Leadership and Emotional Intelligence

As a first step, theoretical assertions on the impact of EI “far exceed the scholarly
support” (Weinberger, 2009, p. 766). Claims made about the alleged utility of EI and its
ability to solve intractable organizational problems is wide yet, in many cases, research
fails to support accepted conceptual claims. The current challenge within the EI domain
rests in the wide variance of conceptualization, definition, and subsequent measurement.
Research on EI (Muyia & Kacirek, 2009; Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2003; Weinberger,
2009) consistently points to the need for additional empirical study for assessing
espoused relationships with (and value of) EI. This study adds to that body of empirical
work.
Second, within the application of leader(ship) development, research has at times
taken an atheoretical approach when it comes to people development. For example, when
some researchers examine the concept of leadership, they refer to assumptions that may
or may not relate to theoretical epistemological underpinnings of the leader(ship)
construct or even be marginally related with hypothesized outcomes. Consequently,
rather than subscribing to a framework for research, some scholars refer simply to
leadership as a position, or as mission focus. This is problematic and confounds efforts to
focus leader development. As outlined in Figure 2. 5 , mission context and EI focus should
be examined in light of the application context as well as be guided by the literature.
Third, at present, the extent to which leaders can be developed to increase EI
remains unclear. Although EI skills for leaders (social awareness, empathy, decision
making, and personal leadership) were identified, the research on how to develop those
skills is not robust. Complicating the matter fully, little agreement exists about what can
be taught, versus what must be innate (e.g., nature verses nurture) when teaching