A Model of Emotionally Intelligent Leadership

Abstract

In this chapter we describe the development of a model of EI leadership and the related Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire (LDQ) devised from our original Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire as well as the developments in leadership thinking and the need to consider leadership within a context of change. The model includes the original seven dimensions from the EIQ plus eight new dimensions measuring ‘IQ’ and ‘MQ’. We then present a new overall model of leadership, before going on to describe three leadership styles derived from scores on the 15 LDQ dimensions. Finally, we note the importance of context to determine which style is appropriate to a specific organisational context.

1 Background

In our discussions so far, we have pointed out that:

• There is a link between EI and leadership.

• Effective leadership has been reconceptualised, moving away from the ‘heroic’ model to one that is facilitating and engaging.

• Leadership needs to be understood within the context in which organisations operate—particularly the contexts of complexity and change

It is these arguments that give rise to the concept of emotionally intelligent leadership. This chapter describes how our research into EI and leaders’ competencies have been applied to develop a framework for assessing an individual’s leadership style within a context of change that aligns with the conclusions drawn from our reviews of the leadership literature. This provides the basis for our model of emotionally intelligent leadership.

2 Senior Managers’ Emotional Intelligence and Leadership

Through our earlier research into EI, we identified that many elements of EI in our model of the construct also appeared in the models of others researching into, and writing about, the subject of leadership. In addition, our research on business leaders’ (i.e., CEOs and general managers) competencies have identified a number of other cognitive (IQ) and managerial (MQ) competencies that are seen to be vital for business leadership. We start by reviewing some of our key findings.

In our early research, we reflected on a study of the achievement of general managers conducted by Victor Dulewicz and Peter Herbert (1999). This entailed using data from 100 general managers and their bosses who had assessed the former’s performance using a personal competencies questionnaire, the Job Competencies Survey (JCS). In addition, participants had provided information about their job level and responsibilities. Seven years later, they were followed up, and asked for an update of their data on level and responsibility. Using a redefinition of EI in competency terms, together with the data from this follow-up study, we tested whether or not EI was able to predict long-term managerial advancement. Of the 40 competencies assessed, 16 appeared to cover the concept of EI. Performance on all of these competencies was aggregated into one measure that predicted, statistically significantly, the advancement of participants within their respective organisations over the seven-year period.

Recalling Daniel Goleman’s (1996) basic proposition that ‘EQ’ and ‘IQ’ are both important for success, those competencies in the JCS questionnaire that were concerned with intellectual performance and cognitive competencies—IQ (12 in all) were also identified. An aggregate of these ratings of performance also predicted organisational advancement. After analysing the remaining 12 competencies in the JCS, it became clear that they were all essentially concerned with important aspects of management. To complete the picture, these were referred to as ‘MQ’ competencies, and examples of those rated highly important included: delegating/empowering, communicating, business sense, achievement motivation, motivating and developing others. An aggregate measure of MQ also predicted managerial advancement.

In order to explore the proportion of the total advancement figure explained by each of these three scales, a regression analysis was conducted. From this, it was found that the IQ competencies accounted for 27% of the variance on advancement, quite close to Goleman’s reported estimate from educational research of 20%. EQ accounted for more than one-third of the variance (36%) and finally, MQ explained 16% of advancement. We concluded that EQ factors appear to be particularly important in explaining managerial success in the context of advancement. The core proposition suggested by Goleman, that IQ + EQ = Success, was supported. However, it was felt to be vital not to overlook other competencies that are more specifically related to the managerial task (i.e., MQ).

In a separate and unrelated study, Victor Dulewicz and Keith Gay (1997) investigated the competencies that are considered important for successful directors. A total of 338 directors took part in this study, drawn from the entire spectrum of UK companies, including representation from FTSE 100 corporate leaders. Of the 38 competencies under investigation, nine were identified as being closely linked to the elements of EI. These authors were particularly interested in two corporate leadership roles, the chairperson who is leader of the board and the chief executive who is leader of the company. Their results showed that, with only one exception (energy), all of the competencies that are closely aligned with the seven elements of EI were seen as being vital or highly relevant to these two leadership positions by the majority of directors.

Their results also confirmed that all of the IQ and MQ competencies were rated vital or highly relevant by a simple majority of CEOs, and the majority of competencies by at least two-thirds of those surveyed. Therefore, the outcome of these initial studies convinced us that the ‘EQ, IQ and MQ’ model also had a role in explaining top-level leadership within organisations. In order to conduct future research we developed a questionnaire that examined a combination of EQ, IQ and MQ. This was called the Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire (LDQ).¹ Its development and use in our research is explored further in this chapter.

3 Links Between Emotional Intelligence and Leadership

In the early days we had found that an increasing number of academics and practitioners were beginning to explore, accept or indeed promote the importance of EI at the top of the organisation. Examples of academics include the eminent organisational psychologists Warren Bennis (1989) in his book On Becoming a Leader, and Roger Gill (2001), then Professor of Leadership at Strathclyde University.

From a practitioner perspective, the importance of EI at senior and board level has been highlighted by many, including the then Director-General of the UK Institute of Directors Tim Melville-Ross, and the leading UK industrialist Sir John Egan, who was at the time President of the CBI and had formerly been CEO of Jaguar and BAA. Furthermore, in their book on EI and leadership, Daniel Goleman et al. (2002) claimed that:

Emotional Intelligence is twice as important as IQ and technical skills […] The higher up the organisation you go, the more important emotional intelligence becomes.

Given this we went on to explore whether or not this claim could be borne out by revisiting assessment data that were available on the personal competencies of 88 Directors, CEOs and Chairpersons. If Goleman and colleagues’ claims were to hold, one would expect to find that Chairpersons and CEOs would have higher levels of EI than other directors. Using statistical tests to compare differences between the two groups, we found a significant difference on the EQ competencies and also a highly significant difference in terms of the IQ competencies, but no difference was found on the Managerial (MQ) competencies. A second exploratory study reanalysed data from the general managers’ study mentioned above. Directors in the sample were found to have higher levels of EI than managers. This indeed provided some evidence to support the claims of Goleman and colleagues.

In looking more broadly at leadership and, in particular, the future nature of leadership, a number of authors and researchers at the time had identified the growing significance of EI. In part, this shift in focus from the rational to relational and emotional aspects of leadership represented the continuation of a trend encountered more broadly in thinking on organisational behaviour and leadership. Indeed, although not explicitly stated, according to Malcolm Higgs and Deborah Rowland (2001), much of the literature on transformational leadership implied that leaders require EI. Indeed, the more recent developments in authentic leadership suggest that the balance between self-awareness (EI) and other competencies are significant components of the construct.

3.1 Support for ‘EQ, IQ and MQ’ From the Leadership Literature

Our review of the leadership literature from the ‘transformational’ period onwards focused on models that contain clearly defined, behavioural constructs. On the basis of a content analysis of these constructs, there appears to be strong indications of a linkage between leadership and EI.

Building on Malcolm Higgs and Deborah Rowland’s (2001) work, the authors went on to develop a ‘map’ of some of the key leadership models and their potential relationship to their elements of EI. The key themes were propounded by a range of researchers and authors on the subject of leadership and are presented in Table 8.1. From this analysis, it was clear that there were significant overlaps between aspects of leadership and respective elements of EQ.

Table 8.1 Relationships between leadership ‘models’ and EQ dimensions

The authors also conducted a similar mapping exercise on the key themes propounded by some researchers and authors onto the IQ and MQ dimensions they had identified as being required for effective leadership. Once again, they found a high degree of conceptual overlap, as shown in Table 8.2. In particular, the Bass and Avolio (1996) and Alimo-Metcalf and Alban-Metcalf (2005) models provided support for all eight IQ and MQ dimensions. However, the other models all provided links with at least five of the eight IQ and MQ dimensions. The results of these mapping exercises provide strong evidence to support the content validity of the LDQ.

Table 8.2 Relationships between leadership ‘models’ and IQ and MQ dimensions

3.2 Recent Developments in Leadership Theory

Since the original work on the development of the LDQ, there have been notable developments in research and conceptualisation of leadership (see Chap. 6) that are, indeed, supportive of the earlier work and tend to provide further support for the content validity of LDQ. In particular, the developments in the articulation of the concept of relational leadership, responsible leadership, authentic leadership and change leadership tend to endorse both the components of the LDQ and the significance of the change context. For example, the components of authentic leadership’ are:

• Self-awareness

• Balanced processing (emotional and rational)

• Strong moral compass

• Relational transparency

• Environmental scanning

These elements relate clearly to LDQ components of IQ, EQ and MQ. Similarly, both relational and responsible leadership models tend to emphasise the significance of self awareness and both relational transparency and relational sensitivity. However, they also encompass strong ethical components combined with the significance of organisational purpose and sensitivity to the broader external environment, thus, once again aligning with the LDQ components.

In their early work on change leadership, Malcolm Higgs and Deborah Rowland (2005) identified the importance of the change context in determining the appropriate leadership style and behaviour. However, they did point out that a highly directive, leader-centric style of behaviour tends to have a negative impact on outcomes in many change contexts. They concluded that an engaging and facilitating leadership style tends to be effective in most change contexts. However, they point out that the way in which this is enacted differs and is based on the significance, magnitude and extent of the change. This provides further support for the style: context differences that are embedded within the LDQ and described below.

4 The Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire (LDQ)

The development of the LDQ is presented in detail in the LDQ Manual² in which we describe two pilot studies of the new LDQ. Data are presented on two item-analyses and on the reliability and validity of the final instrument which was piloted on 222 managers. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients were calculated for the cluster of items constituting each dimension, showing that all 15 LDQ scales are reliable.

4.1 Definitions of the LDQ Dimensions

On the basis of our studies just described and a detailed review of the leadership literature, we identified eight dimensions related to IQ and MQ competencies to add to the seven EQ dimensions defined in Chap. 3, in order to produce a framework to capture the main dimensions of effective leadership. Brief definitions of the eight IQ and MQ dimensions that emerged from this work are shown in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 Definitions of the IQ and MQ dimensions of the LDQ

4.2 The LDQ Leadership Model

The roots of the LDQ Model lie in the authors’ original EI model. There is much evidence from the literature to suggest that each of the elements contributes to managerial performance. But how do they relate to each other, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts? The relevant literature, covering competency and personality theory, and Freud’s work, with his model of the Id, the Ego and the Super-ego, was reviewed. In particular, the conflict between the Ego (our consciousness) and the Super-Ego (our conscience) and the need for balance in order to achieve maturity seemed relevant. The initial model of EI devised by the authors and shown in Chap. 4 had three main components:

• 1. The driver is motivation. This trait energises people and drives them towards achieving their goals, which are usually set very high.

• 2. The constrainer, high conscientiousness, on the other hand, can act as a control, and curbs the excesses of the driver, especially if they are very high and undirected, or misdirected.

• 3. The enablers, Self-awareness, emotional resilience, inter-personal sensitivity, influence and intuitiveness, are those traits that facilitate performance and help the individual to achieve targets or succeed in life generally.

The authors decided later that Reuven Bar-On’s (1997) distinction between inter- and intra-personal elements/components is an important one, especially for research into managerial performance because inter-personal elements are paramount if managers are to achieve results with or through colleagues. Therefore, this distinction was added the original EI model.

From our research we posited that high performance should result firstly, if the individual has high scores on all seven elements of EI—they are all contributing when in balance; or secondly, if all scores are average or above, and there are no large disparities between drivers and constrainers. On the other hand, low performance should result firstly, if scores are below-average on all seven elements; or secondly if overall EI, and the enablers scores are average, but the driver is high and the constrainer low, or vice-versa. In these cases, there would be imbalance. We tested this model empirically and the results were found to support it.

4.3 A Revised Model for LDQ

The revision to the EIQ model, incorporating the distinction between inter- and intra-personal elements and the IQ and MQ dimensions, is presented below:

Model components	LDQ dimension
Drivers	Motivation
	Achieving
Constrainer	Conscientiousness
Intra-personal enablers	Critical analysis
	Vision and imagination
	Strategic perspective
	Self-awareness
	Emotional resilience
	Intuitiveness
Inter-personal enablers	Engaging communication
	Managing resources
	Empowering
	Developing
	Interpersonal sensitivity
	Influence

A schematic representation of this revised model appears in Fig. 8.1. This clearly differentiates between inter- and intra-personal elements and also reflects the importance of the inter-personal enablers to the link with performance, the other elements being channelled through these two.

Fig. 8.1

The LDQ emotionally intelligent leadership model

5 The Three Leadership Styles

Based on our earlier work (see Chap. 6) we suggest that effective leadership is increasingly being seen in terms of a combination of:

• 1. Personal characteristics that are required to enable an individual to engage in a leadership role in an effective manner;

• 2. A range of skills and behaviours that need to be in place to provide effective leadership;

• 3. A range of styles related to the context in which leadership is exercised;

• 4. A range of ways in which the leadership behaviours may be exercised in a way that matches the personal style of the individual leader.

In addition, it is quite widely accepted that leadership may be exhibited at many levels in an organisation.

Based on our review of the literature covering different leader behaviours in different contexts of change, the authors identified three distinct leadership styles:

• 1. Engaging leadership. A style based on a high level of empowerment and involvement appropriate in a highly transformational context in which the organisation is facing radical change that impacts many aspects of the business. Such a style is focused on producing radical change with high levels of engagement and commitment.

• 2. Involving leadership. A style that is based on a transitional context in which the organisation that faces significant, but not necessarily radical, changes in its business model or modus operandi. Having said this, it may be that within any sub-system some element of radical change may be required. However, the core business model remains unchanged.

• 3. Goal leadership. A style that is focused on delivering results within a relatively stable context. This is a leader-led style aligned to a stable organisation delivering clearly understood results. This is not to say that no change is involved. It may be that incremental adjustment may be taking place in a number of aspects of the business but there are like to be peripheral to the core business model.

The profile for each style, based upon the range (high, medium or low) of scores obtained on the 15 LDQ dimensions, is presented in Table 8.4. These profiles were developed from a content analysis of the literature on leadership and change. Initially, this focused on the transformational and transactional behaviours (Higgs & Rowland, 2001) that were context-based and subsequently expanded to encompass the change leadership and broader change literature. The engaging style was informed by authors working in the transformational and change leadership fields. The traditional and the transactional leadership literature informed the development of the goal-oriented style. The involving style was again informed by both the more traditional leadership and change leadership literature.

Table 8.4 Three leadership style profiles: Goal-oriented (G), Engaging (E) and Involving (I)

We conducted some preliminary analyses of the leadership styles, using a ‘closeness of fit’ score (covering 64% of the total pilot sample of 222). This showed that all three styles were fairly well represented within the sample. Almost one-third (31%) had a predominantly goal-oriented style; 28% had an Involving style and 41% had an Engaging style. Furthermore, this breakdown did not vary according to the gender, sector (public/private), function or nationality of the manager.

Further analyses looked at the personality characteristics (from the 16PF personality questionnaire) of those well fitted to each style. All three styles have a number of extravert personality factors in common, as well as being tough and forthright. Turning to style-specific characteristics, those with an Engaging style tend to be emotionally well-adjusted extraverts while those who are ‘goal-oriented’ are more likely to be conscientious.

5.1 Organisational Context

As noted in Chap. 7, the context within which leaders operate is a major factor mediating their performance. From the literature review, we concluded that the different styles, matched to the degree of contextual volatility, would be important in determining both appropriateness and effectiveness. Therefore, an Organisational Context scale was designed (Part II of the LDQ) to examine the degree and nature of change and volatility in their working environment that respondents perceive they face in their role as a leader. After trials, the final scale, developed to assess the leadership context, consists of 21 items relating to various aspects of change being faced by the respondent. Analysis showed that the scale is made up of five separate factors:

• a general fundamental need to change;

• fundamental change of the organisation/business;

• the need for followers to change;

• specific pressures from the business environment; and

• an unstable context.

The 21 items in the final overall scale proved to be highly reliable.

5.2 Interpreting the Style Profiles

The higher the score on the Organisational Context scale, the greater the degree of volatility and change in the context in which individuals exercise leadership. There are three broad categories reflecting different contexts: relatively stable, significant change and transformational change.

The LDQ report³ encourages participants to match their predominant leadership style to the context in which they are leading. In their reports, the respondents’ LDQ Context score is presented, reflecting the degree of change they perceive that their organisation is facing. They are urged to review the leadership profile chart produced for that particular style and to examine the descriptions of each of the dimensions to determine which may need developing or exploiting so that they might be more effective in the appropriate style.

When reflecting on an individual’s development needs, the final section of the report provides a detailed review of their scores on all 15 dimensions. The other two profiles are presented in case they are on the borderline of two different styles or feel that they might be required to adopt a different style in the foreseeable future.

6 Leadership Performance and Follower Commitment Scales

The second part of the LDQ also includes two other scales, which are designed for research purposes exclusively. No reference is made to these scores in the LDQ report. The first provides a self-assessment of leadership performance. It contains six items and is reliable. The other scale assesses the degree of commitment that followers show to the organisation and team in which they work, a construct that includes job satisfaction. It contains five items and is also reliable. Further details on the use of these scales for research appear in the LDQ Manual.

7 Summary and Conclusion

In this chapter we have described the development of a model of EI leadership and a related leadership questionnaire (LDQ) from our original Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire as well as the developments in leadership thinking and the need to consider leadership within a context of change. The model includes the original seven dimensions from the EIQ plus eight new dimensions measuring IQ and MQ. We went on to present a new overall model of leadership, before going on to describe three leadership styles derived from scores on the 15 LDQ dimensions. Finally, we noted the importance of context to determine which style is appropriate to a specific organisational context. This is the unique selling point of the LDQ, a facility not available from any other leadership questionnaire known to us. In the next chapter (Chap. 9) we move on to examine how EI leadership competencies and styles can be developed and illustrate this using examples and case studies.