Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Does Leadership Still Not Need Emotional Intell...

Electronic data

  • EI_Letter_Exchange_accepted_version_for_Moodle

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Leadership Quarterly. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Leadership Quarterly, 33, 6, 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101539

    Accepted author manuscript, 567 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Does Leadership Still Not Need Emotional Intelligence?: Continuing “The Great EI Debate”

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published
  • Marie Dasborough
  • Neal Ashkanasy
  • Ronald Humphrey
  • Peter Harms
  • Marcus Crede
  • Dustin Wood
Close
Article number101539
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>31/12/2022
<mark>Journal</mark>The Leadership Quarterly
Issue number6
Volume33
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date7/07/21
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

The study of emotional intelligence (EI) in the field of leadership, and in the organizational sciences in general, has often been characterized by controversy and criticism. But the study of EI has nonetheless persisted by developing new measures and models to address these concerns. In a prior letter exchange by Antonakis, Ashkanasy, and Dasborough (2009), two author teams debated the role of EI in the leadership literature, but also set an agenda for research and reconciliation for the future. The present exchange revisits these arguments using evidence accumulated over the past decade. Specifically, the authors debate not only the evidence for the predictive power of EI for workplace outcomes, but also the validity of EI as a construct, the measurement of EI, and the appropriateness of analytical tests for establishing the value of EI. Although the author teams agree on the value of the study of emotions and the need for rigorous research in this area, they nonetheless propose alternative agendas and priorities for the future. Further, they conclude that the issues identified in this exchange are not unique to the study of EI; but should also serve to inform the study of other personality factors and leadership more broadly.

Bibliographic note

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Leadership Quarterly. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Leadership Quarterly, 33, 6, 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101539