Integrative Literature Review

Emotional Intelligence Human Resource Development Review

2017, Vol. 16(4) 377–393

and Transformational © The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

Leadership: A Review of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.na

v DOI: 10.1177/1534484317729262
journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd
Empirical Studies

Hyejin Kim1 and Taesung Kim2

Abstract
There is an ongoing debate between the proponents and skeptics of emotional
intelligence (EI) with regard to its contribution to leadership effectiveness in
organizational settings. Not aiming to address all the leadership styles exhaustively,
this research looked into the relationship between EI and transformational leadership
(TL) by reviewing the accumulated research assets in the existing literature. After the
staged review, 20 empirical studies covering five different continents were chosen
for an in-depth analysis. The results show that most studies provide empirical support
of the relationship, with variances in identifying subfactors of EI and TL that further
explicate the EI–TL relationship. At the same time, the remaining studies are found
to be skeptical, not fundamentally denying the relationship, but commonly pointing
out the problem with EI measures and emphasizing the need for more valid and
reliable assessment tools. Building on these findings, the present research suggests
implications for practice and research in the human resource development (HRD)
field.

Keywords
emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, EI measures, leadership
development

In the unprecedented economic era characterized with VUCA (volatility, uncertainty,

complexity, and ambiguity), the topic of leadership seems to take center stage in
vari- ous disciplines. As indicated by the main theme of the 2017 World Economic
Forum,

1SK Telecom, Seoul, South Korea

2Incheon National University, Yeonsu-gu, South Korea

Corresponding Author:
Taesung Kim, Assistant Professor, Incheon National University, Creative HRD, 119 Academi-ro,
Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, 22012, South Korea.
Email: [email protected]
378 Human Resource Development Review
16(4)
Responsive and Responsible Leadership, many thinkers recognize than ever the
importance of influential leaders to tackle challenges, seize opportunities, and secure
success. In the organizational context, research and practice alike have been in
pursuit of the formula and programs for effective leadership. For example, Google
has trans- formed the manager’s role by taking the traditional personnel-related
power away from managers and reassigning their duties to primarily help solve
problems (Bock, 2015); almost a half of human resource development (HRD)
professionals ranked leadership development for managers at the top of their priority
(Association for Talent Development [ATD], 2016); organizational scientists have
long researched effective leadership to propose a variety of definitions, styles, and
relationships.
There are numerous factors assumed to affect effective leadership, making it diffi-
cult to come to a consensus on adequate configuration for leadership development. In
particular, a lingering question is why leaders with proven expertise are not necessar-
ily successful in influencing others and attaining business goals. In this respect,
Goleman (1998) proposed that performance of those in low-level positions in the
orga- nizational hierarchy tends to be associated with technical excellence, while it
may not be the case for those on higher levels. Even worse, individual prowess and
cognitive intelligence are often suspected to be a barrier to performance of
organizational lead- ers who are interdependent with a variety of humans in crafting
results. Suciu, Petcu, and Gherhes (2010) looked into the potential economic effect of
leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI) and argued that leaders who underestimate EI are
likely to fail due to their inability to move followers and satisfy customers.
Over the last few decades, the concept of EI has been around in the HRD field
and is broadly assumed as a crucial attribute of effective leaders. For example,
Clarke (2010) asserted that effective leaders act as role models in a group, paying
attention to members’ emotions and making efforts to establish a positive climate.
Furthermore, Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) claimed that transformational leaders are
attentive to their own emotions, as this practice allows them to reflect on their
emotional behaviors, perceive others’ emotions, and effectively react to their needs.
As indicated by a myr- iad of programs aimed at improving leaders’ EI, these claims
have garnered substantial support from many practitioners as well.
However, some researchers challenge the scientific rigor of EI-related
propositions and argue that EI itself is conceptually incoherent among various
definitions (e.g., Antonakis, 2004). Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2004) even
maintain that EI seems to be more myth than science and that the proponents of EI
stand on speculative scaf- foldings, rather than on sufficient evidence. In fact, when it
comes to scholarly work on the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness,
the results are mixed. For example, Barling, Slater, and Kelloway (2000) argued that
important components of EI are positively associated with transformational
leadership (TL) behaviors; Antonakis, Ashkanasy, and Dasborough (2009) found no
significant evidence of EI’s contribution to TL behaviors; Harms and Credé (2010)
added a variation that EI and TL have a marginal association. In brief, the existing
body of research has yielded inconsistent results about EI and incurred an ongoing
debate between the proponents and skeptics. This inconclusive tension underscores
the urgency of an extensive inves- tigation for a theoretical contribution, while
advising the practical field that it would
be premature to regard EI as a key determinant of effective leadership and embed it
into leadership development efforts. What inheres in an application without solid evi-
dence might include invalid schemes and unpredictable results, as well as ineffective
use of resources. Said differently, it is necessary to take an in-depth look at the rela-
tionship between EI and leadership and to offer an integrated reference for both
researchers and practitioners.
To this end, the present research attempts to look into the relationship by
reviewing the accumulated research assets in the existing literature. In particular, not
aiming to address all the leadership styles exhaustively, we focus on TL in relation to
EI because all-inclusive scoping is likely to end up with completely incoherent
interpretations and, moreover, because TL is featured with comprehensive aspects of
effective leader- ship and, therefore, is regarded the most prevailing leadership style
in recent research and practice (Carasco-Saul, Kim, & Kim, 2015).
In sum, the purpose of this research is to (a) take an overview of essential
informa- tion about EI and TL, (b) extensively review empirical findings regarding
the relation- ship between EI and TL, and (c) suggest implications for research and
practice in the HRD field.

Method
Referring to Torraco’s (2005) guide to an integrative literature review, we conducted
a staged review that proceeded from initial identification of pertinent articles to scan-
ning their titles and abstracts for preliminary inclusion, to the further review of
candi- dates for selection, and, ultimately, to the in-depth analysis of the selected
articles.
More specifically, pertinent scholarly articles were identified using multiple
ProQuest databases that include ABI/INFORM Complete, ERIC, ProQuest
Education Journals, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES. With the research focus on the
link between EI and TL, the keyword combination of “emotional intelligence” and
“transforma- tional leadership” was used to result in 118 articles found. There were
such restrictions as peer-review, empirical study, and English publication, but no
restriction was placed on publication dates considering the term “emotional
intelligence” was coined by Salovey and Mayer in 1990. Then, the titles and abstracts
of the articles were reviewed to determine whether each study (a) focused on the
relationship between EI and TL,
(b) had a research methodology, and (c) examined empirical data measured by
instru- ments designed for EI and TL. In the following stage, the studies whose
abstracts provided vague descriptions of the research frameworks and measurements
were reviewed in-depth for inclusion or otherwise. The studies that focused mainly
on other factors, such as the gender and new venture growth issues, were excluded,
as were those purely conceptual with no report of measurements. As a result of this
staged review of 118 articles, 20 empirical studies were chosen for further in-depth
analysis.

Overview of EI and TL
Before examining the relationship between EI and TL, it is necessary to provide an
overview of how EI and TL have been developed, defined, and measured.
EI
In the 1990s, the term “emotional intelligence” was coined by Salovey and Mayer
(1990) who recognized EI as being comprised of multiple emotional abilities
different from cognitive ones. Spurred by the publication of Emotional Intelligence
by Goleman (1995), EI gained worldwide popularity and inspired many to have a
fresh look at emotion from the perspective different from the traditional one.

Definitions of EI. EI is generally used with reference to the ability to perceive, under-
stand, and manage the emotions of both the self and others to accomplish personal
and collective goals (Brown & Moshavi, 2005). One step further, there are three
different approaches to understanding EI: (a) EI as a trait, (b) EI as a competency,
and (c) EI as an intellectual capability.
The first approach suggests that EI is an innate dispositional tendency that allows
for emotional well-being (Bar-On, 1997). Proponents of this view argue that EI is
significantly associated not only with cognitive intelligence but with certain personal
qualities. Referring to the performance potential, instead of performance itself, they
argue that understanding EI along with other cognitive intelligences offers a more
comprehensive picture of an individual’s performance potential.
The second approach holds that EI is a set of acquired skills and competencies
essential for leadership effectiveness and job performance (Goleman, 1995).
Maintaining that leaders with high EI are most successful, this approach stresses that
emotional competence is a learned ability that contributes to effective performance at
work and spans four dimensions: (a) self-knowledge, (b) self-control, (c) social
aware- ness, and (d) relationship management.
The third approach emphasizes that EI is distinct from both competency and per-
sonality (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). This
approach considers EI as a new type of intelligence characterized by “the ability to
perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to under-
stand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as
to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 5).
These different approaches more explicitly manifested in the instruments that
mea- sure EI.

Measurements of EI. Among various EI measures, the most frequently used ones are
the following: (a) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), (b) Emotional Competence
Inventory (ECI), and (c) Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) and
Mayer– Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Conte, 2005).
The EQ-i is based on Bar-On’s (1997) noncognitive intelligence model, views EI
as an innate dispositional tendency, and relies solely on self-reporting in measuring
EI. The EQ-i with 133 items is designed to measure the following five areas and their
subcomponents: (a) interpersonal skills, (b) intrapersonal skills, (c) adaptability, (d)
stress management, and (e) general moods.
 The ECI views EI as a set of acquired competencies. It intends to measure the
emo- tional competencies of individuals and identify high performers’ emotional
competen- cies and positive social behaviors in the workplace. The ECI consists of
110 items assessing 20 competencies in the following four clusters: (a) self-
awareness, (b) social awareness, (c) self-management, and (d) social skills (Conte,
2005). Unlike the EQ-i, the ECI is a 360-degree tool that includes self, peer, and
supervisor ratings.
The MEIS and MSCEIT take an ability-based approach to EI, as they view EI as a
new type of intelligence. Comprising 12 subsets with 402 items and eight subsets
with 141 items, respectively, the MEIS and MSCEIT measure four EI branches,
including
(a) perceiving emotion, or the ability to identify emotions in the self and others, as
well as in other stimuli; (b) facilitating thought, or the ability to use and
communicate emo- tions in cognitive processes; (c) understanding the progression of
emotion, or the abil- ity to analyze emotional information and identify how emotions
shift; and (d) managing emotions, or the ability to control the emotions and moods of
the self and others for specific purposes (Brackett & Salovey, 2006). Both are
markedly different from other EI measures in that, similar to the way used in
cognitive ability tests, each item has the correct answer (Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005).
There are other tools used, such as the Swinburne University Emotional
Intelligence Test (SUEIT), Trait Meta Mood Scale (TMMS), Diagnostic Analysis of
Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA), SMS-EQ, and EI-type scale.

TL
There has been a development in leadership research, whereby the perspective has
shifted from trait and behavioral theories to current ones such as contingency,
leader– member exchange, and TL theories, to name just a few (Carasco-Saul et al.,
2015). Among this multitude, the TL model has been adopted by much of leadership
literature that has attempted to look into the factors (and their combinations) for
effective leader- ship. In fact, for the last several decades, TL has been most
pervasive in leadership research (Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Harms & Credé, 2010).

Definitions of TL. Transformational leaders are described as those who encourage

fol- lowers to increase their intellectual confidence, actively work to challenge the
status quo and achieve higher performance, and pursue learning and development
(Clarke, 2010; Dulewicz, Young, & Dulewicz, 2005; Harms & Credé, 2010). Many
researchers (e.g., Bass, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bogler, Caspi, & Roccas, 2013)
asserted that TL is constructed with the following key dimensions: (a) idealized
influence, (b) inspi- rational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d)
individualized consideration. Idealized influence, frequently referred to as charisma,
involves not only a leader’s attributes, such as commitment to ideal achievement, but
also actions consistent with his or her beliefs. Inspirational motivation is the extent to
which a leader encourages his or her followers to achieve more by setting the bar
high and inspiring confidence. Intellectual stimulation refers to how a leader
mobilizes followers to question assump- tions and challenge uncertainties. Finally,
individualized consideration refers to a
leader’s attention to the needs and concerns of followers by emotionally supporting
them and keeping up sincere interactions. By taking a comprehensive approach to
multiple, concurrent factors for effective leadership, TL is distinguished from other
notable leadership styles, such as authentic leadership, ethical leadership, and charis-
matic leadership, that attend to (a) certain salient aspect(s).

Measurements of TL. Recognizing the multiple dimensions of leadership, Bass and

Avolio (2000) proposed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and Form
5X (MLQ-5X) to identify an individual’s leadership style. These most widely used
instruments (e.g., 16 out of 20 articles reviewed here) evaluate four TL dimensions
of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individual- ized consideration, and use a 5-point behavioral scale ranging from 0
(not at all) to 4 (frequently). According to the degree to which leaders behave in
terms of the items stated in the questionnaire, the instruments identify three different
leadership styles: transactional, laissez-faire, and TL.
In working with people and exercising their leadership, transactional leaders
depend on contingent rewards, management by expectation (active), and
management by exception (passive) as significant leverages. Contingent rewards
refers to how fre- quently leaders use expectations and resultant economic rewards to
encourage mem- bers to achieve their goals; management by expectation means how
often leaders foresee members’ mistakes in advance and actively correct them;
management by exception means the extent to which leaders passively react to
members’ mistakes, rather than actively preventing them. Laissez-faire leadership is
characterized as the absence of leadership and is distinguishable from management
by exception. Laissez- faire leaders avoid accepting responsibility, making decisions,
expressing their own opinions, or acting on members’ request for assistance. This
type of a leader is typi- cally absent when needed. As transformational leaders
influence, inspire, stimulate, and care about followers, instead of proffering carrots
and sticks for performance or letting go, they are apparently differentiated from those
with transactional and laissez- faire styles of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2000; Bogler
et al., 2013).

Relationship Between EI and TL

The analysis of the chosen studies suggests that the results be classified into two dis-
tinct groups: (a) those that found a significant relationship between EI and TL and
(b) the others that are skeptical about their relationship. In what follows, we provide
a gist of each of the studies along with the samples, measuring instruments, and other
details.

Positive EI–TL Relationship

Among the 20 studies chosen, 15 argue the significance of EI in relation to TL based
on the correlational and predictive findings about the EI–TL relationship.
Barling et al. (2000), drawing on data from 49 managers of a large pulp and paper
organization via Bar-On’s self-report Emotional Intelligence Inventory and the MLQ
5X-Short, found that EI is significantly related to three dimensions of TL:
inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and individualized consideration.
Among these, inspi- rational motivation had the most significant correlation with EI
—Pillai’s Trace F(2,
44) = 8.05, p < .01—followed by idealized influence—Pillai’s Trace F(2, 44) = 7.60,
p < .01—and individualized consideration—Pillai’s Trace F(2, 44) = 3.69, p < .05.
In exploring their hypothesis that transformational leaders would possess higher
EI levels than transactional leaders, Palmer, Walls, Burgess, and Stough (2001)
studied 43 students and alumni of the Swinburne University Center for Innovation
and Enterprise Programs. For the survey, they used the modified version of TMMS
to assess an individual’s ability to reflect and manage emotions of self and others,
and the MLQ to assess leadership style. Although their hypothesis was not fully
supported, the authors found that some components of TL are correlated with those
of EI, namely, idealized influence with monitoring emotion (r = .44, p < .01),
inspirational motiva- tion with both monitoring emotion (r = .42, p < .01) and
managing emotion (r = .37, p < .05), and individualized consideration with both
monitoring emotion (r = .55, p <
.01) and managing emotion (r = .35, p < .05).
L. Gardner and Stough (2002) used the SUEIT that measures how an individual
handles emotional information in the workplace and MLQ-5X for TL. Based on the
analysis of the data from 110 high-level managers including 69 in the senior level or
above, they reported that TL is positively correlated with EI (r = .675, p < .01) with
intellectual stimulation having the strongest correlation with total EI scores (r = .586,
p
< .01) and that EI significantly predicts TL with the subscale of “understanding of
emo- tions, external” being the most significant predictor of the variance in TL (β = .
554, p <
.01). They also provided empirical evidence of a negative correlation between
laissez- faire leadership and EI (r = −.464, p < .01).
Sivanathan and Cynthia Fekken (2002) employed EQ-i and MLQ-5X to measure
EI and leadership style of university residence staff. For data collection, 58 residence
managers at Ontario University, the managers’ 232 employees, and 12 supervisors
were asked to participate in the survey. The authors found that the EI levels of
univer- sity residence staff were positively correlated with TL (r = .40, p < .01).
Duckett and Macfarlane (2003) researched managers in retail organizations in the
United Kingdom to examine who the high-performing managers in the organization
are. The researchers reviewed the results of annual performance appraisals of 20
man- agers and measured their EI using SMS-EQ profiles that have been used to hire
and select managers in the retail companies and measure 13 dimensions of EI:
energy, stress, optimism, self-esteem, commitment to work, attention to details,
change, cour- age, direction, assertiveness, tolerance, consideration, and sociability.
Duckett and Macfarlane (2003) mapped the dimensions of the SMS-EQ profiles
against TL behav- iors, analyzed the high-performing managers’ EI profiles, and
reported a positive rela- tionship between their EI and desired TL behaviors.
Using the MSCEIT and MLQ-5X to assess EI and TL, respectively, Leban and
Zulauf (2004) collected the data from 24 project managers from six organizations to
examine if the managers’ EI levels are related to TL behaviors. They found that
one’s overall score on EI has a positive correlation with inspirational motivation (r
= .364,
p < .05), idealized influence (r = .362, p < .05), and individualized consideration (r =
.419, p < .05).
Rubin, Munz, and Bommer (2005) gathered data from 145 managers from a large
biotechnical company to examine the extent to which EI and personality of leaders
influenced TL behaviors. The authors used DANVA to measure the ability of
recogniz- ing emotion; Big Five Inventory to measure the personality factor of
extraversion; and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer’s (1996) instrument to
measure six dimensions of TL: articulating a vision, providing a role model,
communicating high-performance expectations, providing individualized support,
fostering the acceptance of group goals, and providing intellectual stimulation. The
results of this study showed that leaders with the ability of emotional recognition are
more likely to engage in TL behaviors (β = .18, p < .05) and that the personality
factor of extraversion positively influences the relationship between EI and TL (β = .
19, p < .05).
Using the EQ-i for EI and the MLQ-5X for TL, Butler and Chinowsky (2006) col-
lected data from 130 senior executives (either presidents or vice-presidents) out of
the construction industry in the United States to investigate the relationship between
EI and leadership effectiveness. Through a bivariate regression analysis, the
researchers found that 34% of TL behaviors could be explained by the participants’
total EI scores (R2 =
.3429, p < .01) and that the TL score increased as the total EI did: specifically, when
the total EI increased by one point on a 5-point scale, the TL score increased by .022.
Downey, Papageorgiou, and Stough (2006) collected data from 146 female
project managers in Australia, using the SUEIT and the TMMS to measure their EI
levels and the short version of MLQ-5X to assess their leadership styles. The
reporting was that three dimensions of the SUEIT, understanding emotions (r = .304,
p < .01), emotional management (r = .435, p < .01), and emotional control (r = .325,
p < .01), as well as two subfactors of the TMMS, attention to feelings (r = .295, p < .
01) and clarity of feelings (r = .375, p < .01), are positively correlated with all TL
behaviors. Moreover, according to the results of regression analysis, EI was a
significant predictor of TL: specifically, emotional management accounted for 20%
of the variance in TL (β =
.453, p < .01); a mixed model, with emotional management and attention to feelings
combined, accounted for an additional 5% (β = .513, p < .01); a further combination
of emotional management, attention to feelings, and clarity of feelings accounted for
27% of the variance in TL (β = .535, p < .01).
In looking at the correlation between EI and TL, Hackett and Hortman (2008) col-
lected data from 46 assistant principals in elementary, middle, and high schools in a
large school district of Georgia and used the ECI university edition (ECI-U) for EI
and the MLQ for leadership styles. The results showed that EI levels were positively
cor- related with TL behaviors (r = .290- .695, p < .05) with two domains of the ECI-
U (social awareness and relationship management) being most significantly
correlated. Furthermore, 16 out of 21 EI subfactors of the ECI-U were found to be
correlated with intellectual stimulation, and 13 subfactors were positively correlated
with inspirational motivation.
Wang and Huang (2009) examined the relationship in a Taiwanese context and
measured EI levels with the Wong and Law’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale
(WLEIS) and TL with MLQ-5X. The WLEIS assesses the following four dimensions
of EI: self-emotion appraisal, others’ emotion appraisal, regulation of emotion, and
use of emotion. Using data from 51 managers and 252 employees in small- and
medium-sized textile companies, the researchers conducted a hierarchical regression
analysis to find that EI significantly predicts TL (β = .264, p < .05) and that TL
medi- ates the effects of EI on group cohesiveness.
Using the MSCEIT and MLQ-5X, Clarke (2010) conducted a study with 67
project managers from various national organizations in the United Kingdom, in
which the participants were also asked to respond to a survey regarding behavioral
competen- cies, including communication, teamwork, attentiveness, and conflict
management. Through bivariate correlation and regression analyses, this study found
a significant correlation between Branch 2 of the MSCEIT, using emotions to
facilitate thinking, and two components of TL, idealized influence (r = .26, p < .05)
and individualized considerations (r = .27, p < .05). Branch 2 was also found to be
related to the behav- ioral competency of teamwork (β = .28, p < .05).
Hur, van den Berg, and Wilderom (2011) examined whether there is a correlation
between EI and TL and whether TL mediates the relationship between EI and such
managerial factors as leader effectiveness, team effectiveness, and service climate.
The authors collected data from 55 leaders and 859 employees in a public-sector
orga- nization in South Korea, using 16 items from the WLEIS to measure EI and the
short version of the MLQ-5X to measure TL. The results showed that EI is positively
cor- related with TL (r = .46, p < .01); EI significantly predicts the variance in TL
even after controlling for leaders’ ages, their levels of education, and the sizes of
their teams, β =
.43, p < .01, ∆R2 = .19; ∆F(1, 50) = 12.95, p < .001; and that TL mediates the
relation- ship between EI and leader effectiveness, as well as between EI and service
climate.
San Lam and O’Higgins (2013) examined a correlation between EI and TL with
data from 50 managers and 273 employees across two Chinese construction compa-
nies. Using the MLQ and the Wong Emotional Intelligence Scale (WEIS) developed
by Wong, Law, and Wong (2004), tailored to the Chinese context (San Lam &
O’Higgins, 2013), and designed to measure four dimensions of EI (self-awareness,
self-management, social awareness, and relationship management), the authors found
that there is a positive correlation between EI and TL in a Chinese context (r = .23,
p < .01)
Ugoani, Amu, and Kalu (2015) investigated the correlation between EI and TL
with data collected from 47 managers and employees in Aba, Nigeria. They
developed their own questionnaire for the study using the survey design technique
and found a strong correlation between EI and TL (r = .89, p < .01).
Despite some variance in discrete TL components related with EI, measuring
instruments, and sample sizes and research contexts, the 15 studies overviewed
above provide convincing empirical evidence that EI is positively related to TL.

Skepticism Regarding the EI–TL Relationship

However, unlike the studies in the previous section, the following five studies are
skeptical about the relationship between EI and TL.
 Barbuto and Burbach (2006) collected data from 80 public officials and their 388
employees in the United States and measured TL with the MLQ and EI with Carson,
Carson, and Birkenmeier’s (2000) instrument that assesses five dimensions of EI:
empathetic response, mood regulation, interpersonal skills, internal motivation, and
self-awareness. The authors found a moderate correlation between EI and TL but, at
the same time, a difference between the leaders’ self-reported and employees’ rater-
reported results. For example, EI was found to be less related to the rater-reported TL
subfactors of intellectual stimulation and idealized influence. In conclusion, Barbuto
and Burbach argued that these findings weaken the claim that EI is correlated with
TL. Using the EQ-i and MLQ with 161 supervisors and their 2,411 employees in a
large international technology company in the United States, Brown, Bryant, and
Reilly (2006) investigated how EI and TL interact with leadership outcomes such as
leader- ship effectiveness and employees’ satisfaction with their leaders. This
study found that, when TL was considered in the hierarchical regression analysis,
a leader’s EI significantly predicted leadership effectiveness, R2 = .88, F(2, 158) =
557.20, p < .001, and employees’ satisfaction (β = −0.08, p < .01) with TL playing a
mediating role in between. However, the researchers found no correlation between
EI and TL and that
neither the total EI scale nor its subscales predicted variance in TL scales.
In examining the EI’s correlation with diverse leadership behaviors, Harms and
Credé (2010) conducted a meta-analysis to suggest a moderate relationship between
EI and TL. They also pointed out that there was a distinct difference in degrees of
cor- relation between those that employed the single source rating both for EI and TL
and the others that used the multi-source rating, in which studies of single source
rating tended to present a stronger relationship between EI and TL (r = .48, p < .1)
than those of multi-source rating (r = .11, p < .1). They added that trait-based
measures of EI were more strongly related to TL than ability-based measures. With
this low level of agree- ment, Harms and Credé raised the concern about the validity
of EI assessment tools and did not fully support the claims made by EI proponents.
Cavazotte, Moreno, and Hickmann (2012) examined whether the leader’s EI level
is positively related to TL behaviors. The data were collected from 134 team
managers and their employees in a large Brazilian energy company using WLEIS
and MLQ-5X. The researchers found a significant EI–TL relationship when EI was
considered alone, but no significant relationship when ability and personality
elements were factored in. At the same time, the authors were concerned about the
discriminant validity of the EI measurement, arguing that many EI factors could be
explained by cognitive intelli- gence and personality traits. Acknowledging the
possible bias of their findings due to the measurement issues, Cavazotte et al.
recommended that future researchers should use ability-based measurements to
mitigate the possibility.
Føllesdal et al. (2013) examined the extent to which EI influences TL, using
multi- level analyses of data from 104 executives and their 459 employees through
the Administrative Research Foundation in Norway. The MSCEIT and the official
Norwegian version of the MLQ-5X were used to measure EI and TL, respectively.
The authors found that EI levels did not predict TL when such factors as leaders’
ages, general cognitive ability, and personality factors were controlled for. They also
argued
that the MSCEIT has validity problems and might not be an appropriate tool for mea-
suring EI.
The five studies overviewed above challenge the claim that EI is significantly
related to TL. In addition, although the studies employed different EI measures, they
commonly pointed to the validity issue of EI assessment.

Discussion
This research examined a total of 20 articles focused on the relationship between EI
and TL. These studies were conducted across five continents: eight in North America
(the United States and Canada), three in Asia (China, South Korea, and Taiwan),
three in Europe (the United Kingdom and Norway), two in Oceania (Australia), and
one in Africa (Nigeria). Including one meta-analytic study, three studies did not
provide information on where they were conducted. The data were gathered from
various industries, including public-service providers, university staff, private
companies, and international organizations. There was no dominant industry
surveyed in the studies. This wide range of research settings could serve as a solid
ground for reliability and generalizability of the research findings.
Overall, the findings are divided into two groups. One group of 15 studies
provides evidence that EI is a critical contributor to TL behaviors, with variances in
identifying subfactors of EI and TL that further explicate the EI–TL relationship.
Among the TL subfactors, for instance, some researchers found inspirational
motivation to be most significantly correlated with EI (e.g., Barling et al., 2000),
while others gave the credit to intellectual stimulation (e.g., L. Gardner & Stough,
2002). Despite this room for continued investigation, the results of this dominant
group of studies provide empiri- cal support of leveraging EI for leadership
development. On the contrary, the other group adopted a skeptical stance about the
relationship. In particular, these studies commonly pointed out the problem with EI
measures and emphasized the need for more valid and reliable assessment tools. Not
fundamentally denying the EI–TL rela- tionship, they suspect that the relationship is
overstated by the proponents of EI.
With all these findings and interpretations, the present research offers the HRD
field a comprehensive understanding of the EI–TL relationship and suggests implica-
tions for practice and research.

Implications for Practice

In the organizational reality, the boss is a prime reason for employees to leave (Hay,
2002; Wefald, Reichard, & Serrano, 2011), and there are many other undesirable
phe- nomena that leaders are blamed for. Considering that these are frequently
associated with the emotional aspect of leaders and the sentiment of members, it is
imperative to pay more attention to the matter of EI and its relationship with
leadership in the work- place. The present research informs the HRD field that the
majority of studies sup- ported EI’s contribution to TL behaviors. In other words,
leaders with high EI are more likely to effectively influence employees by providing
visions, inspiring them,
encouraging their pursuit of intellectual competence, and attending to their specific
needs. Therefore, HRD professionals are advised to more confidently incorporate EI
components into practices for leadership development. In particular, they are encour-
aged to explore further values for leadership development from such opportunities as
EI assessment, self-reflection and meditation, mindfulness programs, and others that
feature emotional interventions.
From the functional perspective, leadership is regarded as a major enabler of high
performance and sound culture of an organization; from the interpretational perspec-
tive, it is a driver of people’s learning and engagement (Moss, 2008; Shuck & Herd,
2012). These are the fundamental reasons why the HRD field is concerned about
effec- tiveness of current and potential leaders and why balanced attention should be
paid to both indicators of material performance and human dynamics. In particular,
given the EI’s role in association with leadership, EI-related aspects deserve to be
embedded in the selection and promotion process, as well as in the regular evaluation
process. For example, if the organization prefers transformational leaders over
transactional or laissez-faire counterparts, it could address the EI of emerging leaders
in the assess- ment center or evaluate their social relationships with their protégés.
Unmatched with its widespread awareness, EI still seems to be regarded as good-to-
have in practice, instead of must-have, under the full swing of performance-centered,
result-based orga- nizational atmosphere. However, the present research offers
evidence for HRD profes- sionals to spell out EI’s contribution to leadership
effectiveness and, ultimately, to sustainable performance and healthy culture of an
organization.

Implications for Research

EI is an area that still calls for a continued debate on its definition and attributes.
Scholars thus far have been successful in shedding light on EI, looking at it from
mul- tiple angles and providing insightful references for the field. However, the
research community has yet to reach a consensus on the fundamental
conceptualization of EI as represented by the disagreement on whether it is a trait, a
competency, or an intellec- tual capability. This theoretically inconclusive status
leaves the field confused about how to address EI and indecisive on, for example,
whether to put resources in buying leaders with high EI or in making leaders by
developing their EI. In other words, the conceptual consensus would reduce the
likelihood that strategic efforts would become stranded with resources wasted, while
serving as a phenomenal step forward to robust theorization of EI.
This research found that, largely due to the issues with EI measures, the EI’s con-
tribution to TL is questioned by both its advocates and opponents. Hunt and
Fitzgerald (2013) pointed out that the lack of a broadly accepted EI assessment tool
is one of the reasons for the mixed results regarding the EI–TL relationship. To be
specific, the discriminant validity issue is concerning for self-reporting instruments
(e.g., EQ-i and ECI), because quantitative studies are often susceptible to common
method bias, espe- cially when the data set is gathered from the homogeneous source
with similar assess- ment methods. Ability-based EI measures (e.g., MEIS and
MSCEIT) are also
vulnerable to critique due to their scoring techniques and subfactors often
overlapping with those of cognitive intelligence and personality. This overlap is a
by-product of the disagreement in conceptualization of EI and reversely adds to the
difficulty of reach- ing the agreed-upon definition. Therefore, alongside with
pursuing the consensus in definition, testing and securing the validity of EI measures
would continue to be an important area of research contribution.
Another research opportunity is implied on an entirely new level with the advent
of the 4th Industrial Revolution (4th IR) characterized with massive connectivity, big
data, meta-intelligence, to name a few (Schwab, 2017). As the introduction of the
term at the World Economic Forum in 2016, many are concerned what it really
means for us. Much attention so far seems to be around its mega-level ramifications
with such arguments as that numerous jobs would disappear, that human beings at
work would be substituted by artificial intelligence (AI) and robots, and that one
would live a com- pletely different working life (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Subsequent
to these arguments is the question on what quality the future talent should possess to
survive and succeed in these uncharted waters. To this question, the most common
answer is that it must be creativity and socioemotional capabilities given the prospect
that an individual’s intel- lectual capacity is likely to lose to AI and that important
logical decisions might be made by the computer algorithm based on data analytics.
At work, people would con- nect and collaborate with each other, rather than
command and follow; information and intelligence would be shared, rather than
distributed; the organizational structure would become horizontal, rather than
vertical. Applied to the leadership context, this understanding suggests that EI should
garner refreshed attention in the HRD field as not only a contributor to, but also an
ultimate determinant of effective leadership in the new era of 4th IR. It also implies
that researchers should critically revisit current lead- ership models, including TL,
and come up with new leadership models that better fit the new norm. In fact, it
might be the time for HRD to discuss what the 4th IR has to offer to all the
established knowledge across the various dimensions of the field. Things are
changing dramatically, and so should HRD.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership effectiveness
beyond IQ or the “Big Five”: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis, 12,
171-182.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need
emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247-261.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion:
A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions
in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 221-235). Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Association for Talent Development. (2016). ACCEL: The skills that make a winning manager.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development Press.
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational lead-
ers: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51-64.
doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.1.51-64
Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21,
157-161. doi:10.1108/01437730010325040
Bar-On, R. (1997). Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden.
Bock, L. (2015). Work rules! Insights from inside Google that will transform how you live and
lead. New York, NY: Twelve Hachette Book Group.
Bogler, R., Caspi, A., & Roccas, S. (2013). Transformational and passive leadership an ini-
tial investigation of university instructors as leaders in a virtual learning environment.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41, 372-392.
Brackett, M. A., & Salovey, P. (2006). Measuring emotional intelligence with the Mayer-
Salovery-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Psicothema, 18, 34-41.
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence:
A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871. doi:10.1002/job.334
Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. (2006). Does emotional intelligence–as measured
by the EQI–influence transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes?. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 330-351.
Butler, C. J., & Chinowsky, P. S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in
construction executives. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22, 119-125.
doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0742-597X(2006)22:3(119)
Carson, K. D., Carson, P. P., & Birkenmeier, B. J. (2000). Measuring emotional intelli-
gence: Development and validation of an instrument. Journal of Behavioral and applied
Management, 2(1), 32-44.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement:
Proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development
Review, 14, 38-63.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickmann, M. (2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personal-
ity and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 443-455.
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership
and key project manager competences. Project Management Journal, 41, 5-20.
doi:10.1002/ pmj.20162
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440. doi:10.1002/job.319
Downey, L. A., Papageorgiou, V., & Stough, C. (2006). Examining the relationship between
leadership, emotional intelligence and intuition in senior female managers. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 27, 250-264. doi:10.1108/01437730610666019
Duckett, H., & Macfarlane, E. (2003). Emotional intelligence and transformational lead-
ership in retailing. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 309-317.
doi:10.1108/01437730310494284
Dulewicz, C., Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2005). The relevance of emotional intelligence for
leadership performance. Journal of General Management, 30, 71-86.
Føllesdal, H., & Hagtvet, K. (2013). Does emotional intelligence as ability predict transfor-
mational leadership? A multilevel approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 747-762.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.004
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to
computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280.
Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and
emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 23, 68-78.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Hackett, P. T., & Hortman, J. W. (2008). The relationship of emotional competencies to trans-
formational leadership: Using a corporate model to assess the dispositions of educational
leaders. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 8, 92-111.
Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transac-
tional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17,
5-17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894
Hay, M. (2002). Strategies for survival in the war of talent. Career Development International,
7, 52-55. doi:10.1108/13620430210414883
Hunt, J., & Fitzgerald, M. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and trans-
formational leadership: An investigation and review of competing claims in the literature.
American International Journal of Social Science, 2(8), 30-38.
Hur, Y., van den Berg, P. T., & Wilderom, C. P. (2011). Transformational leadership as a
mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,
22(4), 591-603.
Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transforma-
tional leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 554-564.
doi:10.1108/01437730410561440
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for
educators (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intel-
ligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion, 3, 97-105. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97
 Moss, S. (2008). Cultivating the regulatory focus of followers to amplify their sensitivity to
transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 241-259.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective
leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22, 5-10.
doi:10.1108/01437730110380174
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader
behav- iors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22,
259-298.
Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace
per- formance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 26, 388-399. doi:10.1108/01437730510607871
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. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803926
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
San Lam, C., & O’Higgins, E. (2013). Emotional intelligence and leadership styles in China.
Asia Pacific Management Review, 18, 441-465.
Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Shuck, B., & Herd, A. M. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the con-
vergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD.
Human Resource Development Review, 11, 156-181.
Sivanathan, N., & Cynthia Fekken, G. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and
transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 198-
204.
Suciu, S., Petcu, D., & Gherhes, V. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership. Annual
Economic Science Series, 16, 549-556.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
Ugoani, J. N., Amu, C. U., & Kalu, E. O. (2015). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership: A correlation analysis. Independent Journal of Management
& Production, 6, 563-584.
Wang, Y. S., & Huang, T. C. (2009). The relationship of transformational leadership with
group cohesiveness and emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 37, 379-392. doi:10.2224/sbp.2009.37.3.379
Wefald, A. J., Reichard, R. J., & Serrano, S. A. (2011). Fitting engagement into a nomolog-
ical network: The relationship of engagement to leadership and personality. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 522-537.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.
Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., & Wong, P. M. (2004). Development and validation of a forced
choice emotional intelligence measure for Chinese respondents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 21, 535-559.

Author Biographies
Hyejin Kim is currently an HRD manager for SK Telecom in South Korea with nearly 20
years of professional experience in the field. She received her master’s degree in Workforce
Education
and Development at The Pennsylvania State University. Her area of expertise includes HRD
planning, leadership development, organization development, and coaching.
Taesung Kim is currently an assistant professor in the department of Creative HRD at
Incheon National University in South Korea. He received his Ph.D. degree in Workforce
Education and Development at The Pennsylvania State University and has more than ten years
of extensive experience in the HR field including the tenure with KPMG Korea as a director in
the Learning and Development Center. His research area includes organization development
and change, leadership development, work engagement, and professional ethics.