Strategic Emotional Intelligence: Demystifying and ...

Strategic Emotional Intelligence:

Demystifying and Reconceptualising the EI-Leadership Link

Elise Bausseron

University of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia

Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper advances theorisation of a new construct derived from the ability-based model of emotional

intelligence: Strategic Emotional Intelligence (SEI). SEI is proposed as an alternative position to the

recent debate concerning the altruistic versus manipulative use of EI by organisational leaders.

Although this distinction is pertinent, I argue it reduces the value of EI to two polarised perspectives.

First, a brief review of EI and its positive implications for leadership is provided. Second, rationales

for the allegations made towards the potential “dark side” of EI are presented. Third, SEI is defined

and issues that lie at its intersection with ethical leadership are acknowledged. The paper closes

advocating the need for future leadership studies to formulate more assumption-challenging research

questions.

Keywords: Emotional intelligence, strategy, critical perspectives on leadership, ethics, interpersonal behaviour

of 24 ANZAM 2012

1

EMOTIONALLY INTELLIGENT LEADERSHIP

The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Leadership

Which emotional intelligence are we talking about?

The last seventeen years have witnessed a veritable explosion of interest in emotional intelligence

(EI), particularly with regard to its relevance for the work domain. This is reflected in the fact that leading

organisational behaviour (OB) textbooks (e.g., Robbins, 2005), international conferences (e.g., the

International Congress of Emotional Intelligence, ICEI), large consulting firms (e.g., the Hay Group) and

organisational issues-oriented articles published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Côté & Miners, 2006;

Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Härtel, 2003) are increasingly devoting their attention to

the topic. The level of interest is so high that it has even been asserted that EI has contributed to the

emergence of an “affective revolution” (Barsade, Gibson, & Sparato, 2003; Barsade & Gibson, 2007) in

the study of OB (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). But, what is EI exactly? As Caruso (2003) once declared

“The answer, to a large extent, depends on who you ask” (p.1). Indeed, the field of EI today is replete with

widely differing definitions and measurement methods. Consequently, it appears fundamental to clarify

which definition of EI is adhered to in this paper prior to continuing the discussion.

For simplification, the different conceptual models that currently dominate the field can be

categorised into two scientific approaches: the ability model and mixed/trait models1 (Brackett et al., in

press; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000).

Proponents of the ability model propose to view EI strictly as a mental ability, one that must be

assessed by performance measures that exhibit incremental validity over and above personality traits and

cognitive intelligence, and that meets traditional criteria for an intelligence. One instrument that has been

demonstrated to achieve this is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test2 (MSCEIT; Mayer,

Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Côté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010; Mayer,

1 For a more refined approach to distinguishing the different models and assessment tools of EI please refer to Ashkanasy and Daus’s (2005) “three streams” categorisation. 2 For a thorough description of the MSCEIT, including psychometrics, please see Rivers, Brackett, Salovey, and Mayer, (2007) and Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade (2008).

of 24ANZAM 2012

2

Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003; O’ Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack,

Hawver, & Story, 2010). The MSCEIT measures a set of four inter-related abilities (perceiving, using,

understanding and managing emotions) that correspond to the first conceptualisation of EI to be

introduced to the scientific literature (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and to its revised version (Mayer &

Salovey, 1997). One latest definition of EI by the authors of the ability model (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,

2008) is: “the ability to engage in sophisticated information processing about one’s own and others’

emotions and the ability to use this information as a guide to thinking and behaviour” (p. 503).

By way of contrast, mixed and trait models refer to conceptualisations of EI that surfaced through

and post-popularisation of the construct. More precisely, the popularisation of EI saw the light of the day

in 1995 with Goleman’s best-selling trade book “Emotional intelligence: Why it can Matter More than

IQ.” The media, general public, practitioners and neophyte EI researchers were rapidly seduced by his

rhetoric and the term catapulted to the forefront of the international scene.

Goleman (1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2000), however, has been criticised for making claims not founded

in empirical research (Jordan, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2006; Lindebaum, 2009) and for

metamorphosing EI’s original definition. For instance, he has gone so far as to equate EI with “character”

(Goleman, 1995, p.285) and claimed that 90% of the variance between star and average leaders was

attributable to the acquisition of advanced EI skills (Goleman, 1998b, 2000). Many EI experts (e.g.,

Jordan et al., 2006; Mayer et al., 2008) have deplored that such extravagant claims, combined with the

cacophony of divergent views of EI, not only engendered confusion and controversy about the nature and

predictive power of the construct but also served to feed the strident rhetoric of its most fervent detractors

(e.g., Locke, 2005; Waterhouse, 2006).

Concerning mixed and trait models (e.g., Bar-On, 1997, 2006; Boyatzis & Sala, 2004; Petrides &

Furnham, 2003; see Cherniss, 2010 for a review), three main concerns are often raised: (1) they define EI

too broadly, i.e., as a mixture of emotion-related qualities (e.g., self-awareness, empathy), personality-type

items and other dispositional attributes such as self-esteem, zeal, self-control, innovation, and

assertiveness (Mayer et al., 2008); (2) their associated measurement methods are mostly self-report or

of 24 ANZAM 2012

3

peer-report measures while these have been found to substantially overlap with existing personality

measures (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). Moreover,

there is also evidence that self-report EI scales are vulnerable to respondents’ inaccurate judgments of

their own abilities (Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998), as well as to social desirability biases and faking (Day &

Carroll, 2008) notably for those low on job-relevant traits (Tett, Freund, Christiansen, Fox, & Coaster,

2012); (3) finally, although some of the scales associated with mixed/trait models do possess adequate

reliability and factorial validity (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008) and may be valuable tools for

consultants (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003), they do not measure EI as a mental ability. Thus, from a

terminological point of view, it is difficult not to find problematic that a portion of these have included the

term “emotional intelligence” in their appellation (e.g., “trait EI” measured by the TEIQue or Trait

Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire) or alternated its citation with other terms (e.g., “emotional

competency” or “social intelligence”) that do not share the same meaning.

In light of the above considerations, and consistent with Daus and Ashkanasy (2003), I argue that

Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso’s definitional approach to EI sets the “gold standard.” Accordingly, unless

stated otherwise, the remainder of this paper focuses on EI as epitomised in the ability model. In the

following section, I discuss the logic behind the utility of EI to the leadership field and succinctly review

recent empirical research that supports it.

Traditional emotional intelligence-leadership link

Ground-breaking articles (e.g., Ashforth, & Humphrey, 1995; Pekrun & Frese, 1992; Weiss, &

Cropanzano, 1996) on the importance of affect in the workplace have progressively created an opportunity

for EI to become a recurrent topic in the scientific study of leadership. The notion that emotions are

undesirable forces that prevent logical reasoning (e.g., Lefford, 1946; Young, 1943) which caused them to

be neglected in organisational research for too long a time (Ashkanasy & Ashton-James, 2005; Briner,

1999) appears to have vanished. According to Ashkanasy and Daus (2002), for instance, being able to deal

effectively with emotions and to create a positive emotional climate is the new challenge of the 21st

of 24ANZAM 2012

4

century manager, for which EI is required. In the same vein, Forgas and George (2001) argue that

emotional abilities significantly influence the effective realisation of cognitively-based organisational

tasks.

Table 1. Linking the four branches of EI to four key leadership process variables

Of course, as for the validity of EI itself, there are sceptics who have vividly criticised its

relevance to leadership (see Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009 for an interesting debate).

Disagreements that persist among academics indicate that there may be many issues at the intersection of

the two constructs that remained unresolved. The prevailing claim made by leadership scholars, however,

is that EI constitutes a positive attribute for leadership. The logic behind this claim is several fold, the

main ones being: (1) modern and popular conceptualisations of leadership (i.e., authentic leadership,

EI branch

Cognitive and emotional ability Leadership

process

variable

Associated leadership

capacity

Perceive

emotion

*Detecting and accurately identifying emotions in the self and in others *Discriminating between the expression of authentic and inauthentic emotions *Expressing emotions appropriately

Motivate Engaging well with followers by accurately assessing their authentic emotional states and motivations

Use emotion *Using emotions to redirect and prioritise thinking in productive ways *Using emotions to facilitate judgment and memory

Influence Giving purpose and utility to interactions with followers to produce desired outcomes

Understand

emotion

*Labelling emotions accurately * Understanding complex emotions and simultaneous feelings *Recognising relationships associated with shift of emotion

Guide Facilitating interactions among employees by identifying roadblocks to successful working partnerships or job performance

Manage

emotion

*Staying open to feelings *Reasoning about emotions to develop appropriate emotional regulation strategies and promote intellectual growth

Empower Maintaining interactions with and among followers by avoiding inappropriate and divisive responses to unpleasant emotions and encouraging and extending the experience of desired emotions to increase productivity

of 24 ANZAM 2012

5

servant leadership, transformational leadership, see Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009 for a review) suit

the EI paradigm, and (2) enough theoretical and empirical evidence has been produced to support the

existence of what can be referred to as a EI-leadership link (Walter, Cole, & Humphrey, 2010).

A paradigmatic revolution has indeed occurred in the way leadership is conceptualised. Previous

conceptions (e.g., contingency theories; Fiedler, 1967) that approached leadership in the context of

person-situation fit have been recalibrated to embrace a new fit, person-person fit. Leadership seems to

now be most commonly defined as a process of social interactions whereby the leader motivates,

influences, guides, and empowers followers to successfully work towards the achievement of

organisational goals (e.g., Bass & Riggio, 2006; George, 2000). This definition corresponds to the practice

of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). A conceptualisation of the relationship between the four

branches of EI and the social objectives of higher-order leadership -- motivating, influencing, guiding, and

empowering followers – can be found in Table 1.

Empirical evidence that EI facilitates transformational leadership exists (Leban & Zulauf, 2004),

as well as positive associations with leadership effectiveness (Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006;

Rosete, 2007; Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005) with correlations ranging from r=. 26 to r=. 52 (Brackett et al., in

press). A recently completed meta-analysis of 48 studies (Mills, 2009) also supported the relationship

between EI and leadership effectiveness. With the exception of Kerr et al (2006), the correlations reported

remained statistically significant after partialling out cognitive ability and personality. Finally, additional

research found that EI predicted leadership emergence in small groups after controlling for cognitive

ability, personality, and gender (Côté et al., 2010). These findings led Walter et al. (2011), in the latest EI-

leadership review, to distinguish three main links: EI and leadership emergence, EI and leadership

behaviour (transformational behaviour) and EI and leadership effectiveness.

To sum up, evidence is accumulating that EI is, at least in some respect, a key contributor to the

enhancement of the leadership function and a tool whose utilisation relates to positive, if not pure,

behavioural characteristics. In opposition to this favourable portrayal, a new movement is emerging in the

of 24ANZAM 2012

6

EI literature suggesting EI may also have a “dark side” and may be used for manipulative or opportunistic

purposes. The first theoretical and empirical analyses that have explored this provocative hypothesis are,

respectively, convincing and intriguing. These are presented next.

EMERGENCE OF THE DARK SIDE MOVEMENT

Demystification of the Purist View of Emotional Intelligence

First theorisations in favour of the dark side

Early mentions that EI may facilitate emotional manipulation—albeit laconic—can be found. In

their introductory article on the construct, Salovey and Mayer (1990) warned against ‘‘those whose skills

are channelled antisocially” because they “may create manipulative scenes or lead others sociopathically

to nefarious ends’’ (p. 198). In the same vein, Mayer (2001) acknowledged that ‘‘some emotionally

intelligent people may manage their feelings in…negative ways: to manipulate, control, and exploit

themselves and others’’ (p. 423). The conceivability of the existence of a “dark side” to EI, however, did

not elicit intellectual rumination from the academic community and remained neglected at the time (see

Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002; Emmerling & Goleman, 20033 for exceptions).

A positioning of EI under the field of positive psychology was preferred (Salovey, Mayer, & Caruso,

2002) and prospered until very recently.

The first exhaustive account of EI as a mental ability that could be exploited strategically (i.e., in

view of achieving egoistic aspirations) in an organisational context appeared two years ago (cf., Kilduff,

Chiaburu, & Menges, 2010). Kilduff et al. made the critical observation that, so far, EI has been

embellished in the OB literature in that research endeavours on the topic have disproportionately

concentrated on desirable outcomes. They formalised a novel trajectory for the use of EI and demonstrated

theoretically how the aggregation of the four branches that comprise EI could relate to dark side tactics.

Specifically, the addition of the first two branches (perceiving and using emotions in the self and in

3 Mixed model conceptualisation of EI.

of 24 ANZAM 2012

7

others) was hypothesised to enable individuals to focus on strategically important targets. The subsequent

addition of the last two branches (understanding and managing emotions in the self and in others),

cumulated to the preceding one4, resulted in three other tactics: (1) disguising, expressing one’s own

emotions for personal gain, (2) stirring and shaping others’ emotions through sensegiving, misattribution,

and (3) strategic control of emotion-laden information. This re-theorisation of the use of EI is illustrated

with concrete examples of CEOs of worldly known organisations (e.g., Salomon Brothers, Body Shop,

Enron) who attempted to satisfy personal objectives and/or get ahead through unscrupulous methods that

required EI skills.

The dark side perspective of EI in organisational settings finds additional theoretical support from

many discussions that have drew attention to dysfunctional type of behaviours that may accompany the

practice of leadership, and reciprocally. A copious lexicon of leadership theories have indeed also

considered the dark side of leadership (Conger, 1990), where the leader prioritises self-serving goals

(often obsessive and grandiose) through the use of emotional levers, often at the expense of both followers

and organisational objectives. These theories include: inauthentic or pseudo-transformational leadership

(Barling, Christie, &Turner, 2008; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999), unethical

leadership (Brown & Mitchell, 2010) that may propagate through (negative) emotional contagion

processes (Härtel & Panipucci, 2007), narcissistic leadership (Brunell et al., 2008; Higgs, 2009; Maccoby,

2000), and destructive leadership (Padilla, & Hogan, 2007). For a recent compilation of theoretical works

on the dark side of leadership please see Schyns and Hansbrough’s (2010) edited book.

It seems that, similar to the intertwined paradigmatic revolution suggested earlier (recognition of

the adaptive role of workplace emotions + modern conceptualisations of leadership), another intertwined

paradigmatic revolution is emerging but in a virtually reversed fashion (dark side of EI + dark side of

leadership). Empirically, this is exemplified by the remark that the first published dark side studies of EI

have allocated their efforts to the exploration of its darkest side.

4 Note that this particular way of relating EI to the dark side tactics proposed here is due to the hierarchical theorisation of the four branches that compose EI.

of 24ANZAM 2012

8

First empirical research and findings

As research on the dark side of EI is at its infancy stage, empirical data available on the subject is

limited. Since the dark side movement manifested, only two studies that used the ability model5 have been

conducted (Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore, 2007; Côté, Decelles, MCCarthy, Van Kleef, & Hideg,

2011). Both studies used student samples, consisted of two parts, but targeted a different application of EI

and generated partially contradictory results. Austin et al.’s (2007) study (part 1 and part 2) was neutral in

its targeting. The authors investigated the nature of the EI-Machiavellianism relationship and found a

negative correlation between the two constructs. This reassured the prevailing view that EI is better

theorised as a construct that advances the common good (Walter et al., 2011). Côté et al.’s (2011) study,

on the other hand, was essentially workplace-oriented. Part 1 focused on the positive side of EI. Emotion-

regulation knowledge (i.e., 4th branch in Mayer and Salovey’s model, cf. table 1) was weighted against

moral identity and prosocial behaviour. Among individuals with higher emotion regulation knowledge,

moral identity exhibited a stronger positive association with prosocial behaviour in a social dilemma. Part

2 sought to research the dark side of EI and analysed the interaction of EI with Machiavellianism and

interpersonal deviance at work. Results reported that among the same statistical population as that of part

1, Machiavellianism exhibited a stronger positive association with interpersonal deviance. These

intriguing results provided the first empirical evidence that EI may have both a positive and a dark side.

Additional research on the potential dark side of EI can be found elsewhere (see Grieve & Mahar,

2010; Pham, Ducro, & Luminet, 2010; Porter, ten Brinke, Baker, & Wallace, 2011). These studies have

also reported intriguing findings. Note, however, that all of them used self-report measures based on

mixed or trait models of EI. As previously explained, definitions of EI associated with these assessment

methods are in stark contrast to the one adopted in this paper. Trying to make sense of their results here

would therefore be an incoherent and futile exercise. Besides, the aforementioned studies have been

5 Note that Austin et al. (2007) used both self-report and performance measures of EI in their study.

of 24 ANZAM 2012

9

exclusively concerned about examining whether (their version of) EI and psychopathy could positively

correlate, which limits their relevance to the realm of clinical and personality pathology.

The dark side movement seems to be progressively gaining momentum with researchers in this

area deepening their criticism about the over-accentuated positive rendering of EI. Today, the impact of

the movement is such that it has started to divert attention from the definitional and measurement issues

that have arisen around different conceptions of EI to questions that place EI at the heart of an interesting

but Manichean debate between an altruistic versus manipulative use of EI.

THE CASE FOR STRATEGIC EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Problematizing the Current Emotional Intelligence Debate

Limitations of the polarisation of the EI construct

In line with Gardner’s (1999) assertion that “No intelligence is moral or immoral in itself” (p.10),

I regard both views presented above about the way EI may be utilised by organisational leaders as equally

but moderately (cf. comments below) pertinent. Given the amount of supporting evidence, the beneficial

contribution of EI to leadership is hard to refute. Alternatively, concerns over the possible manipulative

use of EI seem plausible. They are also valuable in that they permit scholarly deliberation, which in turn

permits the elaboration of actions that aim at responding to issues that are being detected as new

knowledge is acquired. For example, if additional research finds EI promotes unethical leadership

behaviour, as Walter et al. (2011) pointed out, this would imply that “significant alterations to

organisations’ EI development activities” (p.54) would be necessary.

In this section, however, I argue that the intellectualisation of the “debate” with respect to the use

of EI, as it is now, is limited. I find particularly frustrating that dark side researchers automatically link the

act of opportunistically capitalising on EI to achieve self-interested goals with Machiavellianism6. While it

6 Note the use of the term “immediately” in Austin et al.’s (2007) comment: “Considering the possibility that individuals might have a dispositional tendency to emotionally- manipulative behaviour immediately brings to mind the trait of Machiavellianism” (p.180).

of 24ANZAM 2012

10

may be the case for certain leaders, this perspective is stigmatising the portion of leaders that may engage

in emotional manipulation but not to the extreme degree of putting others’ well-being in peril. What is

more, it is worth noting that Machiavelli’s initial thoughts are subject to competing interpretations. It has

been suggested that typical evaluations of Machiavelli’s doctrine (e.g., the idea that he extols the virtues of

malicious behaviours without attributing the least importance to their impact on others) may result from a

fantasied reading of his writings (Parkinson, 1955). Similar critiques apply about the positive EI-

leadership link. Only behaviours that are visibly discernable as being ethical and leading to beneficial

outcomes are reported, but that does not prevent them from being potentially performed to satisfy

“impure” intentions. After all, justifications for the organisational application of EI do not allude to neutral

motives. Economical terms such as “financial performance”, “productivity” (Caruso & Wolfe, 2004), and

“competitive advantage” (Jordan, 2005) often accompany EI.

I posit that the treatment of the question of the use of EI would offer more subtle insights into the

EI-leadership link if problematised. Problematisation is a metholodogical approach advanced by Alvesson

and Sandberg (2011) that entails challenging assumptions that underlie existing literature. The authors

speculate that this approach augments the probability of constructing interesting research questions that

lead to the development of influential theories. I subscribe to this position. Another position to which I

subscribe is that of pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535-475 BC). According to Heraclitian

thought, the act of polarising is naive and unsophisticated as it imposes a deterministic conception of life.

Things that are traditionally polarised (e.g., good versus evil) are perceived as being inexorably linked,

unified, and incapable of being cleanly divorced (Khan, 1981).

The leadership style of Steve Jobs, iconic former Apple CEO, is a good example of Heraclitus’s

philosophy. Jobs’s transformational skills for articulating a vision that inspires and motivates his

employees’ inventiveness is widely recognised. Apple’s $600 billion market capitalisation (Goldman &

Cowley, 2012), largely achieved under his leadership, provides testimony for his ability to infuse

followers with creativity and commitment about work. Anecdotally, Jobs has been the recipient of

numerous honours, including “CEO of the Decade” by Fortune Magazine and “Person of the Decade” by

of 24 ANZAM 2012

11

Time Magazine (Beahm, 2011). On the other hand, his visionary excellence has been reported to oscillate

with self-absorbed, tyrannical and destructive leadership (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989) often camouflaged

by the use of impression management techniques (Harvey, 2001). One Apple engineer said about Jobs,

“the little things he did would create incredible pressure unlike I’d ever experienced before just tearing

you to the bone ripping you apart and making you feel worthless” (as cited in Harvey, 2001, p.263).

Which box would Jobs be put into? Surely, he cannot be cut in half.

Kilduff et al.’s (2010) strategic approach to the “debate” sets an appropriate theoretical platform to

advance a problematised analysis of the use of EI.

Defining strategic emotional intelligence (SEI)

Inspired from Kilduff et al.’s (2010) ground-breaking article, but making one slight

amendment to their theorising of SEI with the removal of the Machiavellian connotation “at the

expense of others” (p.129), I propose a first formal definition for SEI: the automatic or deliberate use

of EI by an individual in an attempt to respond to a pressure or satisfy a desire that is directly linked

to the accomplishment of a personal goal. Thus SEI neither excludes nor necessarily includes

manipulation of others, rather it denotes personal goal pursuit.

This definition does not endorse a Machiavellian practice of leadership. Instead, it is based on

the assumption that the position of leader is a distinctively singular and unique position to occupy,

one that is hard to attain and maintain, especially in today’s highly competitive and volatile business

environment. SEI intends to normalise leaders’ desires/temptations for getting ahead by appreciating

that with leadership comes power, status, ambitions, prestige, competition, and pressure to perform. I

hypothesise that SEI provides a more realistic depiction of leaders’ motivations for using EI. The next

paragraphs elaborate further why SEI is essentially a pragmatic construct.

of 24ANZAM 2012

12

Leaders’ (Genuine) Motivations for Engaging in EI: Questions never asked

Modern conceptualisations of leadership, I argue, only offer a partially accurate estimation of

leaders’ motivations for engaging in EI. In fact, theory aside, very little is known about the factors that

truly drive leaders’ behaviours. Personal goals7 such as gaining public recognition, earning more money or

getting promoted may justify a significant amount of leaders’ efforts for motivating, influencing, guiding,

and empowering others. This possibility, however, has yet not been acknowledged in the current EI-

leadership literature. Personal goals in leadership are generally deemed as morally intolerable by making

repugnant the notion of ambitiousness. In ignoring these issues or relegating their treatment to dark-side

oriented research, the EI-leadership literature, quite regrettably, is cultivating the myth of what Vroom and

Jago (2007) refer to as the heroic conception of leadership.

Contrary to Christie and Geis (1970) who confessed to have a perverse admiration for those super

gifted in the art of manipulation, I join those who excoriate Machiavellianism. I am nevertheless

dubitative regarding the abundance of claims that put leaders, who in appearance may qualify as authentic

(e.g., Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008), on a pedestal. Of course, exceptions do

exist, they always do. Indian tycoon Ratan Tata, for instance, built a business empire out of placing ethical

corporate and personal conduct as the golden rule to adhere to (cf. Tata Code of Conduct (TCoC)”, one for

which he prides himself to be “ferociously fighting for” (CNN-IBN, 2007). But, how many Ratan Tatas

are there really out there?

As previously asserted (cf. Jordan, Dasborough, & Daus, 2010; Vroom & Jago, 2007), the

situational context plays a major role in shaping leaders’ behaviours. As I envisage it, SEI comes into play

when the situational context is favourable to the realisation of a personal goal. SEI seeks to reconcile the

two contrasting positions discussed earlier with regard to the use of EI. It supports a modern view of EI

that, up to now, has been neglected. I sympathise with academics’ pressure to publish and to comply with

7 Note that, in some instances, leaders’ personal goals can be aligned or coincide with organisational goals, whether premeditated or not (e.g., a leader’s personal goal to gain public recognition may align with an organisation’s goal to boost its reputation).

of 24 ANZAM 2012

13

politics that surrounds the reviewing process (see Ashkanasy, 2010, 2011; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011 for

supporting arguments). Still, I believe that we should not succumb to the pressure and be reticent to

address controversial questions such as the ones presented in this paper. Such attitude represents a colossal

obstacle that prevents most innovative research to flourish (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2012). The claim that

SEI exists, however, imposes the ultimate effort of demonstrating the validity of the construct.

Validating Strategic Emotional Intelligence

Clearly, validating SEI is one important challenge that lies ahead. Superior methodological rigour

to the methods used in previous investigations of EI is needed. Experimental and longitudinal studies, in

particular, are lacking and would enrich our current understanding of EI in so that they would permit

researchers to prove causality. I recommend future studies not to use student samples but “real”

organisational leaders to increase the ecological validity of the data obtained (Peterson, 2001) and respond

to the call for producing research that is relevant to issues that practitioners are facing (Mohrman &

Lawler III, 2012). Another recommendation is to incorporate political skills (Ferris et al., 2005) to the list

of variables being tested, as well as to control for Machiavellianism, cognitive ability and personality. In

particular, neglect in controlling for these last two variables has been an often-cited critique in EI research

(Côté et al., 2010; Walter et al., 2011).

Perhaps one of most exciting questions to explore would be: how often are high-SEI leaders

successful in their attempt to achieve their personal goal? The practice of SEI also raises a myriad of

issues that lie at the intersection of EI and ethical leadership. Unlike Brown and Treviño (2006), I do not

feel that the study of normative ethics has been sufficiently applied in leadership studies. Using

Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and Ethical Egoism (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnorld, 2008) to explore the

aforementioned issues would be an interesting option to pursue, as each doctrine would produce a

different reasoning about the morality of SEI. In addition, recent theoretical work about the role of affect

and interactional justice in moral leadership (Härtel & Ganegoda, 2008) as well as ways to prevent

of 24ANZAM 2012

14

leaders’ unethical use of SEI (cf. NORMS, Bausseron in Mikolajczak & Bausseron, in press) is available

and could provide a suitable basis to reflect on the “debate.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Two dominant views about the way leaders may use EI (altruistically vs. manipulatively) have

been considered so far in the relevant literature and briefly described in this paper. In formalising the first

definition for SEI, the strategic use of EI in view of achieving personal goals, I propose an alternative way

of exploring the potential “dark side” of EI. Arguments that support the plausibility of the existence of the

construct have been presented, and ethical considerations acknowledged. SEI does not pretend to reinvent

the EI-leadership field, but to accelerate its development. I concur with Ashkanasy and Dasborough’s (in

Antonakis et al., 2009) assertion that research on the EI-leadership link is better served with the adoption

of a Popperian approach to advancing knowledge, i.e., one that is open to new ideas and theories. SEI, I

believe, opens new areas for research that fits into that category.

REFERENCES Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. The

Academy of Management Review, 36, 247-271.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2012). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative

and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01070.x

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Dasborough, M. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence?

The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247-261.

Ashforth, B.E., & Humphrey, R.H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations,

48, 97-125.

Ashkanasy, N.M. (2010). Publishing today is more difficult than ever. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 31, 1-3.

of 24 ANZAM 2012

15

Ashkanasy, N.M. (2011). Advancing theory: More than just “gap filling.” Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 32, 819-821.

Ashkanasy, N.M., & Ashton-James, C.E. (2005). Emotion in organizations: A neglected topic in I/O

psychology, but with a bright future. In G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford, International Review of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 221-268). Chichester: Wiley.

Ashkanasy, N.M., & Daus, C.S. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers.

Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 76-86.

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, 441-452.

Ashkanasy, N.M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A

conceptual review. In N.M. Ashkanasy, C. Härtel, & W. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace:

Developments in the study of the managed heart (pp. 221-235). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Austin, E.J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and

emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179-

189.

Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future

directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-Transformational Leadership: Towards the

Developmentand Test of a Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 851–861.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On emotional quotient inventory: a measure of emotional intelligence. Toronto,

ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, 13-25.

Barsade, S., Brief, A., & Spataro, S. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational behavior: The

emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science

(pp. 3-52). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Barsade, S., & Gibson, D. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management

of 24ANZAM 2012

16

Perspectives, 21, 36-59.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men

and women. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 45, 5-34.

Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B.M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership

behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217.

Beahm, G. (Ed.). (2011). I, Steve. Steve Jobs in his own words. London: Hardie Grant Books.

Beauchamp, T.L., Bowie, N.E., & Arnold, D.G. (2008). Ethical theory and business (8th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Boyatzis, R., & Sala, F. (2004). The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI). In G. Geher (Ed.),

Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy (pp. 143-178). Hauppauge, NY:

Nova Science Publishers.

Brackett, M.A., Elberston, N., Bertoli, M., Bausseron, E., Castillo, R., & Salovey, P. (in press). Emotional

Intelligence: Reconceptualizing the Cognition-Emotion Link. In M.D. Robinson, E.R. Watkins, & E.

Harmon-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Cognition & Emotion. New York: Guiford Press.

Brackett, M.A., & Mayer, J.D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing

measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.

Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities

to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional

intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780-795.

Briner, R.B. (1999). The neglect and importance of emotion at work. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 8, 323-346.

Brown, M.E., & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for

future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 583-616.

of 24 ANZAM 2012

17

Brown, M.E., & Treviño, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: a review and future directions. Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 595-616.

Brunell, A.B., Gentry, W.A., Campbell, W.K., Hoffman, B.J., Kuhnert, K.W., & DeMarree, K.G. (2008).

Leader Emergence: The Case of the Narcissistic Leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

34, 1663-1676.

Caruso, D. (2003, November). Defining the inkblot called Emotional Intelligence. Issues and Recent

Developments in Emotional Intelligence, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org

Caruso, D.R., & Wolfe, C.J. (2004). Emotional intelligence and leadership development. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 17, 237-263.

Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and


Christie, R., & Geis, F.L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Conger, J.A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 44-55.

Côté, S., Decelles, K.A., MCCarthy, J.M., Van Kleef, G.A., & Hideg, I. (2011). The jekyll and hyde of

emotional intelligence: Emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally

deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 1073-1080.

Côté, S., Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C.T.H. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership

emergence in small groups. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 496-508.

Côté, S., & Miners, C.T.H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1-28.

CNN-IBN. (2007). interview to Rajdeep Sardesai on. [video]. Available from http://ibnlive.in.com/

videos/32741/tata-a-man-of-values-and-vision.html

Dasborough, M.T., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-

member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615-634.

Daus, C.S., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelligence please stand up? On

deconstructing the emotional intelligence “debate.” The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 41,

of 24ANZAM 2012

18

69-72.

Daus, C.S., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in

organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 453-466.

Day, A.L., & Carroll, S.A. (2008). Faking emotional intelligence (EI): Comparing response distortion on

ability and trait-based EI measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 761-784.

Emmerling, R.J., & Goleman, D. (2003, October). Emotional intelligence: Issues and common

misunderstandings. Issues and Recent Developments in Emotional Intelligence, 1(1), Retrieved from

http://www.eiconsortium.org

Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C., & Frink,

D.D. (2005). Development and Validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management,

31, 126-152.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Forgas, J.P., & George, J.M. (2001). Affective Influences on Judgments and Behavior in Organizations:

An Information Processing Perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

86, 3-34.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. Basic Books,

NewYork.

George, J.M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53,

1027-1055.

Goldman, D., & Cowley. S. (2012, April 10). Apple's value soars to $600 billion. CNN Money. Retrieved

from http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/10/technology/apple_market_cap/index.htm

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998a). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76: 93-102.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78, 78-90.

Grieve, R., & Mahar, D. (2010). The emotional manipulation-psychology nexus:Relationships with

of 24 ANZAM 2012

19

emotional intelligence, alexithymia and ethical position. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,

945-950.

Härtel, C.E.J., & Ganegoda, D.B. (2008). Role of affect and interactional justice in moral leadership. In

W.J. Zerbe, C.E.J. Härtel, & N.M. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Research on Emotion in Organizations:

Emotions, Ethics and Decision-Making (Vol.4, pp. 155-180). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group

Publishing/JAI Press.

Härtel, C.E.J., & Panipucci, D. (2007). How ‘bad apples’ spoil the bunch: Faultlines, emotional levers and

exclusion in the workplace. In C.E.J. Härtel, N.M. Ashkanasy, & W.J. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on

emotion in organizations. Vol. 3 (pp. 287-310). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Harvey, A. (2001). A dramaturgical analysis of charismatic leader discourse. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 14, 253−265.

Higgs, M. (2009). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Leadership and Narcissism. Journal of Change

Management, 9, 165-78.

Jordan, P. (2005). Dealing with organizational change: can emotional intelligence enhance organizational

learning? International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 8, 456-471.

Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Härtel, C.E.J. (2003). The Case for Emotional Intelligence in

Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 195-197.

Jordan, P.J., Ashton-James, C., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2006). Evaluating the claims: Emotional intelligence

in the workplace. In K. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems

and how can they be fixed? (pp. 189-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jordan, P.J., Dasborough, M.T., Daus, C.S., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2010). A call to context. Industrial and


Kerr, R., Garvin, J., & Heaton, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 27, 265-279.

Kahn, C.H. (1981). Art and thought of Heraclitus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kilduff, M., Chiaburu, D.S., & Menges, J.I. (2010). Strategic use of emotional intelligence in

of 24ANZAM 2012

20

organizational settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 129-152.

Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership

styles. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 25, 554-64.

Lefford, A. (1946). The influence of emotional subject matter on logical reasoning. The Journal of

General Psychology, 34, 127-151.

Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on developing emotional intelligence. Academy of

Management Learning Education, 8, 225-237.

Locke, E.A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26, 425-431.

Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic Leaders: the incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business

Review, 69-77.

Mayer, J.D. (2001). Emotion, intelligence, and emotional intelligence. In J.P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of

affect and social cognition (pp. 410–431). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an

intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case

for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence:

Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 320-

342). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2002). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

(MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Toronto, Canada: Multi Health Systems.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits?

American Psychologist, 63, 503-517.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with

the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.

Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D., & Barsade, S.G. (2008). Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence. Annual

of 24 ANZAM 2012

21

Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.

Mikolajczak, M., & Bausseron, E. (in press). Les compétences émotionnelles chez l’adulte [Emotional

competencies among adults]. In O. Luminet (Ed.), Psychologie des émotions–Nouvelles perspectives

pour la cognition, la personnalité et la santé. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

Mills, L.B. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective

leadership. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3, 22-38.

Mohrman, S.A., & Lawler III, E.E. (2012). Generating knowledge that drives change. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 26, 41-51.

O'Boyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M., Hawver, T.H., & Story, P.A. (2010). The relation between

emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

32, 788-818.

Padilla, A., & Hogan, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and

conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.

Parkinson, G.H.R. (1955). Ethics and Politics in Machiavelli. Philosophical Quarterly 5, 37-44.

Paulhus, D.L., Lysy, D.C., & Yik, M.S.M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence: Are they useful as

proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 525-554.

Pekrun, R., & Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement. International Review of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, 7, 153-200.

Peterson, R.A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-

order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 250-261.

Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies

of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-57.

Pham, T.H., Ducro, C., & Luminet, O. (2010). Psychopathy, alexithymia and emotional intelligence in a

forensic hospital. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 24-32.

Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., Baker, A., & Wallace, B. (2011). Would I lie to you? “Leakage” in deceptive

facial expressions relates to psychopathy and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual

of 24ANZAM 2012

22

Differences, 51, 133-137.

Rivers, S.E., Brackett, M.A., Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (2007). Measuring Emotional Intelligence as a

set of mental abilities. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R.D. Roberts (Eds.), The science of emotional

intelligence (pp.230-257). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance

outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 388-

399.

Robbins, S.P. (2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C., & Bommer, W.H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion

recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management

Journal, 48, 845-858.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9,

185-211.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., & Caruso, D. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional intelligence. In C.R.

Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 159-171). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or

problematization? Organization, 18, 23-44.

Schyns, B., & Hansbrough, T. (Eds.). (2010). When Leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership,

mistakes, and ethical failures. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Tett, R.P., Freund, K.A., Christiansen, N.D., Fox, K.E., & Coaster, J. (2012). Faking on self-report

emotional intelligence and personality tests: Effects of faking opportunity, cognitive ability, and job

type. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 195-201.

Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. (2007). The Role of the Situation in Leadership. American Psychologist, 62,

17-24.

Walter, F., Cole, M.S., & Humphrey, R.H. (2011). Emotional Intelligence: Sine Qua Non of Leadership or

of 24 ANZAM 2012

23

Folderol? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 45-59.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., & Peterson, S.J. (2008). Authentic

leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-

126.

Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical

review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207-225.

Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,

causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,

18,1-74.

Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic

Management Journal, 10, 17-32.

Young, P.T. (1943). Emotion in man and in animal: Its nature and relation to attitude and motive. New

York: John Wiley.

of 24ANZAM 2012

Strategic Emotional Intelligence: Demystifying and ...

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Emotional Intelligence: Demystifying and ...