Emotional intelligence in the leader–follower interaction

Interdisciplinarity in science, cooperative learning in education and team work in business have become the credo of modern societies. In a knowledge–work economy, teams become the production unit rather than the individual (Lindebaum and Cartwright, 2010). Their success crucially depends on the quality of interpersonal relationships and on an optimal leader–follower bond (Martin, 2015). It has been further suggested that this dyad is essential to all types of organizations in their struggle to prosper in the competitive and complex world. Thus, the main focus of the various leadership theories or styles was on the traits that the leader should have to support the effectiveness of the leader–follower interaction. Our previous blogs have outlined the influence EI has on academic performance and on aggressive behavior and interpersonal conflicts. It is therefore not surprising that in the creation of the leader–follower relationship a central role of emotional intelligence was assumed (e.g., Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005; Martin, 2015; Miao et al., 2016).

In the past, leadership styles were usually defined on a bipolar continuum, such as autocratic versus democratic leadership, directive versus participative leadership, and task- versus relationship-oriented leadership. Based on this research, Avolio and Bass (2004) developed their full range leadership model. The main concepts of this model are outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Full Range Leadership model visualizing different types of leadership on the active vs. passive and effective vs. ineffective continuum of leadership forms. 5 Is = transformational leadership; CR = contingent reward; MBE-A = management-by-exception: active; MBE-P = management-by-exception: passive; LF = laissez-faire. These leadership types are assessed with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). 

The most active and effective type is the transformational leader who is inspirational, intellectually stimulating, challenging, visionary and development oriented. The most ineffective and passive is the laissez-faire leader who avoids involvement. In-between are three leadership types: contingent reward and management-by-exception (active or passive). The first, also called transactional leadership, refers to a leader who sets out clear goals and expectations, rewarding followers for working toward them. Such motivation to perform provides a sense of direction and helps energize others. The second, active management-by-exception leader is focused on monitoring mistakes. The leader clearly specifies standards and what is considered as inefficient performance, as well as sanctions for not respecting the standards. The leader also keeps track of mistakes and how these errors were handled. The passive form of the same leadership type concentrates only on corrective measures after a mistake occurs. This behavior is not proactive, but reactive and focused on punishment.

It is obvious that the main characteristics of transformational leadership (individualized consideration, intellectual inspiration, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence) should be related to components of emotional intelligence such as empathy, self-confidence, and self-awareness (e.g., Harms and Crede, 2010; Lindebaum and Cartwright, 2010). Thus, it is not surprising that emotional intelligence was considered synonymous with good leadership, explaining 90 percent of what distinguishes outstanding leaders from those judged as average. To some extent such ideas have been also inspired by the disappointing results of intelligence and personality models in the prediction of exceptional leadership (Harms and Crede, 2010).

To our knowledge, two meta-analyses have tried to shed some light on the influence EI has on successful leadership. Harms and Crede (2010) based their meta-analysis on 62 independent samples, representing data from 7,145 leaders. The main finding of the analysis was that: “Overall, our results linking EI with transformational leadership variables were not as strong or as compelling as advocates of EI testing predicted” (Harms and Crede, 2010; p. 12). It was further found that moderate relations were only observed for studies that relied on the same source ratings for both EI and transformational leadership, and were much lower for studies that used multisource ratings (i.e., EI ratings and transformational leadership ratings came from different sources). Another finding was that studies which relied on the trait EI concept showed higher correlations (same r = 0.58; different r = 0.11) than those which used ability EI measures (same r = 0.20; different r = 0.04). The correlations for the other leadership types were either insignificant (MBE-A/P), or negative for the laissez-faire leader. However, they showed the same discrepancy between same/different rating procedures as observed for transformational leadership. The difference between studies using same/different raters for EI and leadership type also questions the methodological correctness of the obtained relations. A question that was addressed by Lindebaum and Cartwright (2010), showing that when using a strong methodological design, no relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership was found.

In a recent meta-analysis Miao et al. (2016) investigated the relation between leaders' emotional intelligence and subordinates' job satisfaction. The latter was defined as an evaluative state that expresses contentment with and positive feelings about one's job. It is described by cognitive evaluation of one's job and by feelings towards one’s job (affective component). The meta-analysis included 20 samples with a sample size of 4665. The main finding was that overall leaders' EI was positively associated with subordinates' job satisfaction (ρ = 0.31). This relation was dependent on the EI measure used: ability EI (ρ=0.11), self-report EI (ρ=0.29) and mixed EI (ρ=0.43), indicating that ability EI is significantly smaller than self-report EI and mixed EI. The authors further analyzed several situational moderating variables such as different types of national culture distinguishing between institutional collectivistic cultures encouraging and rewarding collective distribution of resources and collective action and in-group collectivism defined as the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families. Further cultural aspects analyzed were humane orientation – the level of encouragement provided by an organization or society for altruistic, fair, friendly, generous or caring behavior; and power distance –  the degree to which individuals are willing to accept hierarchical order.  The analysis showed no differences in  EI– job satisfaction in relation to the level of institutional collectivism. In contrast, the effect size in low in-group collectivistic cultures was significantly larger than that in high in-group collectivistic cultures. It was further found that the EI – subordinate job satisfaction effect size is larger in low humane oriented cultures than in high counterparts. Yet no differences were observed in relation to high/low power distance cultures; leader hierarchical levels and across firm types (private versus public).

It can be concluded that, although the EI – leadership – job satisfaction relation is not as high as propagated by some authors, “emotionally intelligent leaders take on the role of “mood managers” to influence their subordinates' emotions and to let them experience more positive feelings and less negative feelings via effective interpersonal interactions” (Miao et al., 2016, p.21).

References

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.320

Avolio, B. and  Bass, B. (2004). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Inc. Menlo Park, CA

Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894

Lindebaum, D., & Cartwright, S. (2010). A Critical Examination of the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership: Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership. Journal of Management Studies, no-no. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00933.x

Martin, R. (2015). A Review of the Literature of the Followership Since 2008: The Importance of Relationships and Emotional Intelligence <sup/>. SAGE Open, 5(4), 215824401560842. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015608421

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2016). Leader emotional intelligence and subordinate job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of main, mediator, and moderator effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.056