional Intelligence
Little evidence for measureable relationship between EI measures and leadership outcomes
Cavazotte, Moreno, and Hickman (2012) found EI effects on leadership not significant
Antonakis, Ashkanasy, and Dasborough (2009) acknowledge problems with the EI construct
Researchers continue to explore “the role of emotions in leadership, and the need for leaders to be aware of, and to attempt to manage emotions in themselves and in their followers” (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009, p. 259).
However, there are several leadership theories that share perspectives with the EI construct
Implicit Leadership Theory measures follower perception and includes emotional measures (Offerman, Kennedy Jr., & Wirtz, 1994)
Authentic Leadership Theory includes self-awareness as a primary dimension (Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa, 2007)
Transformational Leadership Theory includes individualized consideration as a dimension requiring leaders be supportive, considerate, empathetic, and caring (Bass & Bass, 2008)
This slide tells us two things.
First, the jury is still out on the EI construct’s ability to predict positive leadership outcomes, although the research continues.
Second, despite a lack of empirical research confirming the EI construct’s predictive ability in a leadership context there are shared perspectives between leadership theory and EI theory suggestive of important relationships.
First, implicit leadership theory measures follower’s perception of what constitutes a leader and includes many emotion-related measures, including sympathy, compassion, caring, understanding, warmth, sincerity, and enthusiasm (Offerman, Kennedy Jr., & Wirtz, 1994). Thus, the ability of a leader to understand and transmit these emotions through communication is important to shaping follower perception of an individual’s leadership.
Second, authentic leadership theory suggests that leaders need to be perceived as authentic, and as such include both self-awareness and transparency as two of the four major dimensions. Authentic leadership has been demonstrated as both a reliable and valid predictor of leadership outcomes (Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa, 2007). The important relationship between authentic leadership and emotional intelligence is along the self-awareness dimension that both constructs rely upon. Therefore, explorations of self offer considerable benefit for emerging leaders that can help improve leadership outcomes, and perhaps emotional intelligence to the extent that self-awareness of emotional state is included in the assessment.
Third, transformational leadership theory requires that leaders demonstrate individualized consideration, which requires leaders to be supportive, considerate, empathetic, and caring, competencies that require leaders to be able to be aware of the emotions in themselves and others, and moreover, reason based on those emotions (Bass & Bass, 2008).
In short, there is a considerable relationship between leadership theory and emotional intelligence theory that warrants further exploration and personal investment.
NEXT SLIDE

5. Value and Limitations of EI in Leadership Theory
Value of EI
The focus on self-assessment and self-management of emotion is important for personal development and will likely improve leadership effectiveness
The ability to perceive emotion in followers likely improves a leader’s ability to provide individual consideration
Ability to manage emotions likely improves follower perception of a leader
Limitations
Existing constructs are not demonstrably viable, therefore caution is warranted when selecting EI instruments for self-assessment
For competency based self-assessments, use assessments based on the Big 5 personality measures as they link empirically to leadership theories.
In short, while emotional intelligence abilities will not likely put a leader on the fast track to career success, it does have value for leaders. Know thyself has long been a maxim for personal and leadership development. Moreover, self-monitoring and self-management have long been a part of Bandura’s social learning model which suggests that people can self-regulate their behavior based on situational cues from the environment. EI’s focus on self-assessment and self-management are consistent with Bandura’s (1963) social learning model. Moreover, given the role of self-assessment and self-management in authentic leadership theory, it is likely that greater self-awareness and self-management abilities will lead to greater leadership effectives.
In addition, the ability to perceive emotions in others as well as manage emotions in oneself can improve a leader’s ability provide individualized consideration and shape follower perception.
However, a word of caution is in order. This author recommends avoiding the EI assessments based on competency models. Rather, should a competency-based approach be considered, choose one based on the Big 5 personality types given the clear links and empirical support with established leadership theory.
NEXT SLIDE

6. Practical Application of EI in Leadership Communication
Increase self-awareness through assessments
The Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 2007) or the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio, et. al, 2007)
Conduct personality profiling based on the Big 5 personality measures and analyze against leadership theory
Conduct best-self exercise to define personal leadership narrative (Sparrowe, 2005)
Practice using different non-verbal communication techniques
Improve listening skills to increase perception of leadership ability
Demonstrate individualized consideration through empathy, consideration, and care
So what can we do to improve our Emotional Intelligence and thus our leadership communication?
There are three things.
First and foremost, all three EI models, Social Learning Theory, and many leadership theories acknowledge the importance of self-awareness. The best way for a person to increase their self-awareness is through assessments. The LPI and the ALQ are a couple of this author’s favorites. In addition, personality profiling can also provide insight. Finally, best-self exercises have been show to improve authentic leadership and are similar in nature to the cursory treatment provided to self-assessment in Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee’s (2002) work.
Second, practice using non-verbal communication techniques to improve the ability to manage emotions. Be aware of how emotions are transmitted through non-verbal cues. Practice altering the non-verbal state being projected. However, caution is in order. Leaders must be careful not to go too far in attempting to manage the impressions of followers to avoid appearing insincere.
Third, seek to improve listening skills. Better listening improves follower perception and sets the stage for a leader to provide the individualized consideration to follower’s that creates leadership effectiveness.
NEXT SLIDE

7. Summary
Despite criticism, Emotional Intelligence Theory holds promise for improving leadership effectiveness
EI and leadership theories share similar ideas about the role of emotion in leadership
Avoid commercial EI models, they exaggerate potential outcomes and lack support
The Mayer-Salovey model for EI is the most mature
There are viable options for practical application of EI concepts that include self-assessment and improvement of both non-verbal communication and listening skills
Despite the criticism of EI in academic circles, the research continues to refine the construct to assure its predictive ability. Moreover, while construct problems have plagued leadership research, researchers remain optimistic about EI’s role in leadership theory. Indeed, there are remarkable similarities between EI theory and leadership theory. Although, caution is warranted with commercial EI models, given the exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims, and lack of empirical support. The most mature model is the Mayer Salovey model. Finally, there are viable options to gain a greater understanding of personal emotional intelligence, including self assessments and improvement of non-verbal communication skills and listening skills.
Thank you for your time. Questions can be ed to Richard Rock at

8. References
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. t. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2),
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. Retrieved from
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York,: Holt.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On emotional quotient inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Barrett, D. (2011). Leadership communication (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership : Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickman, M. (2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3),
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
Day, A. L., Newsome, S., & Catano, V. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, Saint Mary's Applied Research Team.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership : Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets the traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4),
Mayer, J. D., DiPaulo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54,
Offerman, L. R., Kennedy Jr., J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1),
Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), doi: /j.leaqua
Trabun, M. A. (2002). The relationship between emotional intelligence and leader performance. Master of Science in Leadership and Human Resource Development, Naval Postgraduate School.