The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on 
Accuracy of Self‐awareness and 
Leadership Performance
Authors: Virginia K. Bratton, Nancy G. Dodd, and F. 
William Brown
This is a postprint of an article that originally appeared in Leadership & Organization 
Development Journal on March 8, 2011.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111112971
Bratton, Virginia K., Nancy G. Dodd, and F. William Brown. “The Impact of Emotional Intelligence 
on Accuracy of Self‐awareness and Leadership Performance.” Leadership & Organization 
Development Journal 32, no. 2 (March 8, 2011): 127–149. doi:10.1108/01437731111112971.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
The impact of emotional
intelligence on accuracy of
self-awareness and leadership
performance
Virginia K. Bratton, Nancy G. Dodd and F. William Brown
College of Business, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This research paper aims to follow a line of research that examines the impact of elements
of emotional intelligence (EI), particularly those related to self-awareness, on self-other agreement and
performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a quantitative study that employs the same
methodology as Sosik and Megerian to analyze survey data gathered from a matched sample of
146 managers and 1,314 subordinates at a large international technology company based in North
America.
Findings – The analysis revealed that the relationship between EI and leader performance is
strongest for managers who underestimate their leader abilities. Underestimators earn higher follower
ratings of leader performance than all other agreement categories (In agreement/good, In
agreement/poor, and Overestimators). The analysis also suggests that there appears to be a
negative relationship between EI and leader performance for managers who overestimate their leader
abilities.
Research limitations/implications – Implications of the counterintuitive findings for
underestimators as well as the imperative for further study utilizing alternative measures of EI are
discussed.
Originality/value – Previous empirical work in this area used an ad hoc measure of EI. This study
extends this work by utilizing a larger, business sample and employing a widely-used and validated
measure of EI, the Emotional Quotient Inventory. Results further illuminate the nature of the
relationship between EI and self-other agreement and provide a potential selection and development
tool for the improvement of leadership performance.
Keywords Emotional intelligence, Transformational leadership, Self assessment, Leadership,
Management effectiveness
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The interest in the nature and determinants of social influence and leadership capacity
can be traced in history as far back as 2300 BC (Bass, 1990; Bryman, 1996; Grimal,
1992). Possibly the most significant event in contemporary leadership theory
development was the publication of Burns’ (1978) narrative account of the nature of
transactional and transformational leadership in large-scale political systems. This
characterization of leadership particularly attracted the attention of Bass and his
colleagues, who developed and evaluated a comprehensive “full range” model of
leadership emphasizing the efficacy of transformational leadership (e.g. Bass, 1985a, b,
1990, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 1990). The positive relationship between transformational
leadership and desired organizational and individual outcomes has been consistently
affirmed in a wide variety of individual and meta-analytic studies (e.g. Bass, 1999;
Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996) and represents one of the most examined
relationships in the organizational behavior domain (George, 2000). Less clear,
however, are the dispositional and intervening mechanisms that impact this
relationship. Recent attention has been drawn to emotional intelligence (EI) and
self-awareness in the hope that they might help to further clarify the relationship
between leader performance and organizational outcomes (Yammarino and Atwater,
1997; Sosik and Megerian, 1999). Yet, to date these studies have yielded contradictory
and counter-intuitive findings. One explanation may lie in the empirical limitations of
this work (Antonakis et al., 2009). Before we can make recommendations to business
practitioners about the value and contributions of EI to leader effectiveness and
organizational performance, we need to address these empirical limitations.
The current study follows a line of research which examines the impact of elements
of EI, related to self-awareness, on self-other agreement and leader performance, and
seeks to clarify past results through empirical improvements. We follow the theory of
Yammarino and Atwater (1997) while utilizing the methodological approach of Sosik
and Megerian (1999). However, where Sosik and Megerian (1999) employed an ad hoc
measure of EI, we utilize the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQI) (Bar-On, 1997).
Further, we extend the research of Sosik and Megerian by testing it on a large sample
in a non-military, manufacturing research setting.
Literature review
EI
The existence and potential importance of forms of intelligence other than memory and
problem solving have long been recognized, most notably by some of those most
closely associated with establishing the contemporary understanding of cognitive
intelligence (Piaget, 1981; Thorndyke and Stein, 1937; Wechsler, 1940). However, it was
the work of Goleman (1995) and its emphasis on the potential benefits of EI, which
caught the attention of practitioners and management researchers.
In the last two decades the interest in EI has been simultaneously intense and
controversial. Essentially, two distinct formulations of EI have emerged: an ability
model and a mixed model. The ability model, most closely associated with the work of
Mayer and Salovey (1993), actually predates Goleman’s (1995) work and is an
empirically derived combination of emotion and intelligence. Mayer and Salovey (1993,
p. 434) define EI as the “ability to advantageously deal with one’s own emotions and
those of others in problem solving and decision making”. The key dimensions of an
ability model are generally described as: the ability to monitor one’s own and others’
feelings and emotions; to discriminate among those emotional states; and to use this
information to effectively guide one’s thinking and action (Salovey and Mayer, 1990).
The mixed model of EI, as advocated by Goleman (1995, 1998), combines traits with
social behaviors and competencies. Bar-On (1997, p. 122), usually associated with the
mixed model of EI, concluded that emotional and social intelligence are a
“multifactorial array of interrelated emotional, personal, and social abilities that
influence individual ability to actively and effectively cope with daily demands and
pressures”. Bar-On’s (1997) conceptualization is reflected in his EQI, an assessment
instrument extensively used to measure the mixed model of EI. In the EQI, the
elements of a mixed model of EI are measured through scales which assess awareness
of individual emotional states, interpersonal skills, adaptability, the ability to handle
stress and general mood (Bar-On, 1997).
The mixed model has been both advocated and criticized. Support typically centers
on contentions of a correlation between mixed model EI and desired organizational
outcomes (Goleman, 1995, 1998; Goleman et al., 2002). Criticisms of the mixed model
have tended to focus on a lack of scientific rigor in model development (Conte, 2005;
Landy, 2005; Mayer et al., 2008), a lack of content validity (Antonakis et al., 2009;
Mayer et al., 2008), or overstatements regarding benefits (Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005;
Grubb and McDaniel, 2007). Nevertheless, mixed models in general, and the EQI in
particular, continue to be very widely utilized in organizational development and
practitioner settings. In fact, the EQI has been found to be a key predictor of job
performance (Bachman et al., 2000) with stronger support than either cognitive ability
( Jae, 1997) or academic achievement (Parker et al., 2004) in determining job
performance. Despite their differences, both the mixed and ability models posit a
positive relationship between non-cognitive capabilities and desired interpersonal and
organizational outcomes (e.g. Goleman et al., 2002; Wong and Law, 2002; Mayer and
Salovey, 1997).
While practitioners have found the notion of EI intuitively satisfying and
compelling, vigorous disputes have arisen in the academic literature regarding a
number of aspects of EI. There is debate over the very existence of EI (Antonakis et al.,
2009; Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005), how it is measured (Conte, 2005), and
criticism/advocacy for particular models of EI (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Daus and
Ashkanasy, 2005; Mayer et al., 2008; Mayer et al., 2000). Despite this considerable
attention, matters of common definition, measurement and the nature of the
relationship between EI and desired outcomes have not been conclusively resolved
(Brown and Moshavi, 2005). Recent studies and reviews suggest movement toward a
resolution of long-standing definition, measurement and application issues and
support the potential value of EI to organizational behavior (e.g. Cote and Miners, 2006;
Gowing et al., 2006; Mayer et al., 2008).
Self-other agreement
Because of biases in self-ratings (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986), researchers and
practitioners have looked closely at self-appraisals to examine the degree of agreement
between self and other evaluations. An implicit assumption that has underpinned the
ubiquity of 360-degree feedback programs has been the proposition that an accurate
self-perception can enhance leadership performance. Although research has shown
that self-awareness does not always lead to performance gains in negotiation situations
(Der Foo et al., 2004), there is a well-established body of research which generally
affirms the contention that self-awareness has a positive impact on leadership
performance (e.g. Ashford, 1989; Atwater and Yammarino, 1992; Kluger and DeNisi,
1996; Sosik, 2001; Wegner and Vallacher, 1980; Wicklund, 1979). Generally, these
studies have held that individual self-awareness is positively associated with desired
affective outcomes and increased managerial effectiveness. Agreement between self
and others is seen as leader self-awareness, and is important because self-aware leaders
can change their behavior to adjust for subordinate perceptions toward the goal of
increasing overall leader effectiveness. A recent line of research has further explored
and underscored the importance of this connection between self-awareness and leader
effectiveness through the lens of authentic leadership and followership (Gardner et al.,
2005; Luthans and Avolio, 2003). Specifically, leader self-awareness has been linked to
higher levels of follower trust and organizational commitment (Sosik, 2001), mentoring
behavior (Sosik et al., 2004), the use of influence tactics (Berson and Sosik, 2007),
impression management (Sosik and Jung, 2003), and performance (e.g., Atwater and
Yammarino, 1992; Atwater et al., 1998; Moshavi et al., 2003; Young and Dulewicz,
2007).
In previous research (e.g., Yammarino and Atwater, 1997; Cogliser et al., 2009),
managers who are self-aware are categorized as in agreement, which can be divided
further into in agreement/good and in agreement/poor. The in agreement/good
category denotes self-ratings of supervisors and ratings by subordinates that are both
positive regarding the leadership behavior and in agreement. The in agreement/poor
category represents self-ratings of supervisors and ratings by subordinates that are
both low and in agreement (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997). Managers whose
self-ratings are below those of subordinates are categorized as underestimators,
whereas managers who rate themselves as higher than their subordinates are
categorized as overestimators. Thus far, research (Atwater et al., 1998; Yammarino and
Atwater, 1997) has suggested that more positive behavioral and affective results tend
to be associated with underestimators and those in agreement. Overestimators are
often described as having negative attitudes, misperceiving their strengths and
weaknesses, and lacking awareness of the need for training and development
(Yammarino and Atwater, 1997). However, other research results have yielded
somewhat counter-intuitive findings (Moshavi et al., 2003; Godshalk and Sosik, 2000;
Sosik and Godshalk, 2004; Sosik and Megerian, 1999) concerning the perceived
managerial/leadership effectiveness of underestimators. Although, theory would
suggest that those in agreement would have a better grasp of capabilities and thus
manage more effectively, study results reveal that underestimators tend to garner
higher leader assessments from their followers.
Like virtually everything else in organizational behavior, the relationship between
an accurate self-perception and performance is not that simple – possibly because it
relies greatly on the social context of the feedback received (Levy and Williams, 2004).
As an example, sometimes 360 degree or upward feedback does not result in
performance improvement (Atwater et al., 2000; Johnson and Ferstl, 1999). Research
has indicated that managers may choose to ignore the feedback received by
subordinates if it is perceived that this feedback is inaccurate, unfair, or much lower
than expected (Brett and Atwater, 2001; Facteau and Facteau, 1998; Ilgen et al., 1979;
Waldman and Bowen, 1998). An important variable in ensuring the proper use of
subordinate feedback may lie in the EI of managers.
Transformational leadership
Much of the self-other agreement research has focused on the extent to which
managers and subordinates agree on the level of charismatic or transformational
leadership behaviors exhibited by the manager. In this study, we also focus on
transformational leadership, as it is a well-accepted and widely studied concept (e.g.,
Bass, 1990) that has been used in a variety of settings. Effective managerial strategies,
such as impression management (Sosik and Jung, 2003), influence tactics (Berson and
Sosik, 2007), mentoring (Sosik et al., 2004), and building subordinate trust and
organizational commitment (Sosik, 2001), as well as managerial (Atwater et al., 1998)
and subordinate performance (Moshavi et al., 2003) have also been associated with
supervisor-subordinate agreement regarding transformational or charismatic
leadership. In each case, underestimators were found to be associated with more
positive outcomes than overestimators.
Sosik and colleagues (Sosik and Megerian, 1999; Sosik and Godshalk, 2004)
suggested that overestimators may be perceived as being insincere and self-absorbed,
while not recognizing their weaknesses. They may have hostile and resentful attitudes
and not see the need for personal development (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997). These
characteristics can easily lead to negative outcomes for subordinates and result in low
evaluations of transformational leadership for managers who overestimate their
abilities.
EI has long been theorized to contribute to effectiveness in leadership (Antonakis
et al., 2009; Dasborough, 2006; George, 2000), and transformational leadership in
particular. However, empirical work demonstrating this link is less conclusive.
Perhaps the key lies in clarifying the mechanism through which EI impacts leadership.
The answer may lie in the relationship between EI and self-awareness of leadership
effectiveness.
Self-other agreement, leadership, and EI
In addition to examining relationships between managerial strategies or performance
and agreement categories, researchers are interested in other variables that might be
associated with self-other agreement. The emotional self-awareness aspect of EI makes
it a key variable in self-other agreement research and the theory of self-awareness in
leadership success (Gardner et al., 2005). The primary question in these studies is: does
the emotional self-awareness aspect of EI have a positive relationship with a manager’s
awareness of leadership skills? Sosik and Megerian (1999) looked at the relationship
between EI and transformational leadership based on whether leaders were in
agreement or not in agreement. They found that for leaders who were in agreement,
subordinate evaluations of transformational leadership were positively related to EI.
They suggested that self-aware managers (those in agreement) had higher EI and were
considered to be more effective by both superiors and subordinates. They also found
that one aspect of EI, social self-confidence, was positively related to ratings of
transformational leadership for underestimators, while subordinate ratings of
transformational leadership were negatively related to another aspect of EI,
sensitivity, for overestimators (Sosik and Megerian, 1999).
This study follows the theoretical approach of Atwater and Yammarino (1997) and the
methodological approach of Sosik and Megerian (1999) to extend the use of empirical
methods to examine the influence of individual and personality characteristics on
self-other rating comparisons. Sosik and Megerian (1999) examined the relationship
between self-awareness, measured by 63 self and 192 follower assessments of leader
transformational leadership behaviors, and elements of EI, assessed by an ad hoc
measurement instrument. Their study provided evidence in support of the contention
that EI could be a useful dispositional factor in identifying effective management
candidates. However these findings are limited by Sosik and Megerian’s (1999)
operationalization of EI with an untested, unvalidated measure. The present study
extends the previous work by utilizing a larger business sample, a validated and
widely-used measureofEI (theEQI)andessentially thesamemethodologytoreplicate the
Sosik and Megerian (1999) study. Results further illuminate the nature of the relationship
between EI and self-other agreement and provide a potential selection and development
tool for the improvement of leadership performance.
Hypotheses
In their research, Sosik and Megerian (1999) used an ad hoc measure of EI, derived
from a number of different scales: private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness,
purpose-in-life, self-monitoring, personal efficacy, interpersonal control, social
self-confidence, even-temperedness, and sensitivity. As stated previously, the current
study replicates and extends the work of Sosik and Megerian by using Bar-On’s (1997)
EQI, in particular the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and adaptability subscales which
address elements of awareness, control and behavioral motivation.
Past research (Atwater and Yammarino, 1992; Yammarino and Atwater, 1997)
maintains that self-aware employees tend to be successful, strong performers with
positive job attitudes. Furthermore, Atwater and colleagues (Atwater and Yammarino,
1992; Atwater et al., 1998) assert leaders who are in agreement are more effective.
These claims are supported by Church (1997), who found that accurate self-assessors
account for the greatest number of high performers (over under- and over-estimators).
It is reasonable to expect that these high-performing leaders, who are accurate
self-assessors, have been able to capitalize on inherently high levels of EI. Specifically,
through their ability to accurately gauge their leader performance, self-assessors are
presumed to be self-aware, able to interact effectively with others, and able to adapt to
the situation as required. This last caveat, adaptability, implies that these leaders are in
agreement with follower assessment of strong leadership ability or in agreement/good.
The self-awareness or private self-consciousness (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997;
Sosik and Megerian, 1999) component of EI will result in accuracy in self-perception of
leadership skill (Van Velsor et al., 1993). In agreement/good individuals further possess
an interpersonal orientation (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Sosik and Megerian,
1999) that is consistent with high EI. Finally, in agreement/good individuals possess
internal loci of control (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Sosik and Megerian, 1999) that
is indicative of the adaptability component of EI (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Sosik and
Megerian, 1999), particularly in the realm of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985a;
Burns, 1978; Ross and Offermann, 1997). Thus we predict that there will be a strong
positive relationship between EI and transformational leadership for individuals who
accurately and positively assess their leader abilities, as reflected in the following
hypothesis:
H1. EI, as measured by the EQI, will be positively related to transformational
leader behavior for those who are in agreement/good.
As emphasized by Atwater and Yammarino (1997), in order to better understand the
performance of self-raters, it is necessary to examine both the magnitude and the
direction of the difference in self-other ratings. We expect that managers who have
high levels of EI will be more likely to realistically assess their performance in terms of
transformational leadership and thus be in stronger agreement with subordinate
assessments even if both parties agree that these leadership skills could improve.
Drawing on research that equates EI with self-awareness (Shipper et al., 2003), we
predict that managers who are in agreement/poor will hold high levels of EI in the
areas of intrapersonal awareness and interpersonal skill as these individuals can
accurately assess their personal leadership performance and the perceptions of their
followers. However, we expect that these managers will possess slightly lower levels of
EI than those who are in agreement/good as they will tend to be deficient in the EI
component of adaptability:
H2. EI, as measured by the EQI, will be positively related to transformational
leadership for those who are in agreement/poor.
Some studies (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Sosik and Megerian, 1999) have
hypothesized that managers who overestimate their leadership ability possess some
components of EI in that the public-self consciousness of leaders, which can be linked
to EI’s self-awareness, can bring about inflated self-ratings. However, in more recent
work (Sosik, 2001; Sosik and Godshalk, 2004) overestimators have been found to
underperform in the area of leadership. This may be because overestimators often
ignore negative feedback from their followers that is inconsistent with self-evaluations,
which prevents improvement particularly in the area of leadership (Atwater and
Yammarino, 1997). This suggests that overestimators are deficient in EI, specifically in
the areas of intrapersonal awareness (indicated by the tendency to overestimate
leadership capability), interpersonal skill (indicated by the tendency to ignore feedback
inconsistent with self-evaluations), and adaptability (indicated by the resultant
tendency to leave leadership shortcomings unaddressed). In other words, managers
who have lower levels of EI will be less likely to perceive dissatisfaction among
subordinates in their leadership performance and will overestimate their skills in
transformational leadership. Thus, we expect there to be a positive relationship
between EI and transformational leadership such that low levels of EI in
overestimators will result in correspondingly low levels of transformational leadership:
H3. EI, as measured by the EQI, will be positively related to transformational
leadership for those who are overestimators.
It is intuitive to presume that managers who underestimate their transformational
leadership abilities are lacking in the intrapersonal, or self-awareness, component of EI
(Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Godshalk and Sosik, 2000; Sosik and Megerian, 1999).
However underestimators consistently have been found to outperform all other
categories of agreement as leaders (Moshavi et al., 2003; Sosik and Megerian, 1999) as
well as mentors (Godshalk and Sosik, 2000; Sosik and Godshalk, 2004). Although
underestimators may lack self-awareness, research indicates that they are able to
effectively operate at an interpersonal level (Sosik and Godshalk, 2004) and adapt their
behaviors to perform at a high level (Atwater et al., 1998). Underestimators may be
better able to mentor because of their critical self-evaluation, humility, and willingness
to put others ahead of themselves for the general good (Godshalk and Sosik, 2000).
This is consistent with the leadership literature that asserts high performers are
modest and humble and relates to the altruistic component of transformational
leadership (Kanungo and Mendonca, 1996). Thus, we predict that there will be a
positive relationship between EI (particularly the components of interpersonal skill
and adaptability) and transformational leadership for underestimators:
H4. EI, as measured by the EQI, will be positively related to transformational
leadership for those who are underestimators.
Method
Setting and subjects
Data for the current study were collected as a part of the management development
program at the North American manufacturing unit of a large international technology
company. Utilizing Avolio and Bass’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) and as a part of the management development process, 146 managers and
supervisors completed the self rating (regarding their own perceptions of the degree to
which they engaged in certain leadership behaviors) and other rating (regarding their
perceptions of the degree to which their own managers engaged in certain leadership
behaviors) versions. These 146 participants also completed the EQI at one of these
sessions. At each session the general manager of the plant encouraged authentic
responses, provided assurances about anonymity and emphasized the developmental,
non-evaluative objectives of the program. Separate data collection sessions were held
for all hourly employees and non-supervisory members of the administrative and
professional staffs. At these sessions participants were asked to complete the
MLQ-other in regard to their perceptions of the degree to which their managers or
supervisors engaged in certain leadership behaviors. In each session, a member of the
senior management team explained that all managers at the facility were participating
in a development program, encouraged authentic responses and provided assurances
regarding anonymity.
A total of 1,314 individuals provided useable responses regarding the leadership
behaviors of 146 managers who had also completed the self report version of the MLQ
and the EQI. Only managers who had a minimum of three follower responses were
included in the current study. The 146 managers included in the study had an average
of 14.42 years of longevity in the company and 5.34 years in their current jobs. Of the
respondents, 73 percent (107) identified themselves as male and 27 percent as female.
Leadership measures
The MLQ was developed by Bass and Avolio (1990) to measure the behaviors
associated with transformational leadership. The MLQ has been shown to have
reliability (Bass and Avolio, 1990; Lowe et al., 1996). In this study the rater and leaders
(self) Form 5x of MLQ (Bass and Avolio, 1990) was utilized. The scale of interest in this
study is an overall assessment of transformational leadership (reliability coefficient of
0.90) which was produced by summing the four subscales of transformational
leadership (individual attention, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and
idealized influence) measured in the MLQ. This provided a self-assessment of
transformational leadership for each of the 146 manager/supervisors, which could be
compared to the aggregated rater assessments for each of the 1,314 hourly workers
who reported to one of those supervisors (reliability coefficient of 0.94). Each of the
manager/supervisors in the study had from three to 30 individuals reporting directly to
him or her (mean ¼ 9:0, SD ¼ 6:7). The subordinates’ assessments of the
transformational leadership behaviors of their supervisors were averaged to provide
a basis for comparison between self and follower assessments at the group level of
analysis. To examine the appropriateness of this data aggregation, within group
agreement indices were calculated utilizing a procedure described by James et al.
(1984). James et al. (1984) describe a procedure for calculating an estimate of interrater
reliability Rwg and suggested a 0.70 level as being adequate for aggregation of the
data. In the current data set 83 percent of the 146 supervisory units were found to have
a RWG value over 0.70, easily clearing the threshold for aggregation. Subsequent
authors have suggested that there are other potential measures of interrater reliability
and interrater agreement (LeBreton and Senter, 2008). Accordingly, following the
approach suggested by Bliese (1998) in which intraclass correlations (ICCs) are
calculated to measure the proportion of observed variance in ratings that is due to
systematic between-target differences compared to the total variance in ratings. ICC(1)
and ICC(2) coefficients were estimated for the follower perceptions of TL. The ICC(1)
estimate was 0.21 and ICC(2) was estimated to be 0.80. In the guidelines developed by
LeBreton and Senter (2008) this would indicate “strong agreement” The results from
both approaches strongly support the contention that aggregation is appropriate.
EI
Each of the manager/supervisors in this study also completed Bar-On’s (1997) EQI.
The EQI contains 133 items and produces an overall emotional quotient (EQ) score and
five subscales. The five subscales are:
(1) Intrapersonal;
(2) Interpersonal;
(3) Adaptability;
(4) Stress management, and
(5) General mood.
For the purposes of this research and in keeping with our hypotheses, we focus on the
Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Adaptability subscales of the EQI. High scores on the
Intrapersonal subscale indicate an individual who is in touch with her feelings and has
positive feelings about herself and her life (Bar-On, 1997). High scores on the
Interpersonal subscale indicate good interpersonal skills (Bar-On, 1997). High scores on
the Adaptability subscale indicate an ability to cope with environmental demands and
pressures (Bar-On, 1997). The EQI, widely used in management development, has been
shown to have reasonable levels of reliability, validity, and psychometric independence
(Bar-On, 1997; Dawda and Hart, 2000).
Assignment to agreement categories
Atwater and Yammarino (1997) initiated a line of research based on the proposition
that personal and situational variables (e.g., age, gender, race, time with the manager)
affect self-other rating comparisons (in this case perceptions of transformational
leadership). They contend that these interactions subsequently impact individual and
process variables at the organizational level (e.g., productivity, turnover). Atwater et al.
(1998, p. 582) described the functional form of this model as “additive main effects
model of self–other agreement” in which both self ratings and other ratings are
believed to be related to outcomes. Such an arrangement is consistent with theoretical
frameworks and venerable traditions of the study of the impact of dispositional factors
on the outcomes of leaders’ influence (e.g., Bono and Judge, 2004).
Given limitations in the reliability of difference scores (Edwards, 1993), in order to
characterize the degree of agreement and organize the analysis of that agreement,
manager/supervisors were assigned to one of four agreement groups. They were
assigned to those groups according to relative differences between their
self-assessments and the aggregated ratings of their subordinates. In making these
assignments, we were informed by the procedure described by Atwater and Yammarino
(1997). The difference between the managers’ and subordinates’ leadership ratings was
computed, and then each manager’s difference score was compared to the mean
difference score. Managers whose difference scores were one-half standard deviation or
more above the mean difference were assigned to the overestimator category. Managers
whose difference scores were one-half standard deviation or more below the mean
difference were categorized as underestimators. Managers whose difference scores were
within one-half standard deviation of the mean difference and their subordinates’
ratings were above the subordinate ratings grand mean were categorized as being in
agreement/good. Managers whose difference scores were within one-half standard
deviation of the mean difference and their subordinates’ ratings were below the
subordinate ratings grand mean were categorized as being in agreement/poor. Once
manager/supervisors were assigned to an agreement category, the overall EQI score and
each of the five EQI subscale scores for their cohort were calculated as seen in Table I.
Control variables
Two factors outside the interest of this study were included due to past research
suggesting relationships with key research variables. Gender was included due to a
stream of research investigating the slow advancement of women into and through
managerial ranks (e.g., Cleveland et al., 2005; Duehr and Bono, 2006; Stroh et al., 1992).
Thus, we sought to control for the possible negative bias of manager gender on follower
ratings of leader effectiveness. Manager job tenure also was collected as a proxy
measure for the length of time subordinates have known managers. Research has shown
that the accuracy of subordinate feedback seems to be influenced by how long a rater has
known the ratee. In manager-subordinate relationships that were older than three years,
ratings tend to increase and be based more on affect and affinity than on performance
(Eichinger and Lombardo, 2004). Thus, we incorporated this variable to control for the
possible positive bias of tenure-based affinity on follower ratings of leader effectiveness.
Results
Means, standard deviations and correlations of the key variables of interest are
reported in Table II. For each category of agreement, a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was employed to compare within group variance and between group
variance. ANOVA results indicated highly significant between group variance,
justifying post hoc examination of the observed mean differences. Numerous
significant group differences based on level of follower-self rating agreement for
O
v
er
al
l
ra
ti
n
g
s
In
ag
re
em
en
t/
g
oo
d
In
ag
re
em
en
t/
p
oo
r
U
n
d
er
es
ti
m
at
or
s
O
v
er
es
ti
m
at
or
s
G
ro
u
p
co
m
p
ar
is
on
s
n
¼
14
6
n
¼
31
n
¼
23
n
¼
48
n
¼
44
O
v
er
.
U
n
d
er
*
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
O
v
er
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
*
E
m
ot
io
n
al
q
u
ot
ie
n
t
10
2.
8
12
.2
10
3.
3
10
.6
97
.5
12
.1
10
1.
4
13
.2
10
6.
7
11
.3
O
v
er
.
u
n
d
er
*
O
v
er
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
*
In
tr
ap
er
so
n
al
su
b
sc
al
e
10
2.
4
14
.8
10
3.
2
11
.5
98
.1
11
.6
99
.8
18
.9
10
7.
1
12
.2
O
v
er
.
u
n
d
er
*
O
v
er
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
*
In
te
rp
er
so
n
al
su
b
sc
al
e
97
.7
13
.9
97
.4
13
.6
92
.6
14
.7
96
.3
14
.2
10
2.
4
12
.6
A
g
re
e
(g
oo
d
)
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
O
v
er
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
A
d
ap
ta
b
il
it
y
su
b
sc
al
e
10
3.
8
12
.1
10
5.
3
9.
6
99
.0
13
.1
10
3.
3
12
.1
10
5.
8
12
.8
F
ol
lo
w
er
ra
ti
n
g
s
of
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
2.
4
0.
6
2.
7
0.
2
2.
1
0.
4
2.
9
0.
6
1.
9
0.
4
A
g
re
e
(g
oo
d
)
.
u
n
d
er
*
*
*
A
g
re
e
(g
oo
d
)
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
*
*
O
v
er
.
u
n
d
er
*
*
*
O
v
er
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
*
*
S
el
f-
ra
ti
n
g
s
of
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
3.
1
0.
5
3.
4
0.
3
2.
8
0.
3
2.
8
0.
6
3.
5
0.
4
O
v
er
.
u
n
d
er
*
O
v
er
.
ag
re
e
(p
oo
r)
*
*
N
o
te
s
:
* p
,
0:
05
;
*
* p
,
0:
01
;
*
*
* p
,
0:
00
01
Table I.
Means and standard
deviations for EQI, EQI
subscales and
transformational
leadership in self versus
other agreement groups
M
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
E
m
ot
io
n
al
q
u
ot
ie
n
ta
10
2.
78
12
.2
4
1
0.
80
5
*
0.
79
0
*
0.
85
0
*
0.
69
0
*
0.
84
7
*
0.
36
6
*
0.
05
9
2
In
tr
ap
er
so
n
al
su
b
sc
al
es
a
10
2.
44
14
.8
1
0.
80
5
*
1
0.
58
8
*
0.
62
7
*
0.
45
8
*
0.
69
3
*
0.
40
0
*
0.
05
2
3
In
te
rp
er
so
n
al
su
b
sc
al
es
a
97
.7
4
13
.9
3
0.
79
0
*
0.
58
8
*
1
0.
54
8
*
0.
38
6
*
0.
65
5
*
0.
34
8
*
0.
06
3
4
A
d
ap
ta
b
il
it
y
su
b
sc
al
es
a
10
3.
79
12
.1
2
0.
85
0
*
0.
62
7
*
0.
54
8
*
1
0.
62
5
*
0.
61
8
*
0.
30
3
*
0.
06
3
5
S
tr
es
s
m
an
ag
em
en
t
su
b
sc
al
es
a
10
4.
00
11
.0
8
0.
69
0
*
0.
45
8
*
0.
38
6
*
0.
62
5
*
1
0.
55
7
*
0.
25
6
*
0.
03
1
6
G
en
er
al
m
oo
d
su
b
sc
al
es
a
10
1.
39
12
.3
6
0.
84
7
*
0.
69
3
*
0.
65
5
*
0.
61
8
*
0.
55
7
*
1
0.
27
2
*
0.
03
2
7
S
el
f
as
se
ss
m
en
t
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
a
3.
13
0.
52
0.
36
6
*
0.
40
0
*
0.
34
8
*
0.
30
3
*
0.
25
6
*
0.
27
2
*
1
0.
22
4
*
8
F
ol
lo
w
er
as
se
ss
m
en
t
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
io
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
b
2.
41
9
0.
59
0.
05
9
0.
05
2
0.
06
3
0.
06
3
0.
03
1
0.
03
2
0.
22
4
*
1
N
o
te
s
:
a
n
¼
14
6;
b
n
¼
1,
31
4;
* p
,
0:
01
Table II.
Means, standard
deviations, alphas and
intercorrelations
transformational leadership, utilizing Scheffe, are identified in Table I. Of particular
interest are the frequent instances of significantly higher levels of EI for
overestimators. On the overall EQI score, overestimators are significantly higher
than underestimators or managers who are in agreement/poor. That same relationship
is observed on the intrapersonal and interpersonal subscales. Overestimators are also
significantly higher on the adaptability and general mood subscales than those in
agreement/poor. Although there was a positive relationship observed for in
agreement/good on the overall EQI score as well as its subscales, the observed
relationships are not as strong or as significant as for overestimators. Similar results
were observed for in agreement/poor at lower strength than that of in agreement/good.
Hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analyses. The covariates of
gender and job tenure were entered on the first step and the three EI variables of
interest were entered on the second step. A significant change in R 2 indicated the
additional variance contributed by the variables entered in each step, and the
individual betas showed which variables were significant at that step. Table III
provides the results of these analyses for each agreement category. Based on the fact
that EQI variables did not serve as predictors of follower assessment of leadership for
in agreement/good, H1 was not supported. H1 posits that EI will be positively related
to transformational leadership for managers who are in agreement/good. This
relationship was not significant in the current study.
H2, which states that EI will be positively related to transformational leadership for
managers who are in agreement/poor also was not supported. As theorized in our
hypothesis development, managers who are in agreement/poor were at significantly
lower levels in the adaptability EQI subscale than managers who are in agreement/good
(see Group Comparisons column in Table I). However as Table III illustrates, there was
no significant relationship between the EQI subscales and follower assessment of
transformational leadership for managers who are in agreement/poor.
H3 states that EI in managers will be positively related to transformational
leadership for managers who are overestimators. As previously noted and contrary to
our prediction, Table I illustrates numerous instances in which overestimators have
significantly higher EQI or subscale scores. In fact, there are no instances in which
overestimators have significantly lower scores on the EQI or subscale categories
thereof than any other category of agreement. However, Table III indicates that the
relationships between EQI subscales and follower ratings of leadership were
insignificant. Therefore, our results fail to support H3.
H4 predicts that there will be a positive relationship between EI and
transformational leadership behaviors for managers who are underestimators.
Table I reveals that underestimators tend to have significantly higher follower
ratings of transformational leadership behaviors than either overestimators or those in
agreement/poor. As expected, underestimators were found to have higher scores on the
EQI subscale category of adaptability as well as the overall EQI. Table III confirms
that there is a strong and significant relationship between the intrapersonal subscale of
EQI and follower ratings of leadership for underestimators (B ¼ 0:351, p , 0:05).
Thus, H4 is partially supported as there is strong evidence indicating a positive
relationship between Intrapersonal skills in underestimators and subordinate ratings
of their leadership effectiveness.
B 1 R 2 DR 2
Dependent variable ¼ follower ratings of
transformational leadership for agree (good)
Step 1: control variables
Gender 0.100
Tenure 0.389 *
F(2, 27) ¼ 2.320, p ¼ 118 0.147 0.147
Step 2: Emotional intelligence (adaptability,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal subscales)
Adaptability subscale 20.113
Interpersonal subscale 0.130
Intrapersonal subscale 20.143
F(3, 41) ¼ 6.435, p ¼ 0.447 0.170 0.024
Dependent variable ¼ follower ratings of
transformational leadership for agree (poor)
Step 1: control variables
Gender 0.142
Tenure 0.350
F(2, 20) ¼ 1.983, p ¼ 0.164 0.165 0.165
Step 2: emotional intelligence (adaptability,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal subscales)
Adaptability subscale
Interpersonal subscale
Intrapersonal subscale
F(3, 17) ¼ 1.343, p , 0:294 0.283 0.118
Dependent variable ¼ follower ratings of
transformational leadership for overestimators
Step 1: control variables
Gender
Tenure
F(2, 41) ¼ 0.865, p ¼ 0.429 0.040 0.040
Step 2: emotional intelligence (adaptability,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal subscales)
Adaptability subscale 20.084
Interpersonal subscale 0.313
Intrapersonal subscale 20.039
F(3, 38) ¼ 0.908, p , 0:486 0.107 0.066
Dependent variable ¼ follower ratings of
transformational leadership for underestimators
Step 1: control variables
Gender 20.010
Tenure 0.543 * *
F(2, 44) ¼ 9.137, p , 0:001 0.293 0.293 * *
Step 2: emotional intelligence (adaptability,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal subscales)
Adaptability subscale 0.060
Interpersonal subscale 0.023
Intrapersonal subscale 0.351 *
F(3, 41) ¼ 6.435, p , 0:001 0.440 0.146
Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:001; standardized regression coefficients are displayed
Table III.
Hierarchical regression
results for emotional
intelligence and follower
assessment of
underestimators
Discussion
The purpose of this study is to replicate and extend the findings of Sosik and Megerian
(1999) by employing a validated measure of EI, the EQI, and examining its relationship
with follower and self-assessments of transformational leadership. Our research
indicates that there is a positive relationship between EI and follower ratings of
transformational leadership for managers who are underestimators (giving partial
support to H4). Although H1 and H2 were not supported, Table I suggests a positive
relationship between these variables for managers who are in agreement/good and in
agreement/poor. Contrary to H3, Table I indicated a negative relationship might exist
between EI and transformational leadership for managers who overestimated their
leadership skill. Employing the EQI, this research supports the findings of Sosik and
Megerian (1999), highlighting the variance in the relationship between EI and leader
behavior across differing categories of self-awareness (illustrated in Table I). These
results will be further examined in the paragraphs that follow.
H1, which posited a positive relationship between EI and leader behavior for
managers who were in agreement/good, was not supported by the regression analysis
results. However, Table I exhibits mean scores for in agreement/good, illustrating high
levels of EI (particularly for the interpersonal subscale) and follower ratings of leader
behavior that lends partial support for the existence of this relationship in this study.
This result is consistent with prior research (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Sosik and
Megerian, 1999; Yammarino and Atwater, 1997). Furthermore, this result makes
intuitive sense. We expect that good managers are self-aware and aware of their
follower sentiments. Good managers know when they need to improve, and they are
able to adapt their behavior to make these improvements. Skilled managers therefore
exhibit high levels of intrapersonal and interpersonal awareness as well as
adaptability- they possess high levels of EI and are able to leverage this EI in order
to demonstrate strong transformational leadership.
Similarly H2, predicting a positive relationship between EI and transformational
leadership for managers who are in agreement/poor, was not supported by the
regression results. Examination of mean scores for in agreement/poor in Table I once
again suggests that this relationship does exist to a limited degree in this study. If EI is
predominantly self-awareness, as suggested by Shipper et al. (2003); it makes sense
that managers who are in agreement have high levels of overall EI particularly in the
areas of self-awareness and interpersonal skill. But as these managers agree with their
subordinates that their leadership skill is lacking, it would imply that these managers
struggle in the execution of their leadership behaviors. Perhaps these managers are
early in their tenure and thus lack the experience to effectively wield transformational
leadership behaviors. A general trend emerged throughout the regression analysis
indicating a positive, though not statistically significant for in agreement/poor,
relationship between tenure and leadership effectiveness. Perhaps these managers are
lacking in the adaptability component of EI and are unable to alter their leader
behaviors as is required by the situation. It would be interesting to examine more
closely the impact of management experience in future research to better delineate this
relationship.
H3, which posited a positive relationship between EI and overestimation of
leadership ability, was not supported. Here, Table I suggests that the opposite may
hold true, which is consistent with past research results (Sosik and Megerian, 1999).
Drawing on Yammarino and Atwater (1997) and the hypothesis development of Sosik
and Megerian (1999), our research results affirm past research that indicates
overestimators tend to possess high levels of self-monitoring as well as self-awareness,
which are both related to EI (Goleman, 1995), and have been linked to inflated
self-ratings (Tunnell, 1980).
An alternative explanation may lie in our study method. Consistent with the
preponderance of EI research, we relied on self-evaluations of manager EI. Managers
who overestimate their leadership skill tend to focus on the other-oriented aspect of
self-awareness, which parallels Goffman’s (1959) concept of dramaturgy
or self-presentation. It is reasonable to expect that managers who are concerned
with self-presentation will inflate their self-ratings of leadership as found in the current
study as well as previous research (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Sosik and
Megerian, 1999). However, it follows that leaders who inflate their self-ratings of
leadership skill for the sake of public appearances may similarly inflate self-ratings of
EI. Thus, the negative relationship suggested by Table I between EI and subordinate
ratings of leadership for overestimators may be due to common source bias. This study
design threat seems particularly salient for overestimators, as they are intuitively more
susceptible to social desirability in keeping with their preoccupation with
self-presentation. In fact, Sosik and Megerian (1999) found that overestimators’ focus
on self-presentation results in higher leader evaluations from their superiors. Thus, it
may be useful to collect subordinate ratings of manager EI in addition to
transformational leadership to address this potential methodological weakness.
H4 predicted that EI would be positively related to subordinate assessments of
leadership skill for underestimators. Although this hypothesis was only partially
supported by the regression results in Table III, our results in Table I supported this
relationship. In fact, underestimators received significantly higher ratings from
subordinates than did managers in any other category of agreement. Table III
illustrates that the strongest and most significant relationship exists for the
interpersonal subscale and leadership skill, suggesting that underestimators tend to be
more self-aware and this self-awareness is linked to higher-levels of follower ratings.
At first glance, this finding may be puzzling. Research suggests that the
underestimated self ratings of underestimators are based on excessive modesty, low
self-worth, and emotional instability (Sosik and Megerian, 1999; Yammarino and
Atwater, 1997). Perhaps, the deflated self-ratings in this study are more a function of
social-desirability or political factors. That is, in an organization with a culture that
discourages self-promotion, it would be reasonable to expect that managers would be
more likely to distort their self-ratings in a downward direction. This may have an
impact on the self-ratings of EI for underestimators as well and further warrant
incorporating subordinate ratings of manager EI in future research. However, research
(Van Velsor et al., 1993) indicates that underestimators tend to receive the highest
subordinate ratings of self-awareness as well as leadership effectiveness. If we adopt
the viewpoint of Godshalk and Sosik (2000) of the critical self-evaluation, humility, and
self-sacrifice of underestimators, it stands to reason that underestimators make
excellent candidates for transformational leaders. It may be that the self-ratings of
leadership skill are deflated by the modesty and humility of underestimators, while
their energy is more outward focused for the benefit of their subordinates and the
overall organization, resulting in higher actual leader performance. Because this
finding is somewhat counterintuitive, it may be especially interesting to examine the
relationship between modesty, EI, and transformational leadership. Recent research
(Lee and Ashton, 2004, 2006) indicates that the Five-Factor Model of personality (Costa
and McCrae, 1992) is deficient in neglecting this important dimension of personality.
The modesty aspect of leadership is particularly understudied in Western
management but is more commonly valued in Eastern cultures (Lee and Ashton, 2004).
The meager and sometimes contradictory support for the hypotheses of this study
begs the question: Do EI and self-awareness in managers improve their leadership
performance? It would appear based on the results of this study that the answer is,
sometimes. However, as alluded to in the above discussion, this answer is tempered
somewhat by elements of the social context of performance appraisal which are
influential in the process of soliciting the self and other ratings at the heart of this
study. It would seem that the weaknesses of this research provide sound advice for
future researchers in this area. First, it may be prudent to change to an ability-based
measure of EI in keeping with the empirical work of Mayer and Salovey (1993). Past
research has shown ability-based measures to have more construct validity than
mixed-models, which can lead to more accurate empirical findings (Livingstone and
Day, 2005). Second, future research should incorporate both subordinate and
self-assessments of EI into the study design. At a minimum, measures of manager
modesty (Lee and Ashton, 2004, 2006), management experience, perceptions of
organizational culture, and social desirability should be incorporated into the survey.
While this study is essentially an extension of Sosik and Megerian (1999) and does
not include personality measures, there is considerable discussion in the literature
about the potential overlap between personality and EI. For example, O’Connor and
Little (2003) found significant correlations between the EQI and Extraversion, Anxiety,
and Independence, and a significant correlation between the MSCEIT and Anxiety.
They concluded the EQI is measuring personality traits while the MSCEIT is not. Law
et al. (2004) concluded that while it is correlated with them, EI is distinct from the Big
Five personality dimensions. As suggested above, using ability-based measures as
well as measures from multiple stakeholders may yield more meaningful findings.
Since ability-based models have shown less overlap with personality dimensions,
adopting such measures should avoid confounding EI with personality.
This study also has several strengths which can inform and guide future research.
First of all, this was an extension of Sosik and Megerian’s (1999) work in that we used a
tested and validated measure of EI. Second, this research takes a finer-grain approach
by splitting the in agreement category of managers and examining the relationship of
EI and subordinate assessments of leadership for both in agreement/good and in
agreement/poor, which provided interesting insight into the possibility of high
self-awareness coexisting with leader skill deficiencies. Finally, this research is
multi-source and tested on a large, matched sample.
This research suggests implications for business practitioners as well. Since
Goleman’s (1995) earlier work, business media has embraced the concept and potential
contributions of EI in the workplace. It is hard to dispute that there is an emotional
component to leadership and that effective leaders need to acknowledge this
component to be successful (Dasborough, 2006; George, 2000). However, businesses
need to exercise caution when basing selection, promotion, or reward decisions on
measurement of EI. There are too many inconsistencies in the measurement of this trait
(Antonakis et al., 2009), particularly for mixed-model scales (Mayer et al., 2008), which
may be easier to administer and more cost-effective due to their self-report nature.
Basing key employee decisions on EI will likely put employers at legal risk for
unlawful human resource practices. Although there are multi-rater scales based on the
ability model approach available for use, these typically come with a high price tag,
both in terms of usage and licensing fees as well as time. Our recommendation to
business practitioners is to invest the money in these more expensive scales if the
measurement of EI is valuable to the organization. However, it may be a better use of
resources to simply provide training on EI to increase awareness of this subject among
employees until research is able to provide better measurement tools and more
conclusive evidence of the workplace impact of EI.
Unlike EI, the notion of modesty as an effective leadership trait is one that seems to
be less embraced by business practitioners. In business, we tend to look for and reward
dominance, competence, and self-assuredness in our leaders. However, this research
supports previous findings (Sosik and Megerian, 1999) that modesty may be a key
component for transformational leaders. This study suggests that it may be time for
business practitioners to look for and promote modesty as a valued trait among their
leaders in order to maximize organizational effectiveness.
Conclusion
This research supports the findings of our predecessors (Sosik and Megerian, 1999),
illustrating that at least to some degree the relationship between EI and follower
assessment of transformational leadership varies across categories of rating agreement
for managers. Interestingly, in this study the only significant relationship we observed
was between EI and transformational leadership for underestimators. Over the years,
this result has become an increasingly common outcome in research of this nature
(Moshavi et al., 2003; Sosik and Megerian, 1999, Sosik, 2001, Sosik and Jung, 2003,
Sosik et al., 2004). It seems prudent to further test the theoretical explanations that have
emerged in these research discussions by incorporating a measure of modesty into
future research designs and examining its relationship to transformational leadership.
Furthermore, in this study we were not able to conclusively assess the relationship
between EI and follower assessment of transformational leadership for overestimators
nor either of the in agreement categories. We believe that this may be a function of the
psychometric limitations of the mixed-model self-assessment of EI utilized in this
study. Our further understanding of the dynamics of EI will be advanced by similar
studies employing an ability model of EI generally and the emergence of valid
subordinate assessments of EI into future studies specifically. It stands to reason that
the impact of self-presentation and social-desirability will equally impact self-ratings
of leadership as well as EI. Hence, other-ratings from EI or multi-rater EI scales may
necessarily become a standard before we can reach any definitive conclusions as to the
relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness and the implications of EI for
individual or organizational performance.
References
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Dasborough, M.T. (2009), “Does leadership need emotional
intelligence?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 247-61.
Ashford, S.J. (1989), “Self-assessments in organizations: a literature review and integrative
model”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, pp. 133-74.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2005), “Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in
organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 441-52.
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1992), “Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions
moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 141-64.
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1997), “Self-other rating agreement: a review and model”,
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 15, pp. 121-74.
Atwater, L.E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F.J. and Fleenor, J.W. (1998), “Self-other agreement: does it
really matter?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 577-89.
Atwater, L., Waldman, D., Atwater, D. and Cartier, P. (2000), “An upward feedback field
experiment: supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 275-97.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual, Forms, and
Scoring Key, Mind Garden, Menlo Park, CA.
Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K. and Sitarenios, G. (2000), “Emotional intelligence in the
collection of debt”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 176-82.
Bar-On, R. (1997), Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical Manual, Multi Health
Systems, Toronto.
Bass, B.M. (1985a), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1985b), “Leadership: good, better, best”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 26-40.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1990), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Berson, Y. and Sosik, J. (2007), “The relationship between self-other rating agreement and
influence tactics and organizational processes”, Group & Organization Management,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 675-98.
Bliese, P.D. (1998), “Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: a simulation”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 355-73.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 901-11.
Brett, J.F. and Atwater, L.E. (2001), “360 degrees feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions
of usefulness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, p. 930.
Brown, F.W. and Moshavi, D. (2005), “Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence:
a potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1-5.
Bryman, A. (1996), “Leadership in organizations”, in Clegg, S.P., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds),
Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 276-92.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Church, A.H. (1997), “Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in
organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 281-92.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. and Caput, P. (2000), “A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence
construct”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 539-61.
Cleveland, J.N., Vescio, T.K. and Barnes-Farrell, J.L. (2005), in Dipboye, R.L. and Colella, A. (Eds),
Discrimination at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 149-76.
Cogliser, C.C., Schriesheim, C.A., Scandura, T.A. and Gardner, W.L. (2009), “Balance in leader
and follower perceptions of leader-member exchange: relationships with performance and
work attitudes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 452-65.
Conte, J.M. (2005), “A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 433-40.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO
Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL.
Cote, S. and Miners, C. (2006), “Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job
performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Dasborough, M.T. (2006), “Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership
behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 163-78.
Daus, C. and Ashkanasy, N. (2005), “The case for an ability-based model of emotional intelligence
in organizational behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 453-66.
Dawda, D. and Hart, S.D. (2000), “Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of the
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 797-812.
Der Foo, M., Elfenbein, H.A., Tan, H.H. and Aik, V.C. (2004), “Emotional intelligence and
negotiation: the tension between creating and claiming value”, The International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 411-29.
Duehr, E.E. and Bono, J.E. (2006), “Men, women, and managers: are stereotypes finally
changing?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 815-46.
Edwards, J.R. (1993), “Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of
congruence in organizational research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 641-65.
Eichinger, R. and Lombardo, M. (2004), “Patterns of rater accuracy in 360-degree feedback”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 23-5.
Facteau, C.L. and Facteau, J.D. (1998), “Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback from
subordinates and peers”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 427.
Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and Walumbwa, F. (2005), “‘Can you see the
real me?’ a self-based model of authentic leader and follower development”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 343-72.
George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-55.
Godshalk, V.M. and Sosik, J.J. (2000), “Does mentor-prote´ge´ agreement on mentor leadership
behavior influence the quality of a mentoring relationship?”, Group & Organization
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 291-316.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Goleman, D. (1998), “What makes a leader?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 93-102.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of
Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gowing, M., O’Leary, B. and Brienza, D. (2006), “A practitioner’s research agenda: exploring
real-world applications and issues”, in Druskat, V., Sala, F. and Mount, F. (Eds), Linking
Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work: Current Research Evidence with
Individuals and Groups, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 245-65.
Grimal, N. (1992), A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.
Grubb, W.L. and McDaniel, M.A. (2007), “The fakability of Bar-On’s emotional quotient
inventory short form: catch me if you can”, Human Performance, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, M.S. (1979), “Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 349-71.
Jae, J.H. (1997), “Emotional intelligence and cognitive ability as predictors of job performance in
the banking sector”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Ateneo de Manila University, Manila.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Johnson, J. and Ferstl, K.L. (1999), “The effects of interrater and self-other agreement on
performance improvement following upward feedback”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52
No. 2, pp. 271-303.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership:
a meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 5, pp. 755-68.
Kanungo, R.N. and Mendonca, M. (1996), Ethical Dimensions of Leadership, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996), “The effects of feedback interventions on performance:
a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 254-84.
Landy, F.J. (2005), “Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional
intelligence”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 411-24.
Law, K.S., Wong, C. and Song, L.J. (2004), “The construct and criterion validity of emotional
intelligence and its potential utility for management studies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-96.
LeBreton, J.M. and Senter, J.L. (2008), “Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
interrater agreement”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 815-52.
Lee, K. and Ashton, M.C. (2004), “Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality
Inventory”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 329-58.
Lee, K. and Ashton, M.C. (2006), “Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory:
two new facet scales and an observer report form”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 182-91.
Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004), “The social context of performance appraisal: a review and
framework for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 881-905.
Livingstone, H. and Day, A. (2005), “Comparing the construct and criterion-related validity of
ability-based and mixed-model measures of emotional intelligence”, Educational &
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 851-73.
Locke, E.A. (2005), “Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 425-31.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership: a positive developmental approach”,
in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 241-61.
Mayer, J., Roberts, R. and Barsade, S. (2008), “Human abilities: emotional intelligence”, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 507-36.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1993), “The intelligence of emotional intelligence”, Intelligence,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 433-42.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D.
(Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, Basic
Books, New York, NY.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2000), “Emotional intelligence as Zeitgeist, as
personality, and as a mental ability”, in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J. (Eds), The Handbook of
Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home,
School, and in the Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 92-117.
Moshavi, D., Brown, F.W. and Dodd, N.G. (2003), “Leader self-awareness and its relationship to
subordinate attitudes and performance”, Leadership & Organization Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 407-18.
O’Connor, R.M. Jr and Little, I.S. (2003), “Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional
intelligence: self-report versus ability-based measures”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1893-902.
Parker, J.D.A., Summerfeldt, L.J., Hogan, M.J. and Majeski, S.A. (2004), “Emotional intelligence
and academic success: examining the transition from high school to university”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 163-72.
Piaget, J. (1981), Intelligence and Affectivity: Their Relationship during Child Development,
Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, translated by Brown, T.A. and Kaegi, C.E. (originally
published in 1954).
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Ross, S.M. and Offermann, L.R. (1997), “Transformational leaders: measurement of personality
attributes and work group performance”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 1078-86.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition,
and Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.
Shipper, F., Kincaid, J., Rotondo, D.M. and Hoffman, R.C. (2003), “A cross-cultural exploratory
study of the linkage between emotional intelligence and managerial effectiveness”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 171-91.
Sosik, J. (2001), “Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership: relationships with work
attitudes and managerial performance”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 484-511.
Sosik, J. and Megerian, L. (1999), “Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance:
the role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions”, Group
& Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-90.
Sosik, J.H. and Godshalk, V.M. (2004), “Self-other rating agreement in mentoring”, Group
& Organization Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 442-69.
Sosik, J.J. and Jung, D.I. (2003), “Impression management strategies and performance in
information technology consulting: the role of self-other rating agreement on charismatic
leadership”, Management Communications Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 233-68.
Sosik, J.J., Godshalk, V.M. and Yammarino, F.J. (2004), “Transformational leadership, learning
goal orientation, and expectations for career success in mentor-prote´ge´ relationships:
a multiple levels of analysis perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 241-61.
Stroh, L.K., Brett, J.M. and Reilly, A.H. (1992), “All the right stuff: a comparison of female and
male managers’ career progression”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 3,
pp. 251-60.
Thorndyke, R.L. and Stein, S. (1937), “An evaluation of the attempts to measure social
intelligence”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 275-84.
Tunnell, G. (1980), “Intra-individual consistency in personality assessment: the effect of
self-monitoring”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 220-32.
Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S. and Leslie, J.B. (1993), “An examination of the relationships among
self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos 2/3, pp. 249-63.
Waldman, D.A. and Bowen, D.E. (1998), “The acceptability of 360 degree appraisals:
a customer-supplier relationship perspective”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 117-29.
Wechsler, D. (1940), “Non-intellective factors in general intelligence”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 444-5.
Wegner, D. and Vallacher, R. (1980), The Self in Social Psychology, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Wicklund, R. (1979), “The influence of self on human behavior”, American Scientist, Vol. 67 No. 2,
pp. 187-93.
Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002), “The effect of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: an exploratory study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 243-74.
Yammarino, F.J. and Atwater, L.W. (1997), “Do managers see themselves as others see them?
Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 35-44.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2007), “Relationships between emotional and congruent
self-awareness and performance in the British Royal Navy”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 465-78.