0.5 Mills, l., mcdowelle, j., & Roush, w. (july 2009). does research  (Page 2/7)

Emotional intelligence

One skill set frequently cited in the literature as necessary in a variety of situations are the intrapersonal and interpersonal skills associated with Emotional Intelligence (Downey, Papageorgiou, Stough, 2006; Dulewicz&Higgs, 2003; Rosete and Ciarrochi, 2005). While there are numerous studies that provide empirical evidence that EI has a positive effect on leadership effectiveness, (Coetzee&Schaap, 2004; Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, Boyle, 2006; Goleman, 1995,1998; Leban&Zulauf, 2004; Srivsastaava, Bharamanaikar, 2004; Wong&Law, 2002), there are also studies that provide empirical evidence that EI has no statistical significance in leadership effectiveness (Barbuto&Burbach, 2006; Barchard, 2003; Brown, 2005; Brown, Bryant,&Reilly, 2006; Schulte 2002; Weinberger, 2003).

Defining effective leadership and emotional intelligence

The question of definitions is a key element in conducting any research and a particularly critical component of any meta-analysis. The problem of defining leadership is well established in the literature (Bass, 1990; Collins, 2001; Nahavandi, 2003; Northhouse, 2004; Stogdill, 1974). Stoghill said that “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it” (p.7). Collins contends that vague, expansive definitions of leadership create problems when analyzing organizational issues. When we define leadership by ascribing unlimited and undifferentiated functions and activities in an organization to leadership, according to Collins, we have really not defined leadership at all. We have simply thrown up our hands in frustration and “we prevent ourselves from gaining deeper, more scientific understanding about what makes companies tick” (p.22).

Although acknowledging the difficulty of providing a precise definition of leadership, Nahavandi (2003) and Northhouse (2004), after conducting comprehensive reviews of the leadership literature, have found elements common to the phenomena of leadership no matter where or how leadership is exercised. Both Nahavandi and Northouse list three common elements. Those three elements are as follows: (a) Leadership involves interaction with a group; (b) Leadership involves the exercise of influence; and (c) Leadership involves the attainment of a goal.

Once we have established a reasonably precise definition of leadership then effective leadership must be defined. Northhouse (2004) stated that leadership effectiveness is measured by the attainment of goals or objectives within a leadership context. Hartman (1999) contends that leadership effectiveness is defined both objectively and subjectively. Subjective measures are usually based on ratings obtained from the leader’s superiors, peers, or subordinates. Examples of objective measures of performance or goal attainment can include profits, profit margin, test scores, graduation rates, sales increases, market shares, or profitability. (Hartman, 1999) The two instruments used to measure leadership effectiveness most frequently cited in the studies included in the meta-analysis were the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). The MLQ, developed by Bass and Avolio (2000), is a 45-question questionnaire that attempts to determine the multiple factors constituting a persons’ leadership style. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), developed by Kouzes and Posner (1995), has been used to assess over 350,000 individuals’ leadership skills. It is based on qualitative and quantitative research of everyday actions and behaviors of exemplary leaders in a variety of settings.