resuscitate heretofore chronically neglected research interest in the Federal government
domain (Kelman, 2007; Moore, 1995).
EI and Experiential/Situated Learning
(particularly as regards Federal government leaders) has thus far been sparse and, as
important, remains critical. The contribution of the current study can expand our
understanding of how leader development enables emotionally-sound performance
outcomes in support of our Nation’s security and stability. Lessons from the Fort Hood,
Texas shootings acknowledge the crucial role of EI and leadership, and the resultant need
to “be alert to [employees’] emotional balance ... and respond when [they] appear at
risk” (Gates, 2010, p. 7). Based on a meta-analysis of literature, Bierema (2008) asserted
that EI “results in lower absenteeism, better psychological health, higher commitment,
clearer role boundaries, higher levels of responsibility and performance of direct reports,
higher satisfaction, and better coping skills” (pp. 55-56).
There is little doubt that developing EI remains paramount to organizations. As
purported by Rude, Shuck, and Scully-Russ (2011), what seems striking is the shear lack
of evidence-based theoretical and conceptual frameworks from which EI can be
developed, and the void of understanding around how development fits with EI and
leadership. The foregoing discourse portends implications for developing individual
leaders. Three inferences emerge: (a) implication for research on EI; (b) research on the
application of leader(ship) development; and (c) integration of leadership and EI (to
include the Federal government context). Practical contributions of how to develop EI
within leaders is under-represented within academe. By infusing EI with leadership
development in the Federal government, the problems described above may be