آیا هوش هیجانی به عنوان پیش بینی توانایی رهبری تحول گرا است؟ یک رویکرد چند سطحی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|20057||2013||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||11840 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 24, Issue 5, October 2013, Pages 747–762
This study assesses to what extent emotional intelligence as ability (EI) can predict transformational leadership. Norwegian executives (N = 104) completed measures of personality (NEO PI-R) and EI (MSCEIT), and were rated on transformational leadership (MLQ 5X) by subordinates (N = 459). This study improves upon previous studies in three ways: First, because the validity and reliability of the scores from MSCEIT has been questioned, an alternative set of scales from MSCEIT were included, which provide reliable and interpretable scores (Føllesdal & Hagtvet, 2009). Second, in addition to personality, general mental ability (GMA) was controlled for by utilizing Monte Carlo studies. Third, a multilevel approach was used to analyze the scores, due to their hierarchical structure. Neither the four branch scores, nor the Total EI score from MSCEIT predicted transformational leadership. A suppression effect was found, however, among two subscales from Perceiving Emotions. The validity of scores from MSCEIT is questioned.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is assumed to be an important characteristic in leadership, particularly in transformational leadership (Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000 and George, 2000). There exist many different conceptualizations of EI, e.g., as a set of abilities (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), a set of personality traits (Bar-On, 1997), or a mixture of effective leader behaviors and personality traits (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000). Many researchers, however, argue that EI should be conceptualized and measured as a set of abilities, distinct from personality traits and leader behavior. A recent meta-analysis, however, found that EI measured as ability was unrelated to subordinates' ratings of EI (Harms & Credé, 2010), suggesting that EI as ability might not be important in transformational leadership. There are three limitations with previous research that will be addressed in the present study, in order to assess more thoroughly the relationship between EI as ability and transformational leadership. First, EI as ability is usually measured by the Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), which is the only performance test measuring the entire four-branch ability model of EI. Many of the scales from this test, however, provide scores with low reliability, that are difficult to interpret, and with questionable validity (Fiori and Antonakis, 2011, Føllesdal and Hagtvet, 2009, Keele and Bell, 2008, Palmer et al., 2005, Rode et al., 2008 and Rossen et al., 2008). The use of these scales may therefore lead to inconsistent and unexpected findings, e.g., that EI as ability is unrelated to transformational leadership. Føllesdal and Hagtvet (2009), however, identified a set of alternative scales in the MSCEIT that provide reliable and interpretable scores. The present study will use these scales, in addition to the standard scales from MSCEIT, in order to assess the relationship with transformational leadership. Second, studies assessing the relationship between EI as ability and transformational leadership have seldom controlled for both personality traits and general mental ability (GMA). This is necessary in order to demonstrate that EI is a unique characteristic that is important in leadership (see e.g., Antonakis et al., 2009 and Walter et al., 2011). The present study will therefore control for the personality factors in the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM) and GMA when assessing the relationship between EI as ability and transformational leadership. GMA will be controlled for by the use of Monte Carlo studies. Third, studies assessing the relationship between EI as ability and transformational leadership seldom take into account the multilevel nature of scores from measures of transformational leadership. That is, transformational leadership is often measured by subordinates' ratings of their leader, which introduces dependencies in the scores. Ignoring such dependencies may lead to biased parameter estimates and wrong conclusions about how the scores relate to other variables (Bliese and Hanges, 2004 and Hox, 2002), such as leaders' EI. The present study will assess the relationship between EI as ability and transformational leadership within a multilevel framework, which takes such dependencies into account. In the following, we will first describe transformational leadership and the theoretical relationship with EI, and some empirical findings regarding this relationship. Second, we will look at some issues that may question the validity of the scores from MSCEIT, and explain why it may be appropriate to assess the predictive validity of an alternative set of scales from MSCEIT. Third, we will explain the need for a multilevel framework when assessing the relationship between the scores on transformational leadership and EI as ability. Finally, we will report and discuss results from a study assessing the relationship between scores from MSCEIT and transformational leadership, in a sample of 104 Norwegian executives rated on transformational leadership by subordinates, controlling for the FFM and GMA.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The results from the present study suggest that the scores from the MSCEIT by and large are unrelated to transformational leadership after controlling for the FFM and GMA. On psychometric grounds, the validity of the scores from the MSCEIT may be questioned, and the finding that the scores do not predict transformational leadership, support this conclusion. The unexpected suppressor effect identified should be replicated and given a more thorough theoretical explanation before considered further. Future research would benefit from firmly establishing the content and structural validity of any measure of EI before assessing the relationship with transformational leadership.