Emotional intelligence and leadership in organizations: A meta-analytic test of process mechanisms

The present study—employing psychometric meta-analysis of 92 independent studies with sample sizes ranging from 26 to 322 leaders—examined the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. Overall, the results supported a linkage between leader EI and effectiveness that was moderate in nature (ρ = .25). In addition, the positive manifold of the effect sizes presented in this study, ranging from .10 to .44, indicate that emotional intelligence has meaningful relations with myriad leadership outcomes including effectiveness, transformational leadership, LMX, follower job satisfaction, and others. Furthermore, this paper examined potential process mechanisms that may account for the EI-leadership effectiveness relationship and showed that both transformational leadership and LMX partially mediate this relationship. However, while the predictive validities of EI were moderate in nature, path analysis and hierarchical regression suggests that EI contributes less than or equal to 1% of explained variance in leadership effectiveness once personality and intelligence are accounted for. ^

Could Relatedness Help Explain Why Individuals Lead in Bottlenose Dolphin Groups?

In many species, particular individuals consistently lead group travel. While benefits to followers often are relatively obvious, including access to resources, benefits to leaders are often less obvious. This is especially true for species that feed on patchy mobile resources where all group members may locate prey simultaneously and food intake likely decreases with increasing group size. Leaders in highly complex habitats, however, could provide access to foraging resources for less informed relatives, thereby gaining indirect benefits by helping kin. Recently, leadership has been documented in a population of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) where direct benefits to leaders appear unlikely. To test whether leaders could benefit indirectly we examined relatedness between leader-follower pairs and compared these levels to pairs who associated but did not have leader-follower relationship (neither ever led the other). We found the average relatedness value for leader-follower pairs was greater than expected based on chance. The same was not found when examining non leader-follower pairs. Additionally, relatedness for leader-follower pairs was positively correlated with association index values, but no correlation was found for this measure in non leader-follower pairs. Interestingly, haplotypes were not frequently shared between leader-follower pairs (25%). Together, these results suggest that bottlenose dolphin leaders have the opportunity to gain indirect benefits by leading relatives. These findings provide a potential mechanism for the maintenance of leadership in a highly dynamic fission-fusion population with few obvious direct benefits to leaders.

Emotional Intelligence and Leadership in Organization: A Meta-analytic Test of Process Mechanisms

The present study – employing psychometric meta-analysis of 92 independent studies with sample sizes ranging from 26 to 322 leaders – examined the relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. Overall, the results supported a linkage between leader EI and effectiveness that was moderate in nature (ρ = .25). In addition, the positive manifold of the effect sizes presented in this study, ranging from .10 to .44, indicate that emotional intelligence has meaningful relations with myriad leadership outcomes including effectiveness, transformational leadership, LMX, follower job satisfaction, and others. Furthermore, this paper examined potential process mechanisms that may account for the EI-leadership effectiveness relationship and showed that both transformational leadership and LMX partially mediate this relationship. However, while the predictive validities of EI were moderate in nature, path analysis and hierarchical regression suggests that EI contributes less than or equal to 1% of explained variance in leadership effectiveness once personality and intelligence are accounted for.