آیا رهبری نیاز به هوش عاطفی دارد؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|1744||2009||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||12600 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 20, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 247–261
Interest in emotional intelligence has bloomed over the last few years. That it has become a standard concept in general and applied psychology, as well as in applied business settings, is indubitable. Is this popularity warranted? Casting a shadow over the concept of emotional intelligence are concerns about its meaningfulness and the construct and predictive validity of its various measures. The following series of letters explores various issues surrounding emotional intelligence and leadership including: whether emotional intelligence is theoretically needed for leadership, the types of emotional intelligence tests that may hold the most promise, methodological standards for testing whether emotional intelligence matters, evidence from the neuroscience literature on emotions and intelligence, and evidence regarding the links between leader emotional intelligence and follower outcomes.
Although you and I are now sitting on different sides of this academic issue, I was happy to see that you (Jordan, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2006) have recently tempered your position regarding the construct by explicitly questioning the hyperbolic claims made by some (e.g., Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002), who seem to care more about selling books than advancing science. That is, you show some skepticism too regarding whether EI predicts work success and leadership in particular. I took much pleasure from seeing you write that Goleman's “claims have done considerable harm to the field” (Jordan et al., p. 204)—an estimation that I share with you entirely. Furthermore, you distance yourselves from Goleman and Bar-On (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003), who have very broad definitions “trait” definitions of EI, and you have placed your bets on the Salovey & Mayer (1990) “ability” model. I commend you for this bold move. Self-reported trait EI will not do the trick, particularly if researchers control for IQ and personality (see Antonakis, 2003 and Antonakis, 2004). Given that we agree on these points, I will refer mostly to the Salovey–Mayer ability model in my critique of EI. The Salovey–Mayer definition asserts that EI is an ability of sorts that is distinct from personality (though related somewhat to IQ, Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). This ability is composed of four branches: emotion perception, emotion facilitation, emotion understanding, and emotion management. I too think that this model might be the way to go, even though it is very disappointing to see that the meta-analytic correlation between the Salovey–Mayer MEIS ability scale of EI and performance outcomes was only .19 (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). Evidently, the EI product has been badly designed. In the face of mounting evidence not boding well for EI, consumer defenders are filing “class-action suits” so to say (e.g., Conte, 2005, Locke, 2005, Matthews et al., 2002, Zaccaro and Horn, 2003 and Zeidner et al., 2004). I too recently suggested that given the sparse empirical evidence, it is unethical and unconscionable to use these measures in applied settings (i.e., for hiring, promotion, or retention, Antonakis, 2003 and Antonakis, 2004). So, on one hand, I was encouraged to see you state that “management practitioners need to take care that they do not overemphasize the predictive value of emotional intelligence in workplace settings” (Jordan et al., p. 205). Yet on the other hand, you state there is a “logical tie between emotional intelligence and leadership,” that “Research has substantiated this intuition,” and that “the emerging empirical evidence supports the link between leadership ability (particularly transformational leadership1) and the abilities-based model of emotional intelligence” (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005, p. 459 & p. 460). These latter statements puzzle me. You took Goleman to school on his claims; then, without providing much methodologically defensible evidence published in peer reviewed journals, you suggest that EI matters for leadership (the evidence you cited in Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005, includes two conference proceedings, a doctoral dissertation that shows that EI is irrelevant at top leader levels of organizations, and studies that are methodologically weak, as based on the criteria I use below). How then, can you still have so much faith in the power of EI, even suggesting that emotional intelligence training for leadership is justifiable (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2003)? I would be interested to learn more about your position and to review any recent methodologically-robust studies you are aware of that I may have overlooked.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In conclusion to this exchange, we would like to add a further point upon which we believe we all agree. This is that researchers need to continue to develop and to study emotions and in particular their role in leadership. Moreover, you even acknowledge in your conclusion the possibility that “future versions of EI may one day show their worth.” Of course, we agree with this. You then go on to ask us to “leave open the possibility that EI might one day go the way of the… dodo bird.” Here again, we agree. Despite all your negative assertions regarding EI, we are scientists, and believe in the Popperian principles of empirical testing designed to refute hypotheses. You state that we should not be making outrageous claims for emotional intelligence. But it's not us who are making these claims; indeed, we specifically reject them (see Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005, Jordan et al., 2008 and Jordan et al., 2006). Also as you acknowledge, empirical evidence on emotional intelligence is building. It's not perfect — as you have so forcefully pointed out — but a great many dedicated, educated, and intelligent scholars are working in this field with a view to increasing our understanding of social phenomena such as leadership. It would be such a shame if this work were to be prematurely aborted just because some early findings have been open to criticism or alternative explanation. We are sure you would be the last to disagree with this position. Finally, and similar to Mayer et al. (2008), we conclude that, although there are problems with the measurement of EI (and some conceptualizations of it), the emerging field of EI research has served to highlight the important role of emotions in social relationships. In particular, the contribution we focus on is 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. We are open to the possibility that one day EI may go the way of the dodo bird; but we are confident that this will not be the case for some time. Considering that the EI construct has made its way into the latest Annual Reviews of Psychology (Mayer et al., 2008) as a viable and important construct, it appears, despite the best efforts of its detractors, EI research is going to be with us into the foreseeable future.