increased discipline includes aligning developmental philosophies with an underlying
theoretical foundation.
2. Develop EI in Leaders Using a Scholar-Practitioner Orientation
Chapter 2, a major criticism of leader development programs is that they are not
theoretically grounded (Riggio & Lee, 2007; Yukl, 2010), which may contribute to the
perspectives that “relatively little is known about exactly what gets developed in leader
development” (Day & Halpin, 2004, p. 5) and “there appears to be little evidence-based
guidance on how to best develop leaders” (Allen & Hartman, 2008, p. 16). This study
was grounded on experiential and situated learning theories, and a transformative EI
learning model. In a similar manner, developmental activities should be predicated on
theoretical grounding. Bridging the chasm between scholars and practitioners benefits
both camps (Van de Ven, 2007). This study recommends that development consider a
constructivist and interpretivist framework, in order for participants to experience
development more fully and so that developmental benefits are more visible.
3. Foster a Culture that Promotes Learning about EI
organizations should advocate a culture that inculcates workplace learning about EI and
its impact on leaders. This study chronicled participant observations that culture can fuel
or stymie the recognition and acceptance of emotions in the workplace and, as a
consequence, whether and how EI can be productively harnessed. The challenge for
cultural acceptance of EI and its development is that it is insufficient to articulate such an
imperative. Conversely and as some participants in this study suggested, leaders must
model desired cultural change by modeling their own EI. The politically-charged
landscape of the study’s Federal government context (Bryson & Kelley, 1978;