Literature Review

The validity of EI and its impact on leadership was the subject of many researches and studies. Goleman et.al (2002) argued that leaders with EI generate a climate of enthusiasm and flexibility which arise innovation and performance of employees and results in added value for organizational performance. They also characterized emotional intelligent leaders as “more values-driven, more flexible and informal, more open and frank than leaders of old” (p.248). Dasborough and Ashkanasy (2002) highlighted the importance of EI in leadership by proposing a model of emotions and intentionality between leader and follower’s relationship. More specifically they proposed that a positive leader’s mood is perceived by employees as a sincere organizational intentions contrarywise to a negative mood which may be perceived by employees as manipulative for self-serving intentions.

Furthermore, on their model Dasborough and Ashkanasy are proposing that a leader with high EI is more able to be perceived as behaving in a true transformational manner regardless of his/her intentions and motive. So, it’s important for them as they added to improve their EI. Also, they noted that employees’ EI enables them to understand and translate emotional cues more accurately, resulting a more accurate attribution of intentionality. Their last fact is positioning EI as a key factor to both sides of leader- employee relationship. Additionally, Dasborough (2006) mentioned that a connection between EI and effective leadership exists and encouraged leaders to display behaviours which are associated with EI. Moreover, she argued that EI is a leadership trait and that a training on EI field would be useful for any leader. Her study showed that in face-to-face interactions between leaders and subordinates, the former should boost positive emotional responses by displaying awareness and respect and generating motivation, empowerment, recognition and accountability as well as effective communication. Contrarywise, negative emotional responses should be avoided because they generate anger and frustration to employees and reduce productivity. Liu and Perrewe (2005) suggest that for leaders who may need to act as change agents, inducing a moderate level of emotional arousal among employees (change recipients) and knowing what employees are feeling, can help them make the desired changes possible. Rubin et.al (2005) mentioned that leader emotion recognition ability is positively related with transformational leadership behaviour, while Daus and Ashkanasy (2005) argued that there is a link between ability-based models of EI and leadership ability, especially on transformational leadership. They also mentioned that those models appear to continue to have great potential in organizational behavior. Rajah et.al (2011) noticed that leaders could benefit from literature regarding emotions, by

helping them increase the quality of leader-subordinate relationships, hence making them more effective. Also, Boyatzis and McKee (2011) commented that leaders because of their position of power, are responsible to know what they are feeling and what is the contagion that are transmitting to subordinates. So, they need high emotional self-awareness. As they mentioned, some feelings help leaders to perform better while other are impediments to adaptive thinking. So, with proper feelings and emotions management leaders could become effective and inspire their followers to learn, adapt and perform as best as they can. McKee and Johnston (2014) noted that emotional intelligent leaders stay engaged with their subordinates’ feels and thoughts and motivate and energize them. Also, they make people around them feel stronger and more capable and as a result, by managing their own emotions they stay focused on the goals. Becker et.al. (2015) mentioned that the dealing with emotional demands of the role is also important to perform well. So, leaders not only need EI skills but also cognitive skills for a successful job performance.

McCleskey (2014) noted that EI “may possess the kind of predictive validity for leadership effectiveness that has often eluded researchers in the past” (p.87).

In contrast to previous scholars who argued about the importance and validity of EI, there were many scholars opposing those results. Locke (2005), opposed Goleman’s et.al (2002) position about the importance of EI on leadership, characterizing the EI’s extension into the field of leadership as unfortunate and claimed that Goleman wrongly mentioned EI as a more important aspect of leadership than rational thinking and actual intelligence. Also, Locke argued that leadership is not “about making people feel good; it’s about knowing what you are doing and knowing what to do” (p.429) and that any associations between EI and the effectiveness of leadership would be pointless. Schulte et.al (2004) questioned the existence of EI as a unique construct and also claimed that it is required to examine its validity and also its incremental validity to predict human performance in occupational life. Harms and Credé (2010) in their study about connection between EI and transformational leadership found not as strong correlation as mentioned in past studies.

They found mixed results due to fact that sometimes the raters of EI and leadership where the same and sometimes were different.

A special mention needs to be done in a series of letters between Antonakis, Ashkanasy and Dasborough (2009) who tried to figure out various issues surrounding EI and its impact on leadership, such as whether EI is needed for being an effective leader.

Antonakis claimed that the existing trait and ability models should be examined more completely and characterized EI as “more of a curse than a blessing” due to the fact that

“the more sensitive to the emotional states of others leaders are the more difficult it may become for those leaders to ignore those states and perform in a way to reify the organizational vision” (p.250). Ashkanasy and Dasborough refuted Antonakis, claiming that is widely accepted that leadership is a process based on emotions and effective managers can handle their emotions and act with empathy towards employees.

Additionally, regarding the characterization of “curse” they noted that high EI leaders are more perceptive of emotions and better at managing emotions. On his next letter Antonakis claimed that EI has no strong foundations on theory and that there is one brain and one intelligence which is using the emotional and non-emotional processes to function, making EI theory meaningless. In their turn Ashkanasy and Dasborough agreed that measurement of EI should be a field for extended research explored more intensively, but refused to accept the “one intelligence” theory by referring several studies that proved the opposite.

Many studies on different working fields have been found which examined the correlation between EI, leadership styles and effectiveness. There are several studies in Greek scientific community about EI and its impact on leadership efficiency. Andrianos (2018) in his study on Greek Navy found positive relationship between EI and leadership. By using MLQ questionnaire to assess leadership style of Greek Navy ratings found a positive relationship of EI with transformational leadership, employee satisfaction, performance and extra effort. Contrariwise, negative correlation was found between EI and transactional or laissez-faire leadership. Koukoli (2018) in her dissertation mentioned that EI could have positive influence on management of education units. Although there are not many researches on the educational field, Koukoli concluded that EI could help school directors increase student’s performance, maintain a quality in educational process and build an effective communication and culture in school units. Furthermore, Kasapi (2019) in her doctorate dissertation mentioned that EI seems to be an important aspect of employees’ professional life in the Greek pharmaceutical companies. Her research on 155 senior and middle level managers of various pharmaceutical companies, which was based on the use of a shorter version of TEIQue to assess EI, shown that EI plays a vital role among professional relations and cooperation of managers in companies within the pharmaceutical field, and increase the effectiveness of decision-making process. It is wise

to mention that Kasapi’s research was based on a Theoretical communication model on EI Big Four (Self-awareness, Social management, Social awareness, Self-Management) (Kasapi, 2019). Also, Siamani (2019) in her postgraduate dissertation studied whether there is contribution of EI in effective leadership in a period of economic crisis. By collecting data from two big Greek companies with the help of MLQ questionnaire concluded that EI has positive contribution to leadership. She noted that modern businesses need to hire emotional intelligent people especially in supervisor or managerial positions. Furthermore, Siamani mentioned the individual and organizational benefits of being an emotional intelligence leader. An emotional leader will be able to cope with arising conflicts and problems as well as inspire and motivate people towards better results. In this way the leadership process will become a progressive force in the economic engine with immediate positive impacts in organization’s operation. Moreover, Tzovolos (2019) in his master dissertation suggested that organizations which are managing their workforce considering emotional intelligence as a basic factor, benefit from the recruitment of employees who are more satisfied and dedicated to the organization, are more cooperative and more effective and productive on their tasks. Additionally, he insisted that organizations must implement strategies which aim to improve EI of their employees and managers in order to achieve self-awareness, improvement of communication skills, enhancement of creativity and improvement of their ability on decision making. In this way organizations will be able to achieve their goals and bring the desired results.

The industrial and manufacturing sector offered fertile ground for scholars to study the impact of EI in leadership process. Barling et.al (2000) argued about the importance of EI on transformational leadership. Their study on 49 managers of a large pulp and paper organization, showed that there was association between EI and the three out of four aspects of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration) and contingent reward but not with lessaiz-faire management or active and passive management-by-exception. In a same manner, Downey et.al (2006) studied the connection between EI and leadership in 176 female managers of several industries in Australia. For EI measurements purpose, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT) (Palmer and Stough, 2001) was used. To assess leadership style MLQ was used. The results revealed a positive relationship between transformational leadership and EI as well as with the contingent rewards component of

transactional leadership. Furthermore, a negative connection between EI and lessaiz-faire leadership was found. Also, Kerr et.al (2006) in their study on 38 supervisors of a large manufacturing company in UK, with the use of MSCEIT to test EI, found a partial relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness rating from subordinates. Especially, perceiving emotions and using emotions had the greatest effect on supervisor ratings while understanding emotions and managing emotions had not any significant relationship to supervisor ratings. In contrast with Barling et.al, Downey et.al and Kerr et.al, Brown et.al (2006) in their study to examine possible relationship between and among EI, leadership and desirable outcomes (like effectiveness) in organizations failed to establish evidence of relationship between EI and desirable outcomes. Although they predicted the opposite, their study on 161 managers and supervisors of a large US manufacturing facility with the help of MLQ and EQ-i to measure leadership and EI respectively, proved that there is little connection between EI and desirable outcomes. Also, they found that EI significantly predicted leaders’ effectiveness and satisfaction with the leader, but only when transformational leadership was included in the model. As Brown et.al. noted, this opposite result from other similar studies could be due to methodological differences or cultural and organizational circumstances. Furthermore, Weinberger (2009) in her study of exploring connection between EI, leadership style and effectiveness found no relationship amongst them. By using the MSCEIT test to measure EI and MLQ to examine the leadership style in 151 managers of a US manufacturing company, concluded that there is no correlation between EI and transformational, transactional or lessaiz-faire leadership styles. In addition, her study shown no correlation of EI with perceived effectiveness and performance of managers.

Public sector is one of the most occupied working sectors worldwide. Although management of organizations of this sector may be much more different than in private sector, leaders need to be effective and keep their subordinates motivated and productive.

Wong and Law (2002) in their studies on part-time MBA and undergraduates in Hong Kong and also in 149 supervisor-subordinate dyads found that EI of leaders, as defined by Mayer and Salovey, is pertinent to job satisfaction and extra-role behavior of subordinates, but not with the job performance of the latter. As they commented, this non-relation with job performance may be explained to the fact that their sample consisted of government administrators who “have a culture of distorting the performance rate of their subordinates” (p.269). Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) hypothesized that there is a positive

association of an ability-based model of EI with leadership effectiveness. Using MSCEIT test to 41 executives from a large public service organization on Australia, they demonstrated their hypothesis. Perceive emotions and understand emotions found to impact more than three core leadership behaviours from the multi-rater instrument they used. Rosete and Ciarrochi argued that executives with high EI are more possible to achieve business goals and perceived as effective leaders in their working environment. In 2006 Barbuto et.al in their study on 388 leader-followers dyad of US public sector, found several connections between EI and leadership. By using Avolio’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure transformational leadership and Carson’s et.

al. (2000) instrument to measure EI, found that EI and each self-reported subscale of transformational leadership have positive relation. Contrariwise, on followers’ point of view, revealed no significant relationship between EI and transformational leadership.

Also, they argued that leaders who are showing empathetic response are considered as transformational leaders easier than those who don’t. Furthermore, Barbuto et.al. indicated that being less prone to regulating their moods, leaders show better results on transformational leadership. After that, Anand and UdayaSuriyan (2010) based on Bar-On (1997) EI inventory, studied the relationship between EI and leadership in 256 executives from an Indian public sector organization. The results of the study revealed a significant relationship between EI and leadership and authors argued that enhancing the levels of EI will help executives to manage their subordinates and lead them efficiently and effectively. Finally, Hur et.al (2011) also found a positive relationship between EI and transformational leadership in their research on 55 teams, consisted of a total of 859 employees in South Korean public sector. For their study they used Wong and Law (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) which is more suitable for Asian contexts and is in line with Mayer and Salovey’s model of EI. Hur et.al argued that emotionally intelligent team leaders can be considered as more effective by shaping better service climates and exhibiting more transformational leadership behaviours.

Many scholars extracted results for their studies from the private sector. In 2005 Coetzee and Schaap (2005) conducted a study to explore possible relationship between leadership behaviour, outcomes from it and EI. By using MLQ and MEIS to measure leadership behaviour and EI respectively on 100 managers of South African companies they found positive correlation between Transformational leadership and EI. This correlation mainly attributed to managing emotions and identifying emotions. Thy also found positive

correlation between EI and contingent reward (one of Transactional Leadership components). Coetzee and Schaap argued that an emotionally intelligent leader is able to diffuse trust and commitment in his/her team, motivate subordinates to exert extra effort which in turn creates satisfaction after the set goals are achieved. Boyatzis and Ratti (2009) in their research on Italian managers and leaders proved that EI competencies are key for the effectiveness of them. Especially in their first study on the Italian division of a large multinational company the authors found that amongst the competencies of 61 outstanding executives and managers, EI competencies included, such as efficiency orientation, initiative, planning, empathy and self-confidence. Additionally, in the same research in their second study on five Italian cooperatives (companies with mutual ownership for social purpose) the authors found positive correlation between EI competencies and boss nominations. Competencies like efficiency orientation, flexibility, attention to detail, planning and self-control characterized the boss nominations between the sample of 133 executives and managers. Van Oosten (2013) argued that EI impacts performance and leader effectiveness outcomes. As she mentioned “leaders who demonstrated strengths in change leader competencies also demonstrated high levels of performance, work engagement and career satisfaction” (p.67). Her analysis in 85 managers by using ECI-2 to measure EI showed that leaders who exhibit high levels of EI are more likely to perform better in their role than those leaders with lower EI levels. Also, in her thesis Van Oosten mentioned that an explanation about connection between EI and performance might be that EI leaders know themselves, thus select organizations and roles that suit their personalities. Badri (2013) in his doctorate dissertation studied how EI impacts leadership effectiveness in supervisors on software companies. By using ESCI survey tool to assess EI on 156 managers and 312 subordinates, Badri results showed correlation between EI and leadership. In more detail, EI was positively related with leadership effectiveness, transformational and transactional leadership style but it was negatively related with passive leadership style. Siren et.al (2020) collected data from 103 nascent venture teams without prior leaders and found that reappraisal helped individuals of these team be established as leaders. As they mentioned their study supported previous studies emphasizing on the importance of leaders’ emotional characteristics. On the contrary, Cavazotte et.al (2012) in their study on 134 Brazilian managers of the energy sector failed to establish a connection between EI and transformational leadership and

performance. The research’s participants used Wong and Law (2002) scale to measure EI of managers and MLQ questionnaire to assess manager’s leadership traits.

There were also some studies on the constructions sector. Butler and Chinowsky (2006) studied the relationship between EI and transformational leadership in 130 construction executives in the United States. To assess EI the researchers used the Bar-On EQ-i test and MLQ questionnaire to gather data for leadership style. The results of their studies showed that there is positive relation between EI and transformational leadership. They also noted that the study showed specific areas, with the most impact on transformational behavior, that an individual could improve. Butler and Chinowsky also highlighted the importance of including EI aspects in selection criteria for executives of construction organizations.

On the other hand, Lindebaum and Cassell (2012) in their study on project managers in the UK construction industry, mentioned that project managers of this field do not consider EI as a management tool claiming that expressing emotions may be associated with weakness and may be unnecessary or inappropriate to be displayed in the workplace. In a same manner, Lindebaum and Cassell (2010) stated that there would be different results between the correlation of EI and transformational leadership if results stem from the same or non-same source of data. They further mentioned that construction sites are characterized by authoritative and commanding leadership styles, antagonistic relationships, and strict timelines.

In the service provision sector, Boyatzis (2006) in his analysis on a multinational consulting company found that the leaders who had successful financial performance had EI competencies. Goleman (1998) defined as emotional competence as a learned ability based on emotional intelligence and results in superior job performance. Specifically, 13 of the 14 competencies that were found to be predictors of financial performance where from the EI clusters. Batool (2001) in her study on Pakistan’s banking sector, argued that EI is one of the useful tools of leaders, which helps them being fairer on judges of subordinates and build better connections with them. In the same field, Lone M. and Lone A. (2018) dropped a research on 198 supervisors and 211 subordinates of private and public sector banks in India, of how EI is linked with leadership. For their study they used Singh and Chadha (2003) EI model, by which EI is composed by 3 sub-dimensions:

Emotional Competency, Emotional Maturity and Emotional Sensitivity. The results of the study have shown a positive correlation of leadership effectiveness with competency and