Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate claims that emotional intelligence is significantly related to transformational and other leadership behaviors. Results (based on 62 independent samples) indicated a validity estimate of .59 when ratings of both emotional intelligence and leadership behaviors were provided by the same source (self, subordinates, peers, or superiors). However, when ratings of the constructs were derived from different sources, the validity estimate was .12. Lower validity estimates were found for transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Separate analyses were performed for each measure of emotional intelligence. Trait measures of emotional intelligence tended to show higher validities than ability-based measures of emotional intelligence. Agreement across ratings sources for the same construct was low for both transformational leadership (.14) and emotional intelligence (.16).

Full text

Leadership Institute
Leadership Institute Faculty Publications
University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 
Emotional Intelligence and
Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analysis
Peter D. Harms
∗
Marcus Cred´e
†
∗
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, pharms2@Unl.edu
†
State University of New York at Albany
This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/leadershipfacpub/14

Research into the relationship between emotional in-
telligence (EI) and transformational leadership is lled
with bold claims as to the relationship between these con-
structs. Noted experts in the eld of EI argue that elements
of EI such as empathy, self-condence, and self-aware-
ness are the core underpinnings of visionary or transfor-
mational leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).
An information package distributed by Multi-Health
Systems, the leading distributor of EI assessment tools,
claims that “emotional intelligence is synonymous with
good leadership.” Some have claimed that “for those in
leadership positions, emotional intelligence skills account
for close to 90 percent of what distinguishes outstanding
leaders from those judged as average” (Kemper, 1999, p.
16). Others have noted the disappointing results of intelli-
gence and personality models in the prediction of excep-
tional leadership and have argued that EI may represent
an elusive “X” factor for predicting transformational lead-
ership (Brown & Moshavi, 2005).
Since Goleman (1995) popularized the concept of EI,
there has been no shortage of studies investigating the
relationship between EI and positive outcomes. Two re-
cent meta-analyses have found positive associations for
EI with school and work performance outcomes (Van
Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004) as well as mental and phys-
ical health (Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, &
Rooke, 2007). Research into the relationship between EI
and leadership outcomes has seen similar, if not more,
levels of interest in recent years. The relationship with
transformational leadership has received particular at-
tention in these studies, which can be attributed to both
its popularity in the leadership literature and specic el-
ements of transformational leadership theory that seem
relevant to EI. Yet, there has been widespread skepti-
cism of the link between EI and leadership outcomes (An-
tonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Landy, 2005;
Locke, 2005) and many studies have failed to nd signi-
cant relationships between EI and transformational lead-
ership in particular (e.g., Brown, Bryant, & Reilly, 2006;
Moss, Ritossa, & Ngu, 2006; Sosik & Megarian, 1999;
Weinberger, 2004). A review of the relationship between
EI and leadership outcomes described the ongoing de-
bate between the proponents and critics of EI as one that
“thrives on hyperbolic claims on one hand, and empirical
evidence to the contrary on the other” (Lindebaum, 2009,
p. 227). Furthermore, in a recently published debate (An-
Published in Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17:1 (2010), pp. 5–17; doi: 10.1177/1548051809350894 Copyright © 2010 Baker Col-
lege; published by Sage Publications. Used by permission. http://jlos.sagepub.com
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational
and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis
P. D. Harms
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, USA
Corresponding author — 114 CBA, 1240 R Street, Lincoln, NE 68588; email pharms2@unl.edu
Marcus Credé
State University of New York at Albany, USA
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate claims that emotional intelligence is signicantly related to transformational and other leadership be-
haviors. Results (based on 62 independent samples) indicated a validity estimate of .59 when ratings of both emotional intelligence and leader-
ship behaviors were provided by the same source (self, subordinates, peers, or superiors). However, when ratings of the constructs were de-
rived from different sources, the validity estimate was .12. Lower validity estimates were found for transactional and laissez-faire leadership
behaviors. Separate analyses were performed for each measure of emotional intelligence. Trait measures of emotional intelligence tended to
show higher validities than ability-based measures of emotional intelligence. Agreement across ratings sources for the same construct was low
for both transformational leadership (.14) and emotional intelligence (.16).
Keywords transformational, leadership, emotional intelligence
5

6 Har m s & Cre d é in Jo u r n a l o f le a d e r s hi p & orga n i z ati o n a l stu d i e s 17 (2010)
tonakis et al., 2009) between major gures in each camp,
Ashkanasy and Dasborough argued that a meta-analysis
was needed to establish whether or not the claims of the
EI proponents had merit. To address the issues raised in
prior research and the current debate, this study will use
a meta-analytic approach to establish whether or not EI is
related to transformational and transactional leadership
behaviors and under what circumstances.
Transformational Leadership
The concept of transformational leadership, a compo-
nent of Bass and Avolio’s “full range leadership theory”
(Antonakis & House, 2002; Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998), is
one of the most widely researched paradigms in the lead-
ership eld and has shown substantial validity for pre-
dicting a number of outcomes including leader perfor-
mance and effectiveness ratings in addition to follower
satisfaction and motivation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Sash-
kin, 2004). Transformational leaders act as mentors to
their followers by encouraging learning, achievement,
and individual development. They provide meaning, act
as role models, provide challenges, evoke emotions, and
foster a climate of trust. The ve dimensions of transfor-
mational leadership are idealized inuence (attributed),
idealized inuence (behavioral), individual consider-
ation, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimula-
tion (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Idealized inuence (attributed) re-
fers to the socialized charisma of the leader and whether
or not he or she is perceived as being condent and com-
mitted to high-order ideals. Idealized inuence (behavioral)
refers to charismatic actions by the leader that are based
on values, beliefs, or ideals. Individualized consideration is
the extent to which a leader attends to the needs and con-
cerns of his or her followers by providing socio-emotional
support. This involves mentoring followers, maintaining
frequent contact, encouraging followers to self-actualize,
and empowering them. Inspirational motivation is the de-
gree to which leaders inspire and appeal to followers by
setting challenging goals and communicating optimism
with regard to goal attainment. Intellectual stimulation re-
fers to the extent to which leaders engage in behaviors
that cause followers to challenge their assumptions, think
creatively, take risks, and participate intellectually.
Beyond the subdimensions of transformational leader-
ship, Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full range model of leader-
ship also contains three transactional leadership factors:
contingent reward, management-by-exception (active),
and management-by-exception (passive). Contingent re-
ward refers to the degree that leaders operate according to
economic and emotional exchange principles with follow-
ers. The leader sets out clear goals and expectations and re-
wards followers for working toward them. Management-
by-exception (active) is the extent to which a leader actively
monitors followers for mistakes and tries to correct them.
Management-by-exception (passive) refers to leaders who wait
for mistakes to occur before acting to correct them.
A nal style of leadership is laissez-faire leadership,
which refers to the absence of leadership. Laissez-faire
leaders avoid making decisions or taking positions, hes-
itate to take action, abdicate their authority, and are typ-
ically absent when they are needed. Although conceptu-
ally similar to management-by-exception (passive), this
form of leadership results in a lack of action even when
correction is needed.
It has been noted that leaders can display each of these
leadership styles at various times and to various degrees
but that effective leaders are described as displaying
transformational leadership behaviors and transactional
leadership behaviors more frequently than passive and
ineffective non-leadership style behaviors (Avolio, 1999).
Although there has been a great deal of research dem-
onstrating the effectiveness of transformational leadership
behavior in organizations (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), there has
been a relative lack of research investigating the anteced-
ents of these behaviors (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005).
Prior research has linked transformational leadership with
a number of biographical background factors such as par-
ents taking an active interest in the development of their
child, high parental moral standards, and whether or not
individuals enjoyed school and their prior work experience
(Avolio, 1994). In terms of psychological factors, transfor-
mational leadership has been linked with the higher levels
of the traits Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Sta-
bility, and Openness (Bono & Judge, 2004) in addition to
other individual differences such as Need for Power (An-
tonakis & House, 2002; Sashkin, 2004), moral reasoning
(Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002), and
secure attachment style (Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo,
2000). Higher levels of intelligence have also been found to
be related to transformational leadership (Atwater & Yam-
marino, 1993). However, overall, the capacity of individual
differences to predict transformational leadership has been
disappointing. A meta-analysis of the relationship between
transformational leadership and Big Five traits found that
the corrected correlation between these constructs ranged
from a low of .09 for Openness to a high of .23 for Extraver-
sion (Bono & Judge, 2004). As a consequence, it has been
suggested that other, unexplored factors such as EI may
play a prominent role in predicting transformational lead-
ership behaviors (Bass, 2002; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Nye,
2008).
Emotional Intelligence
Although denitions of EI vary widely, it can be
thought of as “the set of abilities (verbal and non-verbal)
that enable a person to generate, recognize, express, un-
derstand, and evaluate their own and others’ emotions in
order to guide thinking and action that successfully cope
with environmental demands and pressures” (Van Rooy

emotion a l intel l i g enCe a n d tr a n sfor m ati o n al a n d tr a nsaC t i o na l le a d e rsHip 7
& Viswesvaran, 2004, p. 72). Research has conceived of EI
as either a trait (Bar- On, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Petrides
& Furnham, 2000; 2001) or an ability (Salovey & Mayer,
1990). As a trait, EI is considered to be an innate charac-
teristic that enables and promotes well-being. Trait EI has
been described as a constellation of emotional self-per-
ceptions at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Pe-
trides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). As an ability, EI is con-
sidered to be important for not only comprehending and
regulating emotions, but also understanding and integrat-
ing them into cognitions.
Because of differences in denitions, researchers
have employed a variety of assessment devices to mea-
sure EI. Typically, research into trait EI has used self-re-
port measures such as the Bar-On (1997) Emotional Quo-
tient Inventory or the Swinburne University Emotional
Intelligence Test (Palmer & Stough, 2001). Whereas trait-
based measures generally depend on participants self-re-
porting their levels of EI, ability-based measures such as
the Mayer-Salovey- Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) require participants
to engage in tasks that assess EI based on performance.
On these measures, participants may be asked to identify
the emotions conveyed by pictures, report on how they
would manage or change emotions in response to hypo-
thetical scenarios, relate emotions to sensory stimuli, or
report on circumstances that would be expected to change
emotional states (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Re-
sponses are then scored according to consensus or expert
ratings of the different options.
While there have been considerable efforts made to
create psychometrically valid measures of EI, there re-
mains no single universally accepted measure of EI, and a
number of criticisms have been made concerning the psy-
chometric properties of the current scales available with
regard to their convergent, discriminant, and predictive
validity. For instance, Brackett and Mayer (2003) com-
pared a number of different EI inventories and found lit-
tle convergence across EI measures. Because of this, some
researchers have questioned whether or not different
measures of EI assess the same construct at all (Matthews,
Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Beyond concerns about cross-
measure comparability, Antonakis (2004) has noted that
in numerous studies, EI measures fail to add incremen-
tally to the prediction of work outcomes above and be-
yond established measures of personality and cognitive
intelligence. Moreover, concerns have been raised about
the susceptibility of trait-based EI measures to faking un-
der high-stakes conditions (Day & Carroll, 2008).
The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Despite concerns about the various EI measurements
themselves, interest in EI remains high, in particular in
the leadership domain. A recent meta-analysis has dem-
onstrated that, across criteria, EI has an operational va-
lidity of .24 with employment-related criteria (Van Rooy
& Viswesvaran, 2004). Anthropologists have noted that
appropriate emotional displays and recognition of the
emotional displays of others are essential for successful
functioning and leadership in primate societies (Boehm,
1999). Moreover, there are a number of theoretical argu-
ments to be made for the relationship between EI and ef-
fective leadership, specically transformational leader-
ship (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005). EI competencies such as
self-condence, self-awareness, transparency, and em-
pathy have been argued to be essential for communi-
cating visionary messages (Goleman et al., 2002). Sosik
and Megarian (1999) suggested several aspects of EI that
would facilitate transformational leadership. First, empa-
thy may be necessary for transformational leaders who
display individual consideration to followers. Second,
emotion management may promote positive affect and
condence in followers expressing and generating new
ideas. Third, self-aware leaders may possess a greater
than average sense of purpose and meaning. Fourth,
those skilled at emotional management are also those
more likely to put the needs of others ahead of their own
personal needs. George (2000) argued that emotional ap-
peals may be used by transformational leaders for inspi-
rational motivation. Others have pointed out that adher-
ence to professional or moral standards of behavior are
common aspects of both EI and transformational leader-
ship (Brown et al., 2006).
Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence will be positively
related to transformational leadership.
While there are less theoretical underpinnings to guide
hypotheses concerning the relationship of transactional
and laissez-faire styles of leadership with EI, it has been
suggested that to provide the effective and equitable ex-
changes characteristic of contingent reward behaviors,
leaders should have abilities and traits associated with el-
evated EI (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000). Because ac-
tive management-by-exception behaviors reect reactive
and routine leadership behaviors that require no insight
or empathy, it is not expected that there would be any re-
lationship with EI (Barling et al., 2000). However, it is ex-
pected that EI would show negative relationships with
passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire lead-
ership behaviors, because individuals with elevated EI are
thought to be higher on initiative and self-efcacy (Gole-
man et al., 2002).
Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence will be positively
related to contingent reward behaviors.
Hypothesis 3: Emotional intelligence will be nega-
tively related to management-by-exception (pas-
sive) and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.

8 Har m s & Cre d é in Jo u r n a l o f le a d e r s hi p & orga n i z ati o n a l stu d i e s 17 (2010)
Method
Literature Search
Possible sources of data for this study were identi-
ed via searches of the PsychINFO (1872-2009), Disser-
tation Abstracts (1980-2009), Business Sources Premier,
and ERIC databases as well as Internet searches for ad-
ditional unpublished data sources. Keywords used for
these searches included emotional intelligence, transforma-
tional leadership, multifactor leadership questionnaire, and
charismatic leadership. The citation lists of all examined
journal articles, technical reports, and dissertations were
also examined for additional promising sources. This ini-
tial search yielded a total of 106 articles, dissertations, and
technical reports.
Studies were only included if they reported zero-or-
der correlations or data from which unbiased estimates of
zero-order correlations could be computed. Studies that
reported statistically signicant correlations, but not non-
signicant correlations, were not included in our analysis;
the inclusion of such studies would result in upwardly bi-
ased meta-analytic estimates of the strength of relation-
ships. We attempted to contact the authors of all studies
that did not present data in a manner that allowed inclu-
sion in our analysis and requested full zero-order correla-
tions for all relevant variables such that their data could
be included.
We also decided to include only studies that reported
data from explicit measures of EI. Some authors (e.g.,
Hoffman & Frost, 2006) have used measures of personal-
ity as proxies for measures of EI, but such studies were
not included in our analysis.
Coding Procedures
All studies were coded by the two authors using strict
coding procedures and coding sheets to ensure a high
level of accuracy and rating agreement. Accuracy checks
revealed near unanimous agreement in the coding of all
relevant variables. Coded information included correla-
tions, reliability estimates, sample size, the source of both
EI and leadership ratings, and the inventories used to as-
sess EI and leadership. Where relevant, we also coded in-
tercorrelations among facet scores of EI and leadership
inventories to allow us to calculate unit-weighted com-
posites for those studies that only reported correlations at
the facet level.
Our nal database was comprised of correlations de-
rived from 62 independent samples, representing data
from 7,145 leaders. The Multifactor Leadership Question-
naire (MLQ, Bass & Avolio, 1995) was the most frequently
used measure of transformational leadership (k= 39) with
only one other inventory, the Leadership Practices Inven-
tory (LPI, Kouzes & Posner, 2003), being used in more
than one study (k=7). A large variety of inventories were
used to assess EI with the most frequently used being the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MS-
CEIT, Mayer et al., 2002) (k = 12), Wong and Law’s (2002)
Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS, k = 7), the Bar-On
(1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory (BOEQI, k = 8), the
Emotional Intelligence Appraisal (k = 3), and the Swin-
burne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT,
Palmer & Stough, 2001) (k = 4).
Analytic Procedure
The Hunter and Schmidt (1990, 2004) psychomet-
ric meta-analytic method was used in this study. This
method allows estimation of the amount of variance at-
tributable to sampling error and artifacts such as unre-
liability in both the predictor (EI) and criterion (leader-
ship) variables, while also providing the best estimates
of the population correlations in the absence of measure-
ment error (i.e., ρ). Because not all studies reported reli-
ability data, we used reliability estimates from those stud-
ies that did report internal consistency estimates to create
artifact distributions for both the predictor and criterion
variables. That is, rather than correct individual correla-
tions using the relevant sample reliability estimates, we
corrected the distribution of correlations using the distri-
butions of reliability estimates for the criterion and pre-
dictor variables (i.e., the interactive meta-analytic proce-
dure; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) to improve the accuracy of
the results. For cases in which subscale composites were
formed, we calculated Mosier (1943) reliability estimates
when subscale intercorrelations were available and used
the mean of the subscale reliabilities if the intercorrela-
tions were not available.
By correcting robs and SDobs for measurement error
and measurement error variability, we were able to ex-
amine whether the variability in observed correlations
is due to systematic artifactual biases or reects the ex-
istence of substantive moderators. Moreover, correcting
SDobs for the occasionally substantial differences in sam-
ple sizes across studies yields a more accurate estimate
of whether or not the differences observed in the litera-
ture are merely the result of sampling error. At the same
time, we note that readers should be cautious when in-
terpreting SDρ estimates as indicators of moderator ef-
fects, especially for meta-analyses with a small number of
studies, as is the case for some of our analyses (Oswald &
Johnson, 1998).
Results
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
Meta-analytic results for the relationship between EI
and transformational leadership are shown in Table 1. A
visual inspection of the data showed a clear difference in
the size of correlations between those studies that relied
on same-source ratings for both EI and transformational

emotion a l intel l i g enCe a n d tr a n sfor m ati o n al a n d tr a nsaC t i o na l le a d e rsHip 9
leadership and those that used multi-source ratings (i.e.,
EI ratings and transformational leadership ratings came
from different sources). The most typical of these stud-
ies were designs that relied on self-ratings for both EI and
transformational leadership (same-source) and designs
that relied on self-ratings of EI and subordinate- or peer-
ratings of transformational leadership (multi-source). We
therefore conducted separate meta-analyses for same-
source and multi-source data.
The relationship between EI and transformational
leadership was moderately strong for correlation; CV =
credibility interval; MLQ= Multifactor Leadership Ques-
tionnaire. The relatively large SDρ value for same-source
ratings suggested the possible presence of substantive
moderator effects, and we therefore also conducted sep-
arate meta-analyses to compare the effects of different
measures on the estimated relationship.
Effect of Leader Rank
A number of studies in our analysis used coaches, prin-
ciples, ministers, nurses, supervisors, and student leaders
for their samples. To test whether or not the relationship
between EI and transformational leadership was moder-
ated by type of leader, we ran separate analyses for those
samples that specically used managers and higher-rank-
ing positions in the business sector and those that used
other types of leaders. The results of these meta-analyses
are presented in Table 1. For leaders with management
positions or higher, there was a strong relationship when
same source ratings were used (k = 33, N = 3,626, ρ = .52),
but a weak relationship when multi-source ratings were
used (k =14, N = 2,013, ρ = .08). These results were only
slightly smaller than those of the full sample.
Effect of Type of Emotional Intelligence Assessed
To evaluate the potential moderating effect of different
types of EI, we conducted separate analyses of the rela-
tionship between leadership style for trait-based and abil-
ity-based measures of EI. The results of these meta-anal-
yses are presented in Table 1. Both types of EI measures
showed markedly lower validity estimates when multi-
source ratings were used. For trait-based measures of EI,
effects for same source ratings showed a strong relation-
ship (k = 38, N = 4,424, ρ = .66) between EI and transfor-
mational leadership, but a weak relationship for multi-
source ratings (k = 20, N = 2,491, ρ = .11). Ability-based
measures of EI showed lower validity estimates than
trait-based measures when same-source ratings were
used (k =10, N = 1,066, ρ = .24) and had no relationship
with transformational leadership when multi-source rat-
ings were used (k = 4, N = 441, ρ = .05).
Effect of Publication Type
It is often assumed that meta-analyses overestimate
validity relationships because they tend to be derived
from published sources with signicant effects. Similar
studies that failed to nd those effects tend to remain un-
Table 1. Relationships Between Overall Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
Source of EI
and TL Ratings k N r¯ ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV
All samples 62 7,145 0.36 0.41 0.26 0.08 0.74
All samples same 47 4,994 0.48 0.56 0.23 0.26 0.85
All samples different 22 2,661 0.11 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.17
MLQ only same 33 3,999 0.47 0.54 0.21 0.27 0.81
MLQ only different 14 1,549 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.21
Managers and higher only same 33 3,626 0.45 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.81
Managers and higher only different 14 2,013 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.10
Ability-based EI Measure same 10 1,066 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24
Ability-based EI Measure different 4 441 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05
Trait-based EI Measure same 38 4,424 0.58 0.66 0.19 0.42 0.91
Trait-based EI Measure different 20 2,491 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.19
Unpublished only same 34 3,619 0.48 0.56 0.25 0.23 0.88
Unpublished only different 10 1,476 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.10
Published only same 11 1,220 0.48 0.55 0.13 0.39 0.72
Published only different 12 1,182 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.26
EI = overall emotional intelligence; TL = overall transformational leadership; k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; Mean r¯
= mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ = standard deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV =
credibility interval; MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

10 Har m s & Cre d é in Jo u r n a l o f le a d e r s hi p & orga n i z ati o n a l stu d i e s 17 (2010)
published and, therefore, meta-analyses “oversample”
larger effects. This is known as the “le drawer” problem.
In this study, the majority of studies used in the overall
meta-analysis were from unpublished sources such as
dissertations. As a consequence, it is unlikely that these
results represent an overestimate of the true relationship
between EI and transformational and transactional lead-
ership. Nevertheless, we tested the effect of publication
source to establish whether there was any bias in the ef-
fect sizes reported in published studies. The results of this
analysis can be found in Table 1. When comparing studies
that used same-source ratings, the results were strikingly
similar for publication types. Both unpublished (k = 35, N
= 4,115, ρ = .59) and published studies (k = 11, N = 1,220,
ρ = .55) showed high effect sizes. However, when multi-
source ratings were used, both unpublished (k = 10, N =
1,476, ρ = .09) and published studies (k = 12, N = 1,182, ρ
= .16) showed substantially lower validity estimates with
transformational leadership.
Effect of Emotional Intelligence Inventory
To assess the potential moderating effect of specic in-
ventories of EI on the relationship between EI and leader-
ship style, we conducted separate analyses of the relation-
ship for each of the most frequently used inventories of EI.
The results of these meta-analyses are presented in Table
2. The number of studies and total sample sizes for each
of these analyses were relatively small and results should
be interpreted with some caution; nevertheless, it appears
that the EI–transformational leadership relationship was
signicantly weaker for the MSCEIT than for other inven-
tories. It should be noted that although SDρ estimates are
zero for some relationships in Table 2, these should not be
interpreted to necessarily mean the complete absence of
variability across situations. Rather, they are an artifact of
the Hunter and Schmidt (1990) meta-analytic method for
analyses involving a small number of studies.
Effect of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Given the preponderance of the MLQ as the measure
of transformational leadership in this area we also con-
ducted meta-analyses of the studies that assessed the rela-
tionship between EI and the MLQ. Results for these meta-
analyses are also presented in Table 1 with the size of
relationships being largely unchanged. For same-source
ratings the relationship was of moderate strength (k =
33, N = 3,999, ρ = .54), while it remained weak for multi-
source ratings (k = 14, N = 1,549, ρ = .09).
In addition to this, we also conducted meta-analyses
of the subscales of transformational leadership and the
other components of the full range model of leadership
assessed by the MLQ. The results for these meta-analyses
are presented in Table 3.
For the facets of transformational leadership, the pat-
tern of results was largely the same as for overall trans-
formational leadership. That is, for same-source data, the
observed relationships were of moderate strength while
being of low strength for multi-source data. EI exhibited
weak relationships with both management-by-exception
(passive) and management-by-exception (active), al-
though the negative relationship with management-by-
exception (passive) was so strong that the 90% credibil-
ity intervals for both same-source and multi-source data
did not contain zero. EI exhibited a moderately strong
negative relationship with Laissez-Faire leadership for
same-source ratings (k = 14, N = 1,304, ρ = –.36) and a
weak relationship for multi-source ratings (k = 8, N =
617, ρ = –.17).
Interrater Agreement
Given the substantial and consistent differences in the
strength of observed relationships for same-source and
multi-source ratings, we decided to examine the level of
agreement between self-ratings and other-ratings in more
Table 2. Relationships Between Transformational Leadership and Emotional Intelligence Moderated by Rating Source and Emotional Intelligence
Measure
Measure Rating Source k N r¯ ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV
MSCEIT Same 10 1,066 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24
MSCEIT Different 4 441 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05
WLEIS Same 6 564 0.49 0.54 0.13 0.37 0.70
WLEIS Different 5 1,099 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.11
BOEQI Same 6 640 0.56 0.67 0.08 0.58 0.77
BOEQI Different 4 267 0.18 0.20 0.12 0.05 0.35
SUEIT Same 4 512 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.37 0.64
EIA Same 3 135 0.45 0.47 0.28 0.11 0.83
No reliability information available from included studies for this analysis. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; r¯ = mean
uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ = standard deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV = credibility
interval; MSCEIT = Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; WLEIS = Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale; BOEQI = Bar-On
Emotional Quotient Inventory; SUEIT = Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test; EIA = Emotional Intelligence Appraisal.

emotion a l intel l i g enCe a n d tr a n sfor m ati o n al a n d tr a nsaC t i o na l le a d e rsHip 11
detail for both EI and transformational leadership. Eight
data sources provided relevant data: Barbuto and Bur-
bach (2006); Buford (2001); Burbach (2004); Danehy (2005);
Elbers (2007); Fox, Staebler Tardino, and Maloney (2008);
Sosik and Megarian (1999); and Wu, Liu, Song, and Liu
(2006).
For these data, we calculated meta-analytic estimates
of interrater agreement self-ratings and other-ratings of
both EI and transformational leadership. The results for
this analysis (see Table 4) show very low levels of agree-
ment between self- and other-ratings of both EI (ρ = .16)
and transformational leadership (ρ = .14).
Discussion
Given the widespread interest surrounding EI as a pre-
dictor of organizational outcomes, and leadership in par-
ticular (Spector, 2005), we examined the relationship be-
tween EI and transformational leadership, along with
other components of the full range model of leadership
(Bass & Avolio, 1997). Recently, it was argued that “lead-
ership theory and research have not adequately consid-
ered how leaders’ moods and emotions inuence their
effectiveness as leaders” (George, 2000, p. 1028). The re-
sulting studies conducted using EI measures to address
Table 3. Relationships Between Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Components and Overall Emotional Intelligence Moderated by
Rating Source
MLQ Subscale Rating Source k N r¯ ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV
Idealized inuence (attributed) same 15 1576 .30 .38 .18 .15 .61
Idealized inuence (attributed) different 2 284 –.00 –.00 .00 –.00 –.00
Idealized inuence (behavioral) same 15 1576 .36 .46 .15 .27 .65
Idealized inuence (behavioral) different 2 284 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Idealized inuence (overall) same 17 1815 .33 .42 .15 .22 .61
Idealized inuence (overall) different 7 730 .08 .10 .00 .10 .10
Individual consideration same 17 1815 .35 .45 .14 .28 .63
Individual consideration different 7 730 .08 .10 .10 –.02 .22
Inspirational motivation same 17 1814 .36 .43 .16 .23 .63
Inspirational motivation different 7 730 .12 .14 .15 –.05 .33
Intellectual stimulation same 17 1815 .32 .40 .15 .21 .59
Intellectual stimulation different 7 730 .08 .10 .00 .10 .10
Contingent reward same 12 1272 .29 .35 .18 .12 .59
Contingent reward different 6 622 .10 .13 .18 –.10 .36
Management by exception (active) same 10 871 –.08 –.10 .07 –.19 .01
Management by exception (active) different 3 333 .02 .02 .00 .02 .02
Management by exception (passive) same 10 871 –.17 –.22 .06 –.30 –.14
Management by exception (passive) different 3 333 –.09 –.12 .00 –.12 –.12
Laissez faire same 13 1204 –.30 –.37 .18 –.60 –.14
Laissez faire different 8 617 –.12 –.17 .00 –.17 –.17
Extra effort same 8 869 .31 .36 .20 .11 .61
Extra effort different 3 304 .14 .18 .15 –.01 .37
Effectiveness same 8 869 .32 .37 .17 .15 .60
Effectiveness different 3 304 .10 .14 .06 .06 .21
Satisfaction same 8 869 .31 .35 .20 .09 .61
Satisfaction different 3 304 .09 .12 .10 –.01 .25
k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; ; r¯ = mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ =
standard deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV = credibility interval.
Table 4. Relationships Between Self and Other Ratings for Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
Rating Construct k N r¯ ρ SDρ 10% CV 90% CV
Emotional intelligence 3 175 .15 .16 .00 .16 .16
Transformational leadership 4 202 .12 .14 .05 .07 .21
k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; r¯ = mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated true score correlation; SDρ = standard
deviation of estimated true score correlation; CV = credibility interval.

12 Har m s & Cre d é in Jo u r n a l o f le a d e r s hi p & orga n i z ati o n a l stu d i e s 17 (2010)
this decit have produced somewhat mixed results. Some
have taken the positive ndings as proof that EI was sig-
nicantly related to transformational leadership (Daus &
Ashkanasy, 2005), whereas others remain entirely skepti-
cal of the validity of the construct of EI itself, much less its
role in leadership outcomes (Locke, 2005). In such a situ-
ation, where the results of empirical research are not en-
tirely clear, meta-analyses can offer insight into the possi-
ble reasons for such confusion in addition to providing a
more precise estimate of the relationships in question.
Overall, our results linking EI with transformational
leadership variables were not as strong or as compelling
as advocates of EI testing predicted. Although we found
a moderate relationship between EI and transformational
leadership behaviors, this was only present for studies
where results may have been inated by the methodolog-
ical confounds of common method bias and socially de-
sirable responding. In studies where the raters of EI and
transformational leadership were not the same, the rela-
tionship was small but signicant, with effect sizes com-
parable to those found between personality traits and
transformational leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004).
Across the various facets of transformational leader-
ship, the results were broadly the same with studies us-
ing same-source raters showing moderate effects and
studies using multiple raters showing small or nonsig-
nicant effects. For other components of the full range
model of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997), the results of
our meta-analysis broadly supported our hypotheses.
Contingent reward had a positive relationship with EI at
comparable levels to that of transformational leadership.
Management-by-exception (active) showed no signicant
relationship with EI, and the passive forms of leadership,
management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership
were negatively related to EI.
Where data were available, we tested to see whether
the type of EI being assessed or the use of a particular EI
measure had an effect on the validity estimates. Overall,
trait measures of EI were more strongly related to trans-
formational leadership for both same-source and multi-
source ratings than were ability-based measures of EI.
The Bar-On (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory had the
highest validity estimate for both methods. Both trait- and
ability-based measures showed similar reductions in va-
lidity when multiple sources for raters were used.
We also tested whether or not organizational rank of
the leader being assessed affected the validity of EI rat-
ings. Results showed that there was little difference in
validity estimates when only those who were ranked
manager or above were considered. One other potential
moderator, source of publication, also failed to show any
signicant effects on the results.
It was noted that the self–other agreement for both
EI and transformational leadership was quite low. This
was not entirely unexpected as prior studies of self–other
agreement on transformational leadership have found
similar or even lower levels of consensus (Atwater &
Yammarino, 1992). In a similar way, prior research has
demonstrated that observable traits, such as extraversion,
show higher levels of consensus across raters than do
less observable traits such as emotional stability (Funder,
1995; John & Robins, 1993). Moreover, Watson and col-
leagues (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000) have shown
that self–other agreement for positive and negative emo-
tions is typically lower than that of Big Five traits. Low
agreement across sources is not indicative of lack of va-
lidity. Sources can differ in their estimates or attributions
of behavior and still show validity if they are using differ-
ent cues (Funder, 1995). It has been argued that one of the
reasons that there is seldom much agreement on ratings
of leadership effectiveness is that different kinds of raters
use different criteria (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994).
For instance, subordinates tend to base their assessments
of leader effectiveness on the character and trustworthi-
ness of the leader, whereas their upper level supervisors
base their ratings of effectiveness on technical compe-
tence and productivity. Nonetheless, the lack of consen-
sus across raters of each of the constructs of interest could
partially explain the lower validity estimates seen in stud-
ies where multiple raters were used.
Although these results fail to support some of the more
extreme claims of EI proponents concerning the potential
role of EI in effective leadership, they did not rule out the
possibly that EI may play an important role. Although
there have been a number of studies conducted assess-
ing the role of EI in transformational leadership, very few
have actually been conducted using each of the different
measures of EI. Moreover, for each measure of EI, almost
no studies have been conducted using a multimethod
framework, so comparisons of effect size estimates across
methods are not entirely reliable. As newer EI assessment
tools are developed and older tests are rened with cri-
teria prediction in mind, it could be expected that valid-
ities will improve. Indeed, it has been pointed out that it
is unfair to judge the current state of research in EI using
results from early measures (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005).
Nevertheless, these results do reect the current state of
research aimed at linking EI to both transformational and
transactional leadership.
It must also be noted that this meta-analysis has limi-
tations that may have affected the results. One poten-
tial problem is that, to date, there exists no well-designed
study that validates the proposed EI–leadership relation-
ship (Antonakis et al., 2009). For example, the majority of
the studies that were used in this meta-analysis relied on
self-reports as both predictors and criteria. As shown in the
results of this study, this has resulted in greatly inated va-
lidity estimates of the EI–leadership relationship compared
with studies that used a more rigorous multimethod ap-
proach and the passive forms of leadership, management-

emotion a l intel l i g enCe a n d tr a n sfor m ati o n al a n d tr a nsaC t i o na l le a d e rsHip 13
by-exception (passive) and laissez-faire leadership were
negatively related to EI. In addition to this, the majority of
studies used in this investigation were from unpublished
sources such as dissertations and may have lacked the
methodological rigor seen in peer-reviewed publications.
Although this is a potential concern, we did not nd sub-
stantially different validity estimates across the two types
of sources. A related concern is that there may be a num-
ber of unpublished studies that we were unable to include
in this study and that these studies may have shown diver-
gent effects from those reported here. Although this is also
a concern, we note again that the majority of studies in this
meta-analysis were from unpublished sources and that no
substantial difference was found between published and
unpublished sources.
Despite these generally weak results, this study does
suggest a number of theoretical implications for further
research on the topic of the potential effect of EI on trans-
formational leadership or any number of other leader-
ship outcomes. First, it is essential that researchers select
their criteria appropriately (Landy, 2005) and assess phe-
nomena using the most relevant source (Roberts, Harms,
Smith, Wood, & Webb, 2006). EI, which occurs mostly
within the individual, should be assessed using self-re-
ports or performance data. Transformational leadership
measures, on the other hand, are behavioral in nature
and best studied from the point of view of those who are
meant to be affected by them. As a consequence, further
research needs to focus more on using multiple ratings
sources to establish an accurate picture of the nature
of this relationship. Second, only in rare cases was EI
tested for incremental validity above and beyond mea-
sures of intelligence and personality. Given that previ-
ous research has demonstrated that measures of EI often
fail to add validity beyond such measures (Antonakis,
2004; Antonakis et al., 2009), further research aiming to
test the relationship between EI and leadership would
benet from such controls. Third, only a few of the stud-
ies included in this meta-analysis were conducted out-
side the United States and almost none outside the Eng-
lish-speaking world. Further research needs to make
efforts to test the validity of EI and related constructs
in different cultural contexts to establish the universal-
ity and possible cultural moderators of the phenomena
under investigation (Sadri, Weber, & Gentry, 2008). Fi-
nally, further research should look for possible modera-
tors of the relationship between EI and transformational
leadership such as the intensity of emotional displays or
the role of gender and age of leaders and followers.
In terms of practical implications, this study suggests
that the claims made by EI proponents are largely over-
stated, in particular those who market EI assessment tools
as management screening or training devices. It has even
been suggested that “given the sparse empirical evidence,
it is unethical and unconscionable to use these measures
in applied settings” (Antonakis et al., 2009, p. 248). In
fact, even noted proponents of EI have stated that “man-
agement practitioners need to take care that they do not
overemphasize the predictive value of emotional intelli-
gence in workplace settings” (Jordan, Ashton-James, &
Ashkanasy, 2006, p. 205). Given these concerns and the
limited evidence of the effectiveness of EI instruments as
predictors of effective leadership styles, we would sug-
gest that EI assessment devices be limited to usage for en-
couraging self-awareness and self-reection in managers
until better EI measures can be developed and validated.
In summary, the results of this study provide the rst
meta-analytic estimate of the relationship between EI and
transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.
Results indicate generally moderate validities when com-
mon method variance is present and low validities when
common method variance is absent. EI was positively re-
lated to the various dimensions of transformational lead-
ership and contingent reward behaviors but was either
unrelated or negatively related to management-by-excep-
tion or laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Furthermore,
we found that trait-based assessments of EI demonstrated
higher levels of validity than did ability-based measures
and that there was little agreement across raters for rat-
ings of either EI or transformational leadership. Given the
preponderance of evidence, it is evident that claims of EI
being the core of transformational leadership were over-
stated, but this study does demonstrate that EI may con-
tribute to successful leadership at some level.
References
References with an asterisk [
*
] indicate studies included in the
meta-analyses.
Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will
not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “Big
Five”: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis,
12, 171-182.
* Antonakis, J. (2009). Which traits matter for the full-range
leadership model? Paper presented at the European Con-
gress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Santiago.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N., & Dasborough, M. (2009). Does
leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 247-261.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. (2002). The full-range leadership
theory: The way forward. Transformational and Charismatic
Leadership, 2, 3-33.
Ashkanasy, N., & Daus, C. (2005). Rumors of the death of emo-
tional intelligence in organizational behavior are greatly
exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441-452.
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self-other agree-
ment on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of
leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 45, 141-164.

14 Har m s & Cre d é in Jo u r n a l o f le a d e r s hi p & orga n i z ati o n a l stu d i e s 17 (2010)
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1993). Personal attributes as
predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of
military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645-668.
Avolio, B. (1994). The “natural”: Some antecedents to transfor-
mational leadership. International Journal of Public Adminis-
tration, 17, 1559-1581.
Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital
forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
* Bailie, K., & Ekermans, G. (2006). An exploration of the util-
ity of a self-report emotional intelligence measure. E-Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology: Emotional Intelligence, 2, 3-11.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-
i): A Test of Emotional Intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
* Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelli-
gence of transformational leaders: A eld study of elected
ofcials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51-64.
* Barfoot, D. S. (2007). Antecedents of leader–follower trust in a
Christian church organization. Unpublished dissertation, Re-
gent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
* Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transforma-
tional leadership and emotional intelligence: An explor-
atory study. Leadership and Organization Development Jour-
nal, 21, 157-161.
Bass, B. (1998). Two decades of research and development in
transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
Bass, B. (2002). Cognitive, social and emotional intelligence
of transformational leaders. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy,
& F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership
(pp. 105-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1997). Full range leadership development:
Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo
Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
* Bellamy, A. R., & Bellamy, A. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership: Recursive leadership processes
within the context of employee work attitudes. Paper presented
at the Midwest Academy of Management.
* BeShears, R. S. (2004). The ability of emotional intelligence to
predict transformational leadership when personality, affect,
and cognitive ability are controlled. Unpublished dissertation,
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitar-
ian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2004). Personality and transformational
and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.
Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. (2003). Convergent, discriminant,
and incremental validity of competing measures of emo-
tional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29, 1147-1158.
* Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. (2006). Does
emotional intelligence—as measured by the EQI—inu-
ence transformational leadership and/or desirable out-
comes? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27,
330-351.
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leader-
ship and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for
an increased understanding of interpersonal inuence.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871.
* Buford, B. A. (2001). Management effectiveness, personality,
leadership, and emotional intelligence: A study of the validity ev-
idence of the emotional quotient inventory. Unpublished dis-
sertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
* Burbach, M. E. (2004). Testing the relationship between emo-
tional intelligence and full-range leadership as moderated by cog-
nitive style and self-concept. Unpublished dissertation, Uni-
versity of Nebraska, Lincoln.
* Butler, C. J., & Chinowsky, P. S. (2006). Emotional intelli-
gence and leadership behavior in construction executives.
Journal of Marketing in Engineering, 7, 119-125.
* Coetzee, C., & Schaap, P. (2005). The relationship between
leadership behavior, outcomes of leadership and emo-
tional intelligence. South African Journal of Industrial Psy-
chology, 31, 31-38.
* Condren, T., Martin, B., & Huchinson, S. (2006). What does
emotional intelligence and gender have to do with leader-
ship effectiveness . . . Or does it? Advancing Women in Lead-
ership On-line Journal, 21.
* Cook, R. (2006). The effects of emotional intelligence on princi-
pals’ leadership performance. Unpublished dissertation, Mon-
tana State University.
* Curry, S. M. (2004). Examining the relationship between self-
perceived emotional intelligence and leadership in school princi-
pals. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University, Virginia
Beach, VA.
* D’Alessio, F. (2006). The inuence of personality, critical think-
ing, and emotional intelligence in Peruvian managers’ leader-
ship. Unpublished dissertation, University of Phoenix.
* Danehy, L. S. (2005). The relationship between emotional intelli-
gence and leadership in NCAA division III college coaches. Un-
published dissertation, Wilmington College, Wilmington,
OH.
Daus, C., & Ashkanasy, N. (2005). The case for the ability-
based model of emotional intelligence in organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 453-466.
Day, A., & Carroll, S. (2008). Faking emotional intelligence (EI):
Comparing response distortion on ability and trait-based
measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 761-784. v*
Donahue, R., & Stevensen, L. (2006, July 1-4). The relation-
ship between emotional intelligence and individual advancement
and the mediating role of transformational leadership. Paper
presented at the ACREW Conference, Tuscany, Italy.
* Downey, L. A., Papageorgiou, V., & Stough, C. (2006). Exam-
ining the relationship between leadership, emotional intel-
ligence, and intuition in senior female managers. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 27, 250-264.

emotion a l intel l i g enCe a n d tr a n sfor m ati o n al a n d tr a nsaC t i o na l le a d e rsHip 15
* Elbers, N. (2007). Charismatic leadership, emotional intelligence
and values in organizations. Unpublished dissertation, Eras-
mus University, Rotterdam.
* Ellis, M. (2007). The bilateral dimensions of transformational lead-
ership in selected university constituents: An empirical study
within the context of institutions of higher education. Unpub-
lished dissertation, Capella University.
* Fox, K., Staebler Tardino, V., & Maloney, P. (2008). The im-
pact of ability and trait based emotional intelligence on transfor-
mational leadership behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, San Francisco, CA.
Funder, D. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A
realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.
* Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship
between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior
level managers. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 23, 68-78.
George, J. M. (2000, August). Emotions and leadership: The
role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8),
1027-1054.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leader-
ship: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
* Groves, K. S. (2005a). Gender differences in social and emo-
tional skills and charismatic leadership. Journal of Leader-
ship and Organizational Studies, 11, 30-46.
* Groves, K. S. (2005b). Linking leader skills, follower atti-
tudes, and contextual variables via an integrated model
of charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 31,
255-277.
* Groves, K. S. (2006). Leader emotional expressivity, vision-
ary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 27, 566-583.
* Hartseld, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of transformational
leadership: Effects of spirituality, emotional intelligence, and
self-efcacy. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University,
Virginia Beach, VA.
* Hayashi, A., & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor leaders’ emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership. Journal of Ex-
periential Education, 28, 222-242.
* Higgs, M., & Aitken, P. (2003). An exploration of the rela-
tionship between emotional intelligence and leadership
potential. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 814-823.
Hoffman, B. J., & Frost, B. C. (2006). Multiple intelligences of
transformational leaders: An empirical investigation. Inter-
national Journal of Manpower, 27, 37-51.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know
about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American
Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
recting error and bias in research ndings (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
* Hur, Y. H. (2009). Optimizing managerial effectiveness
through emotional intelligence. Unpublished dissertation,
University of Twente, The Netherlands.
* Jacques, F. (2002). An examination of the relationship between
self-differentiation and transformational leadership, through the
lens of emotional intelligence. Unpublished dissertation, Uni-
versity of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
John, O., & Robins, R. (1993). Determinants of interjudge
agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, ob-
servability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of
the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.
Jordan, P., Ashton-James, C., & Ashkanasy, N. (2006). Evaluat-
ing the claims: Emotional intelligence in the workplace. In
K. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelligence: What are
the problems and how can they be xed? (pp. 189-210). Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transac-
tional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative va-
lidity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
* Kanne, D. W. (2005). Emotional intelligence and the transforma-
tional learning journey of 30 senior pastors who participated in
LEAD. Unpublished dissertation, Regent University, Vir-
ginia Beach, VA.
Kemper, C. L. (1999). EQ vs. IQ. Communication World, 16,
15- 22.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). Leadership Practices Inventory
(3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Landy, F. (2005). Some historical and scientic issues related
to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 26, 411-424.
* Leban, W. V. (2003). The relationship between leader behavior
and emotional intelligence of the project manager and the suc-
cess of complex projects. Unpublished dissertation, Benedic-
tine University, Lisle, IL.
* Legier, J. T. (2007). Assessing leadership effectiveness: The rela-
tionship between emotional intelligence and leadership behaviors
on group and organizational performance. Unpublished disser-
tation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on de-
veloping emotional intelligence. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 8, 225-237.
Locke, E. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid con-
cept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
* Lugo, M. (2007). An examination of cultural and emotional intel-
ligences in the development of global transformational leadership
skills. Unpublished dissertation, Walden University.
* Macik-Frey, M. (2007). Communication centered approach to lead-
ership, the relationship of interpersonal communication competence
to transformational leadership and emotional intelligence. Unpub-
lished dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington.

16 Har m s & Cre d é in Jo u r n a l o f le a d e r s hi p & orga n i z ati o n a l stu d i e s 17 (2010)
* Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership
style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychol-
ogy, 17, 387-404.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional in-
telligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey- Ca-
ruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) users manual. To-
ronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelli-
gence: Theory, ndings, and implications. Psychological In-
quiry, 15, 197-215.
* Meredith, C. L. (2007). The relationship of emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership behavior in non-prot executive
leaders. Unpublished dissertation, Capella University.
* Middleton, K. (2005). The service-learning project as a sup-
portive context for charismatic leadership emergence in
nascent leaders. Academy of Management Learning and Edu-
cation, 4, 295-308.
Mosier, C. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite.
Psychometrika, 8, 161-168.
* Moss, S., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower
regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior:
The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Dif-
ferences, 27, 93-107.
* Murensky, C. L. (2000). The relationships between emotional in-
telligence, personality, critical thinking ability, and organizational
leadership performance at upper levels of management. Unpub-
lished dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
* Nishiyama, Y. (2006). Gender, emotional intelligence and lead-
ership styles of Japanese managers. Unpublished dissertation,
University of Hawaii.
* Nowack, K. M. (2009). Unpublished raw data. (Available
from Envisia Learning, Santa Monica, CA)
Nye, C. (2008). The powers to lead. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Oswald, F. L., & Johnson, J. W. (1998). On the robustness, bias,
and stability of statistics from meta-analysis of correlation
coefcients: Some initial Monte Carlo ndings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 164-178.
Palmer, B., & Stough, C. (2001). Workplace SUEIT: Swinburne
University Emotional Intelligence Test—Descriptive report.
Melbourne: Swinburne University, Organisational Psy-
chology Research Unit, Australia.
* Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emo-
tional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 22, 5-10.
Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional struc-
ture of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 29, 313-320.
Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:
Psychometric investigation with reference to established
trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.
Petrides, K., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of
trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. Brit-
ish Journal of Psychology, 98, 273-289.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transfor-
mational leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 11, 267-289.
* Purkable, T. L. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership style,
and coping mechanisms of executives. Unpublished disserta-
tion, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.
* Reed, T. G. (2005). Elementary principal emotional intelli-
gence, leadership behavior, and openness: An exploratory study.
Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University,
Columbus.
Roberts, B. W., Harms, P. D., Smith, J., Wood, D., & Webb, M.
(2006). Methods in personality psychology. In M. Eid, & E.
Diener (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment: A mul-
timethod perspective (pp. 321-335). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
* Rubin, R. S. (2003). Paddling upstream in leadership research:
Exploring antecedents of transformational leadership behav-
ior. Unpublished dissertation, Saint Louis University, St.
Louis, MO.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading
from within: The effects of emotion recognition and per-
sonality on transformational leadership. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 48, 845-858.
Sadri, G., Weber, T., & Gentry, W. (2008). Empathy as a cross-
cultural leadership behavior: An empirical analysis. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagi-
nation, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches.
In J. Antonakis, A. Ciancolo, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The na-
ture of leadership (pp. 171-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
* Schechter, A. F. (2005). The inuence of transformational leader-
ship, emotional intelligence, trust, meaning and intention to quit
on organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished disserta-
tion, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
* Schmitz, S. A. (2004). The relationship between emotional intelli-
gence and leadership practices in non-prot human service orga-
nizations. Unpublished dissertation, Northcentral Univer-
sity, Prescott Valley, AZ.
* Schulte, M. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence: A predictive or de-
scriptive construct in ascertaining leadership style or a new
name for old knowledge. Unpublished dissertation, Our Lady
of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX.
Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Thorsteinsson, E., Bhullar, N., &
Rooke, S. (2007). Meta-analytic investigation of the rela-
tionship between emotional intelligence and health. Cogni-
tion and Emotion, 16, 769-785.
* Sivanathan, N., & Fekken, G. C. (2002). Emotional intel-
ligence, moral reasoning, and transformational leader-
ship. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23,
198-204.

emotion a l intel l i g enCe a n d tr a n sfor m ati o n al a n d tr a nsaC t i o na l le a d e rsHip 17
Sosik, J. J., & Megarian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader
emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-
other agreement on transformational leadership percep-
tions. Group Organization Management, 24, 367-390.
Spector, P. (2005). Introduction: Emotional intelligence. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26, 409-410.
* Srivsastatava, K. B. L., & Bharamanaikar, S. R. (2004). Emo-
tional intelligence and effective leadership behavior. Na-
tional Academy of Psychology, India, 49, 107-113.
* Tang, H. V. (2007). A cross-cultural investigation of academic
leaders’ emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness in
Taiwan and the United States. Unpublished dissertation,
Texas A&M University–Kingsville and Texas A&M Uni-
versity– Corpus Christi.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C.
(2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 304-311.
Van Rooy, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelli-
gence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive valid-
ity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65,
71-95.
* Vrba, M. (2007). Emotional intelligence skills and leadership
behavior in a sample of South African rst-line managers.
Management Dynamics, 16, 25-35.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agree-
ment in personality and affectivity: The role of acquain-
tanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 546-558.
* Webb, S. (2005). Examining emotional intelligence and leader-
ship. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Flor-
ida, Tampa.
Weinberger, L. A. (2004, March 3-7). An examination of the rela-
tionship between emotional intelligence and leadership style. Pa-
per presented at the Academy of Human Resource Devel-
opment International Conference, Austin, TX.
Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and fol-
lower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude:
An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.
* Wu, W., Liu, Y., Song, L. J., & Liu, J. (2006). Effects of organi-
zational leadership on employee commitment: The moder-
ating role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Psychology in
Chinese Societies, 7, 283-306.
‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ › › › › › ›
P. D. Harms is an Assistant Professor of Management at the
University of Nebraska–Lincoln. His primary research in-
terests include personality and leadership development,
status attainment, power motivation, and the psychologi-
cal experience of leadership.
Marcus Credé is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the
State University of New York at Albany. His primary re-
search interests include non-cognitive predictor of perfor-
mance in academic and work settings, the structure of such
non-cognitive predictors and the nature of performance, as
well as issues relating to the measurement of non-cognitive
attributes and performance.