Leadership and Emotional Intelligence

to also include personality styles. For example, Cable and Judge (2003) explored both
the managers’ own personality and the ability to influence based on his or her leaders’
style. This perspective of managing ‘up’ was rather novel, as most leadership research
centers on managing ‘down’ (i.e., with subordinates). Using grounded theory on
personality models, the Cable and Judge (2003) research considered extraversion,
openness to experience, emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness – all in
the context of influence tactics. Their research yielded mixed results, in terms of the
degrees to which a given personality style impacted influence success. Since all five
attributes of this personality model contain hues of EI (as defined earlier), crafting a
leader development model is not an algorithmic venture. Insights into using observation
as a tool to ascertain “signals about what tactics would be most effective, or how targets
prefer to be influenced” were offered (Cable & Judge, 2003, p. 210). This aspect is
common to other leadership theories; for instance, taking personality preferences into
account also was accorded recognition in the LMX context (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
Person-role example: Goal orientation theory. This is an outgrowth of path-
goal theory, which is one of the oldest leadership domains. Path-goal theory focuses on
motivating subordinates to get the work done (Northouse, 2007). Goal orientation
focuses on “developmental assignments aimed to increase managers’ knowledge and
skill” (DeGeest & Brown, 2011, p. 165). Development of the leader occurs in the context
of experiential learning and involves a distinctly cognitive focus. Secondary learning
outcomes focus on business skills. Interpersonal proficiency is of least import. In the
aggregate, “this taxonomy of leadership skills provides the framework for the
development ... across hierarchical levels” (DeGeest & Brown, 2011, p. 161). Unlike the