Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness David Rosete and Joseph Ciarrochi Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia Abstract Purpose ��� This study seeks to investigate the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI), personality, cognitive intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach ��� Senior executives ��n �� 41�� completed an ability measure of EI (MSCEIT), a measure of personality (16PF5) and a measure of cognitive ability (the Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence (WASI)). Leadership effectiveness was assessed using an objective measure of performance and a 3608 assessment involving each leader���s subordinates and direct manager ��n �� 149��: Findings ��� Correlational and regression analyses revealed that higher EI was associated with higher leadership effectiveness, and that EI explained variance not explained by either personality or IQ. Originality/value ��� This paper establishes a link between EI and workplace measures of leadership effectiveness. Keywords Individual psychology, Leadership, Performance measures, Personality Paper type Research paper Introduction Despite a substantial amount of research on leadership, there is still much uncertainty about what is required to be an effective leader (Kets de Vries, 1993 Higgs and Rowland, 2000 Higgs, 2003). Questions still remain around why intelligent and experienced leaders are not always successful in dealing with environmental demands and life in general. Perhaps what leaders need is emotional intelligence (EI), rather than cognitive intelligence or specific personality traits? Surprisingly, there has been little research investigating this possibility. The few studies that have been published have tended to focus on leadership effectiveness from the view point of Bass and Avolio���s (1990, 1994) transformational/transactional leadership model (Barling et al., 2000 Palmer et al., 2001 Gardner and Stough, 2002). This research has been valuable in understanding the link between EI and leadership, but it has yet to examine objective indices of leadership performance. Thus, we can not be certain if EI is related to actual leadership performance rather than perceived performance. The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm LODJ 26,5 388 Received February 2004 Revised September 2004 Accepted February 2005 Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 26 No. 5, 2005 pp. 388-399 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730510607871

Emotional intelligence Popular definitions of EI refer to various things, including motivation, empathy, sociability, warmth, and optimism (Mayer et al., 2001). EI approaches can be classified into two broad categories: (1) ability models (Mayer and Salovey, 1997) and (2) mixed models. Ability models conceptualise EI in a similar way to cognitive intelligence (i.e. intelligent quotient (IQ)). EI is assumed to develop over time, be correlated with measures of IQ, and be measurable with a test based on performance (Ciarrochi et al., 2000). In contrast, mixed models of EI incorporate both non-cognitive models (Bar-On, 1997) and competency-based models (Goleman, 1995). These mixed models tend to overlap or ���mix��� with traditional models of personality and tend to utilise self-reports as their primary mode of assessment. Both models measure EI in different ways. There is now substantial evidence to suggest that self-report measures of EI correlate with personality (Ciarrochi et al., 2000, 2001 MacCann et al., 2004). Such overlap may make interpretation difficult. One can always question whether a result involving self-reported EI is really just a replication of a previous result using a similar personality measure. For example, research has clearly demonstrated a link between self-esteem and mental health (Ciarrochi et al., 2003). Thus if an EI measure correlates substantially with self-esteem and mental health, is the EI test measuring something new, or is it replicating previous self-esteem effects? While self-report measures have received considerable criticism, they have also shown utility, and there is evidence that some of them can be distinguished from other personality constructs (Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). However, an important point is that interpretation can sometimes be difficult, due to self-report measure overlap with personality. Another potential limitation of self-reports is that they are subject to reporting bias, especially in organizational contexts where people might be motivated to fake good. Presumably, ability measures are more difficult to fake good, given that people do not know the ���correct��� answers ahead of time (Ciarrochi et al., 2000 MacCann et al., 2004 Dawda and Hart, 2000). In contrast to self-report measures, EI ability measures correlate only slightly with personality. They also tend to correlate modestly with intelligence, as would be expected from Mayer and Salovey���s (1997) theorizing. For this study the ability model of EI as defined by Mayer and Salovey (1997) will be used: . . . an ability to recognize the meanings of emotions and their relationships, and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them. EI is involved in the capacity to perceive emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, understand the information of those emotions, and manage them (p. 267). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness Past researchers suggest that EI will be linked to transformational leadership style (Barling et al., 2000 Palmer et al., 2001 Gardner and Stough, 2002). Transformational leaders are seen as those executives that are able to create a vision, communicate this vision, build commitment amongst subordinates to the vision and model the vision Emotional intelligence and leadership 389