The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

rchive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP RESEARCH NOTE

18,8
An exploration of the
814
relationship between
emotional intelligence and
leadership potential
Malcolm Higgs and Paul Aitken
Henley Management College, Greenlands, Oxfordshire, UK
Keywords Public services, Leadership, New Zealand
Abstract This research note explores the extent to which the claims for the importance of
emotional intelligence as a predictor of leadership potential are borne out. The paper reports the
results of an exploratory study of a leadership development centre in which participants also
completed an established measure of emotional intelligence – the EIQ Managerial. The sample
comprised 40 senior managers working within the New Zealand Public Service (NZPS). The results
provide some evidence to support the relationships between EI and leadership potential asserted
from both a theoretical standpoint and from other studies of leadership performance. The
limitations of sample size are clearly identified. The results do however, indicate that further
research using both larger and more diverse samples may be warranted.

Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 18 No. 8, 2003
pp. 814-823
q MCB UP Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940310511890
Introduction
Over the last 50 years organisations have been obsessed with identifying the
traits or characteristics associated with effective leadership (Kets de Vries,
1993; Higgs, 2002; Parry and Meindl, 2002). This search has been underpinned
by a belief that effective leaders deliver effective organisational performance
(Goffee and Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001; Conger and Toegel, 2002).
While much leadership research has focussed on “proving” this relationship,
results showing a consistent correlation have been sparse (Kets de Vreis, 1993;
Chaudry, 2000). However, more indirect relationships are reasonably well
established in terms of leaders impacting on a productive climate
(Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995); developing the capability of followers (Conner, 1999)
and building high levels of employee commitment (Kets de Vries and
Florent-Treacy, 2002).The search for the traits of effective leaders has been
combined with a long period of research into identifying leadership potential
(Thornton and Byham, 1982). One of the most throughly researched methods of
identifying leadership potential has been the assessment centre (Woodruffe,
1993; Thornton and Byham, 1982).
More recently it has been asserted that whichever model of leadership is
examined it is underpinned by the need of leaders to possess emotional
intelligence (EI) (Goleman, 1998, 2000). However, until recently little evidence
had been presented to demonstrate relationships between EI and leadership EI and
(Higgs, 2002; Higgs and Rowland, 2002).This research note draws together leadership
thinking on the assessment and development of leadership potential and this potential
relationship. The authors report a study which presents data demonstrating
relationships between development centre potential ratings of individuals and
self-assessments ratings of their EI using a validated instrument.
815
Development centres and leadership potential
Organisations have been concerned with the identification and development of
leadership potential for more than 30 years (Campbell et al., 1970; Thornton and
Byham, 1982; Moses and Byham, 1982). These related to the development of
talent to fulfil succession requirements and ensure continuity in organisational
leadership and performance (Campbell et al., 1970). The inadequacies of
established processes led to the evolution of assessment centres as a means of
identifying future leadership potential (Thornton and Byham, 1982; Dulewicz,
1991). Studies have consistently demonstrated the predictive validity of
assessment centres (Thornton and Byham, 1982; Woodruffe, 1993; Dulewicz,
1991). Thus it is evident that the “technology” is capable of identifying
leadership potential with a reasonably high level of validity.

Emotional intelligence and leadership

In exploring the nature of leadership within organisations it is interesting to
note that there is a growing literature relating to emotional aspects of
organisational life (Fineman, 1997) and the challenges to the dominance of the
analytical/rational Weberian rooted paradigm (Fineman, 1997; Goffee and
Jones, 2000; Higgs and Dulewicz, 1999). While the related concept of EI is the
subject of some controversy (Woodruffe, 1993) there is an increasing stream of
research providing clear support for its validity (Higgs and Dulewicz, 1999;
Higgs et al., 2001). It is not within the scope of this paper to explore the concept
in detail. While definitions of the construct vary (Woodruffe, 1993) there
appears to be consensus on two aspects, namely self-awareness and emotional
management. Illustrative of the scope of EI are the elements identified by Higgs
and Dulewicz (1999):
.
Self-awareness. Awareness of your own feelings and the ability to
recognise and manage these.
.
Emotional resilience. Ability to perform well and consistently in a range of
situations and when under pressure.
.
Motivation. Drive and energy which you have to achieve results, balance
short and long-term goals and pursue your goals in the face of challenge
and rejection.
.
Interpersonal sensitivity. Ability to be aware of the needs and feelings of
others and to use this effectively in interacting with them.
JMP .
Influence. Ability to persuade others to change their viewpoint on a
18,8 problem, issue or decision.
.
Intuitiveness. Ability to use insight to arrive at and implement decisions
when faced with ambiguous or incomplete information.
.
Conscientiousness and integrity. Ability to act consistently and in line
816 with understood ethical requirements.
A significant range of literature has provided evidence for the reliability
and validity of this framework (Higgs et al., 2001). In addition to
assertions, and evidence, relating EI to individual performance and success,
others have been made that EI is strongly linked to effective leadership
(Goleman, 1996; Goleman, 1998; Bennis, 1989; Sparrow, 2002). To date
sparse evidence relating to links between EI and leadership has been
presented. Evidence for this link has been largely related to hierarchical
level differences/progress (Dulewicz and Higgs, 1999; Higgs and Dulewicz,
1999). However, leadership is not exclusively related to organisational level.
In particular there is a body of literature suggesting that in a change
context, leadership is widely distributed (Conner, 1999; Orme and Germond,
2002; Higgs and Rowland, 2000). In this context, Higgs and Rowland (2001)
provided empirical evidence of a relationship between EI and change
leadership.

Summary and research question

From the above it is evident that assessment centres provide a valid and
reliable means of identifying leadership potential, and there is some evidence
that there are relationships between EI and leadership ability. However, further
research is indicated relating to the ability to identify an individual’s EI as a
predictor of their leadership potential (Higgs and Dulewicz, 1999). Thus, our
main research question is:
RQ1. To what extent can an individual’s level of EI predict an assessment
of leadership potential?

Methodology
To explore the relationship between EI and leadership potential the authors
conducted exploratory work in the context of an assessment/development
centre. The centre was designed for the New Zealand Public Service (NZPS)
and built around the eight core CEO competencies as follows:
(1) Strategic leadership.
(2) Leading capability building.
(3) Leading political/stakeholder interface.
(4) Leading change.
 (5) Intellectual leadership. EI and
(6) Leading culture building. leadership
(7) Building relationships and reputation. potential
(8) Building personal learning.
Leadership potential was operationalised using ratings of the individual centre 817
dimensions and overall assessment rating (OAR). Broadly the centre followed a
“clinical” design (Thornton and Byham, 1982; Heriot et al., 1997).
EI was operationalised using the EI Questionnaire – Managerial (Dulewicz
and Higgs, 2000), which has been shown to have acceptable levels of reliability
and validity.
Each competency in the centre was underpinned by behavioural indicators.
From these it was evident that there were two groupings; interpersonal
competencies and cognitive competencies. In terms of operationalising
leadership potential three sets of measures were available:
(1) OAR.
(2) Individual competency ratings.
(3) Composite interpersonal and cognitive competency ratings.
Table I summarises the hypothesised relationships between EI measures and
this range of leadership measures.

Results and analysis

There were 48 managers that participated in this study. Reviewing the data for
completeness reduced it to 40 managers. Sample details are summarised as
follows:
.
n ¼ 48: male ¼ 27 (57 per cent);
.
female ¼ 21 (43 per cent);
. mean age ¼ 38 years;
.
standard deviation ¼ 4.3
Table II shows correlations between the EI total score and all seven EI elements
and the centre OAR, together with the two competency groupings
(interpersonal and cognitive).
While many of the relationships hypothesised were found there were
some omissions. For example no relationships were encountered between
interpersonal sensitivity, influence and emotional resilience and any of the
overall leadership measures. Equally it was somewhat surprising that
relatively strong positive correlations were found between the overall EI
score and the cognitive cluster of leadership competencies. However the
OAR is a global measure and may be obscuring relationships between
specific EI and competency factors. Thus a further analysis at the element
 18,8

centre
JMP

818

Table I.
Hypothesised

and leadership

in the development
competencies employed
relationship between EI
EI elements
EI Interpersonal
Leadership measures total Self-awareness Resilience Motivation sensitivity Influence Intuitiveness Conscientiousness

OAR ++ ++ + ++ ++ + + ++
Total interpersonal ++ ++ + + ++ + + +
Total cognitive 0 0 0 + 0 + + +
Strategic leadership 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + +
Leading capability 0 0 + + + + + +
Leading political
interface + + + + + + 0 +
Leading change + + ++ + + ++ + ++
Intellectual leadership 0 + + + + + + +
Leading culture ++ ++ + + + ++ + ++
Building relationships ++ ++ + + ++ + 0 +
Building personal
learning + ++ + + + 0 + +
Notes: 0 = no relationship; + = positive relationship; ++ = strong positive relationship
 EI and
Overall Total Total
assessment cognitive interpersonal leadership
(n ¼ 40) rating comps comps potential
EI sten total Pearson correlation 0.194 0.542 0.539
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.288 0.001 0.001
SA Pearson correlation 0.404 0.450 0.638 819
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.022 0.010 0.000
ER Pearson correlation 0.154 20.007 0.197
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.399 0.972 0.280
MOT Pearson correlation 0.376 0.303 0.684
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.034 0.092 0.000
INTSENS Pearson correlation 20.035 20.098 0.082
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.850 0.592 0.655
INFL Pearson correlation 0.095 0.145 0.313
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.603 0.429 0.081
INTUIT Pearson correlation 0.483 0.680 0.917
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005 0.000 0.000 Table II.
CONSC Pearson correlation 0.472 0.943 0.702 Correlations between EI
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.006 0.000 0.000 and overall leadership
Note: All correlations in italics are statistically significant ratings

level was conducted. Table III shows the correlations resulting from this
analysis.
Again, a number of the hypothesised relationships are demonstrated.
However, it is surprising that no relationships are encountered between any
EI element and the competency leading change particularly given the
findings of Higgs and Rowland (2001). However, detailed analyses of this
study indicate different underlying conceptualisations. Perhaps the most
surprising result was the lack of any significant relationship between
interpersonal sensitivity and any of the competencies. However, further
analyses indicated that the behavioural indicators were more focused on
outcomes than interactions. An analysis of differences between the higher
and lower rated participants showed that the EI elements of self-awareness,
intuitiveness and conscientiousness differentiated between the two groups.
This is of interest, as of all the EI elements intuitiveness has been less
evident as a differentiator in previous studies (Higgs et al., 2001).
Furthermore this shows the significance of self-awareness, which is in line
with other work (Fletcher, 1997)
To explore the variance in OAR and the competency cluster scores
explained by EI, multiple regression analyses were conducted. Initially the EI
total score and all elements were used. A second analysis using only the EI
elements (i.e. excluding total EI) was conducted. These results are shown in
Tables IV and V.
 18,8
JMP

820

Table III.

and individual
leadership competences
Correlations between EI
Leading Leading Building
Strategic capability political Leading Intellectual Leading Building personal
(n ¼ 40) leadership building alignment change leadership culture relationships learning

EI sten
total Pearson correlation 0.138 0.147 0.302 2 0.073 0.193 0.209 0.155 0.019
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.452 0.423 0.093 0.692 0.291 0.251 0.398 0.919
SA Pearson correlation 0.065 0.190 0.254 0.053 0.393 0.420 0.351 0.253
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.723 0.297 0.160 0.773 0.026 0.017 0.049 0.163
ER Pearson correlation 0.120 20.001 20.276 -0.145 0.470 0.143 0.284 0.185
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.514 0.994 0.126 0.429 0.007 0.435 0.115 0.310
MOT Pearson correlation 0.077 0.289 0.252 0.128 0.506 0.246 0.421 0.142
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.674 0.109 0.164 0.485 0.003 0.174 0.016 0.439
INTSENS Pearson correlation 2 0.012 20.286 20.038 0.021 20.043 0.070 20.035 0.117
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.950 0.113 0.836 0.908 0.814 0.701 0.850 0.522
INFL Pearson correlation 0.114 0.256 0.054 2 0.072 0.354 20.047 0.024 20.063
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.533 0.158 0.768 0.697 0.047 0.800 0.898 0.730
INTUIT Pearson correlation 0.206 0.344 0.289 2 0.001 0.690 0.388 0.491 0.195
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.258 0.054 0.109 0.998 0.000 0.028 0.004 0.286
CONSC Pearson correlation 0.258 0.475 0.357 0.091 0.560 0.346 0.439 0.061
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.154 0.006 0.045 0.620 0.001 0.052 0.012 0.742
Note: All correlations in italics are statistically significant
Given a small sample, the results indicate that EI overall accounts for some 35 EI and
per cent of the variance on the OAR. While the level of variance in the leadership
Interpersonal cluster of leadership competencies (around 40 per cent) is in line potential
with expectations, the high level of variance in the cognitive cluster is
somewhat surprising. Closer inspection of the behavioural indicators suggest
that this may be accounted for by a potential relationship between
Intuitiveness, strategic and intellectual leadership, as all three measure the
821
demonstration of reasoned thinking and action when presented with
ambiguous or incomplete management data.

Conclusion
While many have asserted that there are links between EI and leadership until
recently there has been relatively little to support this. The exploratory studies
of Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) and Higgs and Rowland (2000, 2001) have
provided some indicative evidence of this relationship. The results of this study
do provide some further evidence to support this relationship.
Furthermore, it provides evidence that EI may be a predictor of
leadership potential. However, there are a number of limitations, which
indicate a need for caution in interpreting and generalising the findings.
First, the sample size is relatively small. Second, the EI measure employed
was based on a self-assessment as opposed to a more valid 360 degeree
one (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2002). Third, this study was located in the
context of the public sector and within a New Zealand organisational
setting. Further research using a similar design, with larger samples and in
differing contexts would provide valuable information to enable the
assertions to be more clearly validated.

R R2 Stand error

OAR 0.595 0.354 0.382 Table IV.

Total cognitive 0.478 0.229 0.640 Multiple regressions
Total interpersonal 0.639 0.408 0.805 (including EI total)

R R2 Stand error

OAR 0.548 0.300 0.389 Table V.

Total cognitive 0.457 0.216 0.511 Multiple regressions
Total interpersonal 0.638 0.407 0.801 (excluding EI total)
JMP References
18,8 Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995), “An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and
empowerment”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 3-8.
Bennis, W. (1989), On Becoming a Leader, Hutchinson, London.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.E. (1970), Managerial Behavior,
Performance and Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
822
Chaudry, S. (2000), Management 21C, Pearson Education, London.
Conner, D. (1999), Leading at the Edge of Chaos, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Dulewicz, S.V.D. (1991), “Improving assessment centres”, Personnel Management, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 50-7.
Dulewicz, S.V.D. and Higgs, M.J. (1999), “Can emotional intelligence be measured and
developed?”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 242-52.
Dulewicz, S.V.D. and Higgs, M.J. (2000), “Emotional intelligence: a review and evaluation study”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 341-68.
Fineman, S. (1997), “Emotion and management learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 13-25.
Fletcher, C. (1997), “Self-awareness – a neglected attribute in selection and assessment?”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 183-7.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2000), “Why should anyone be led by you?”, Harvard Business Review,
September-October, pp. 63-70.
Goleman, D. (1996), Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury, London.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury, London.
Goleman, D. (2000), “Leadership that gets results”, Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 78-91.
Heriot, P., Manning, W.E.G. and Kidd, J.M. (1997), “The content of the psychological contract”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 151-62.
Higgs, M.J. (2002), “Leadership: the long line: a view on how we can make sense of leadership in
the 21st century”, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 0207.
Higgs, M.J. and Dulewicz, S.V.D. (1999), Making Sense of Emotional Intelligence, NFER-Nelson,
Windsor.
Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2000), “Building change leadership capability: the quest for change
competence”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 116-31.
Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2001), “Developing change leadership capability: the impact of a
development intervention”, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 2001/004.
Higgs, M.J., Dulewicz, V. and Slaski, M. (2001), “Emotional intelligence: construct and concurrent
validity”, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 01/21.
Kets de Vries, M.R. (1993), Leaders, Fools, Imposter, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. and Florent-Treacy, E. (2002), “Global leadership from A to Z: creating high
commitment organisations”, Organisation Dynamics, Spring, pp. 295-309.
Moses, J.L. and Byham, W.C. (1982), Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance,
Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Orme, G. and Germond, S. (2002), “Emotional intelligence in changing times”, Competency and
Emotional Intelligence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 18-20.
Parry, K.W. and Meindl, J.R. (2002), Grounding Leadership Theory and Research, Information EI and
Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
Thornton, G.C. and Byham, W.C. (1982), Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance,
leadership
Academic Press, New York, NY. potential
Woodruffe, C. (1993), Assessment Centres, IPD, London.

Further reading 823

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organisational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52,
pp. 130-9.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 471-82.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1994), “The leadership mystique”, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 73-5.