Joumal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 867-871 (2005) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.334 The Transformational leadership Incubator and emotional intelligence: a potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence F. WILLIAM BROWN* AND DAN MOSHAVI College of Business, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, U.S.A. Summary Non-cognitive emotional intelligence could potentially contribute to a more holistic under- standing of interpersonal influence and leadership; however, significant issues of definition, psychometric independence, and measurement must be conclusively resolved. Possible rela- tionships between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and individual/organi- zational outcomes are described and further investigation is encouraged. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction Of all the issues integral to organizational behavior, few, if any, concepts have been the object of as much conjecture, study, and consideration as have leadership and social influence. An understanding of the capacity to influence others has captured the attention of practitioners, academics, and social commentators throughout history. During the 20th century, progress toward a more complete understanding of influence and leader- ship was characterized by alternating cycles of excitement and despair. As the mid-20th century approached, the notion that innate qualities shaped personality and behavior continued to be well accepted and supported. Despite this, there was a desire for more complete descriptions of the com- plexity of leadership, for a less deterministic theory, and for explanation of an elusive 'X' factor in leadership that better matched an experience of the world. The logic and intuitive satisfaction that behavioral and contingency theory brought to our understanding of leadership was enormous. But as enduring as those ideas have been, the satisfaction was temporary, and dissatisfaction with the * Correspondence to: R William Brown, College of Business, Montana State University, PO Box 173040. Bozeman, MT 59717, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received J 7 August 2004 Revised 1 February 2005 Accepted 2 May 2005 868 F. W. BROWN AND D. MOSHAVI degree of explanation, particularly with the 'X' factor, eventually sent the whole field of leadership into a period of despair and disillusionment. Hunt (1999) opines that the field of leadership was reinvigorated and renewed beginning in the 1970s by the emergence of the charismatic and transformational leadership approaches originally articulated by Bums (1978) and further developed by Bass and his colleagues. The case for a relation- ship between transformational leadership and desired outcomes across a wide variety of settings and cultures has been particularly well established in the academic literature (Lowe, Kroeck, & Siva.

1. Joumal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 867-871 (2005)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.334
The Transformational leadership
Incubator and emotional intelligence: a
potential pathway for an increased
understanding of interpersonal
influence
F. WILLIAM BROWN* AND DAN MOSHAVI
College of Business, Montana State University, Bozeman,
Montana, U.S.A.
Summary Non-cognitive emotional intelligence could
potentially contribute to a more holistic under-
standing of interpersonal influence and leadership; however,
significant issues of definition,
psychometric independence, and measurement must be
conclusively resolved. Possible rela-
tionships between emotional intelligence, transformational
leadership, and individual/organi-
zational outcomes are described and further investigation is
encouraged. Copyright © 2005
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Of all the issues integral to organizational behavior, few, if any,
concepts have been the object of as

2. much conjecture, study, and consideration as have leadership
and social influence. An understanding
of the capacity to influence others has captured the attention of
practitioners, academics, and social
commentators throughout history.
During the 20th century, progress toward a more complete
understanding of influence and leader-
ship was characterized by alternating cycles of excitement and
despair. As the mid-20th century
approached, the notion that innate qualities shaped personality
and behavior continued to be well
accepted and supported. Despite this, there was a desire for
more complete descriptions of the com-
plexity of leadership, for a less deterministic theory, and for
explanation of an elusive 'X' factor in
leadership that better matched an experience of the world. The
logic and intuitive satisfaction that
behavioral and contingency theory brought to our understanding
of leadership was enormous. But
as enduring as those ideas have been, the satisfaction was
temporary, and dissatisfaction with the
* Correspondence to: R William Brown, College of Business,
Montana State University, PO Box 173040. Bozeman, MT
59717,
U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received J 7 August 2004
Revised 1 February 2005
Accepted 2 May 2005

3. 868 F. W. BROWN AND D. MOSHAVI
degree of explanation, particularly with the 'X' factor,
eventually sent the whole field of leadership
into a period of despair and disillusionment.
Hunt (1999) opines that the field of leadership was
reinvigorated and renewed beginning in the
1970s by the emergence of the charismatic and transformational
leadership approaches originally
articulated by Bums (1978) and further developed by Bass and
his colleagues. The case for a relation-
ship between transformational leadership and desired outcomes
across a wide variety of settings
and cultures has been particularly well established in the
academic literature (Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996). For the first time, scientific-based
explanations of leadership seemed to
account for not just the operation of leadership, but also the
heretofore elusive 'X' factor.
Transformational and charismatic leadership theories have
dominated leadership theory and
research for almost two decades. Like most scientific concepts,
our understanding of transformational
leadership has transitioned through various periods of
introduction, explanation, and elaboration
(Hunt, 1999). As the exploration of the explanatory power of
transformational and charismatic leader-
ship approaches its limits, the search for precursors, mediators,
moderators and yet more 'X' factor
explanations inevitably becomes more intense.
Guided by theory, the understanding of transformational
leadership has been, like almost all leader-
ship research, focused on leader-follower interactions. In order

4. for leadership theory to continue to
progress and to avoid a reversion to the despair that
accompanied the maturation of previous
approaches, new, better, and different ways of considering
leadership capacity need to be embraced.
One possibility is to look at leadership not just as interaction,
but more holistically, as a function of
capabilities possessed and deployed by the individual leader. If
we frame our understanding of leader-
ship by concentrating not just on what leaders do, but rather by
a consideration as to what capabilities
an individual must have in order to perform effectively in a
leadership role, perhaps leader understand-
ing, selection, and development can be enhanced as well.
Emotional Intelligence: A Possible 'X' Factor?
A personal capability that might have the potential to
significantly inform leadership capacity may arise
from the emerging understanding of emotional intelligence (EI).
Although the existence and importance
of intelligences beyond memory and problem-solving have long
been recognized, it was not until
recently that serious efforts were made to define this non-
cognitive form of intelligence. Goleman's
(1995) enormously popular general circulation book directed
considerable attention to the concept
and in particular to some ambitious claims for its efficacy.
Previous academic approaches to EI, most
notably by Salovey and Mayer (1990), initially attracted less
attention, but eventually began to stimu-
late scientific investigation as to exactly what it is that we are
referring to when we speak of EI.
Researchers who advocate that EI is indeed a capability
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990) suggest that indi-

5. viduals who have high levels of emotional intelligence are able
to perceive emotion, to integrate it in
thought, to understand it, and to manage it. Other researchers
have recently begun to build on these
dimensions and to suggest theoretical (Sosik & Mergerian,
1999) or empirical (Barling, Slater, &
Kelloway, 2003) positive relationships between EI and
transformational leadership. For instance,
Sosik and Mergerian (1999) suggest that emotionally intelligent
people feel more secure in their ability
to control and influence life events and, as a result, provide
individual focus on others as well as intel-
lectually stimulate and motivate followers. These behavioral
outcomes are consistent with three major
facets of transformational leadership: individualized
consideration, intellectual stimulation, and
inspirational motivation.
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. / Organiz. Behav.
26, 867-871 (2005)
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE 869
Is it possible that El might be the new 'X' factor which advances
and reinvigorates a more complete
understanding of social influence and leadership? While
significant cautions and objections have been
raised in regard to epistemological and El theory developmental
issues (Antonakis, 2003), the possi-
bility of a relationship remains a provocative question worthy of
the attention of scientifically oriented
researchers. Three distinct possibilities occur to us:

6. • El may be an antecedent of transformational leadership.
Perhaps the presence of El, in particular
those elements related to awareness of the emotional states of
others, might make an individual
more likely to engage in effective leadership behaviors. In this
view, an individual higher in El
would understand social contexts and emotional states better
than an individual lower in El, and
would therefore be more likely to choose behaviors that are
consistent with the dimensions of trans-
formational leadership.
• El may moderate the relationship between transformational
leadership and various individual,
group, and organizational outcomes. Perhaps self-awareness and
acumen in deploying emotions cre-
ate some sort of interactive relationship between BI and
transformational leadership behaviors. In
this view, transformational leadership effectiveness is enhanced
by higher levels of EL
• El may be independent of transformational leadership. In this
view. El is directly (and independent
of transformational leadership) associated with various desired
outcomes.
As intriguing as these possibilities might be, their investigation
must be undertaken with prudence
regarding unresolved definitional, psychometric and
measurement issues associated with emotional
intelligence.
The first of these issues is definitional. To date, three fairly
distinct approaches to the definition of El
have evolved:

7. 1. El as a trait: the notion that El is an innate personal quality
that enables emotional well-being (Bar-
On, 1996).
2. El as an acquired competency: that El is the set of acquired
skills and competencies that underlie
effective leadership and performance (Goleman, 1995).
3. El as an intellectual capability: El as the capacity to reason
with emotion in four areas: to perceive
emotion, to integrate it in thought, to understand it, and to
manage it (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, &
Sitarenios, 2003).
A spirited and sometimes acrimonious debate has attended the
advocacy for each of these
approaches and their combinations, with definitions and various
forms of measurement proposed
and tested. Of the three, the trait approach seems the least likely
to prevail for essentially the same
reasons that other 'great man' theories have proven
unsatisfactory. Efforts to operationalize and mea-
sure both the acquired competency and intelligence/capability
approaches both seem promising and
occasionally complementary; however, we find the
intelligence/capability approach most convincing,
largely because advocates have scrupulously followed
traditional theory-building techniques. Thus,
for us, emotional intelligence is comprised of personal
awareness, integration, insight, and regulatory
capability of emotion.
On the suspicion that there indeed may not be anything new
under the sun, if El is to be helpful in
increasing our understanding of leadership, it must in fact be a
concept which is distinguishable from

8. current measures of leadership, personality, and cognitive
intelligence. There has been considerable pro-
gress on this second hurdle (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004), and if
the final resolution has not been achieved it
does seem within reach. When definition and independence are
more conclusively realized, the final hur-
dle of measurement, critical to concept development, may seem
more easily resolved as well. If one
recalls the development of current leadership theory, it would
be difficult to overestimate the contribution
of the Multifactorial Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass &
Avolio, 1990) to that process.
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav.
26, 867-871 (2005)
870 F. W. BROWN AND D. MOSHAVI
Whichever definition or measurement technique eventually
prevails, our sense is that at this
point leadership researchers can further their own field and
contribute to the El discussion by testing
moderating, mediating, and other relationships involving El and
transformational leadership, such as
those we have suggested, using extant definitions and measures
of El and the well-established
measures of transformational leadership. An understanding of
leader capabilities, especially those
integral to El, which might influence transformational
leadership behaviors or interact with
those behaviors, would constitute a considerable advancement
of the overall understanding of the
influence process.

9. Of the various El measurement schemes which have been
proposed or reported as being underway, it
seems likely that ability-based scales that measure how well
people perfonn tasks and solve emotional
problems will be more likely to stand the test of acadetnic
scrutiny than scales which rely exclusively
on self-assessment of emotional skills. Our sense is that, as
researchers utilize the venerable MLQ and
the new ability-based scales measuring El in appropriately
designed studies, the questions about the
independence, viability, and value of El will start to become a
little more clear. Of the transformational
leadership-EI relationships previously identified, both our
intuition and our sense of the work done to
date leads us to particularly commend the possibility of an
interactive or additive effect between El and
transformational leadership to leadership researchers.
The field of El seems to be in approximately the developmental
stage which charisma research was
during the breakthrough years of the 1970s—very exciting and
promising, but with major issues yet to
be conclusively settled. Whether El will emerge as the new 'X'
factor in our understanding of social
influence remains an open question. The possibility that there is
'no there, there' remains, but the pro-
spect of a relationship between El, leadership and individual,
group and organizational outcomes is
sufficiently compelling to attract the attention of researchers
who will resolve the question and move
leadership theory and understanding of social influence to its
next stage.
Author biographies
F. William 'Bill' Brown is a Professor of Management in the

10. College of Business at Montana State
University—Bozeman. He received his PhD in Business
Administration from the George Washington
University. His research and consulting interests center on
leadership, strategic management and orga-
nizational development.
Dan Moshavi is an Associate Professor of Management at
Montana State University. He received his
PhD in Management from the University of Oregon. His
research focuses on the roles that leadership,
human resource practices, and employee attitudes play in
determining service firm effectiveness.
References
Antonakis, J. (2003). Why 'emotional intelligence' does not
predict leadership effectiveness. Intemational
Joumal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 353-359.
Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003).
Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an
exploratory study. Leadership and Organization Development
Joumal, 21(3), 157-161.
Bar-On, R. (1996). The emotional quotient inventory: A
measure of emotional intelligence. Toronto, ON: Multi
Health Systems.
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav.
26, 867-871 (2005)
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE 871

11. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational
leadership development: Manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's
transformation of the field: an historical essay.
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129-144.
Law, K., Wong, C , & Song, L. (2004). The construct and
criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its
potential utility for management studies. Joumat of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 4 8 3 ^ 9 7 .
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the
literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G.
(2003). Measuring and modeling emotional intelligence
with the MSCEIT V 2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence.
Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sosik, J. J., & Mergedan, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader
emotional intelligence and performance: the role of
self-other agreement on transformational leadership
perceptions. Group and Organizational Management,
24(3), 367-390.
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav.

12. 26, 867-871 (2005)
Copyright of Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property
of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.