Leadership and Emotional Intelligence

(Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). When considering the chronological
emergence of leadership theories, LMX was one of the first to emphasize the leader:
follower interaction (Northouse, 2007). Initial versions of LMX were criticized for the
lack of empirical evidence (Northouse, 2007). To expand the empirical knowledge base,
Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, and Wayne (2006) conducted a LMX-based longitudinal study on
the moderating role of extraversion, in determining how new executives should be
developed. Since LMX is a theory of interaction, “its effects should be contingent on the
extent to which employees interact effectively with others” (Bauer et al., p. 301).
However, the reason for the interaction in that research was not to promote a culture of
EI; rather, performance and turnover intention were factors indicating executive success.
Accordingly, EI was not a focus of executive development. In this manner, LMX and
goal orientation theories share a business strategy platform. That stated, Bauer et al.
(2006) noted that building effective relationships was not only the key to unlocking LMX
but was also an instrumental development tool. As Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) pointed
out, though, building effective relationships through the LMX lens is not a given: LMX
can produce strangers, acquaintances, or partnerships. As such, LMX “runs counter to
the basic human value of fairness” and “fails to explain how high-quality leader-member
exchanges are created” (Northouse, 2007, p. 156). Yukl (2010) noted that future
longitudinal research focused on how LMX relationships evolve may have important
implications for practice.
Leadership as a process example: Transformational and transactional
leadership theories. The literature researched for this paper recognized distinctions
between the two theories but, in terms of leader development strategies, reliably bound