How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century?

Malcolm Higgs Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, Oxford, UK

Keywords

Leadership, Intelligence, Behaviour, Organizational change

Introduction
For centuries we have been obsessed with leaders, and with identifying the characteristics required for effective leadership. In more recent times the area of leadership has been studied more extensively than almost any other aspect of human behaviour (Kets de Vries, 1993; Goffee and Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001). Many have pointed out that, in spite of the plethora of studies, we still seem to know little about the defining characteristics of effective leadership (e.g. Kets de Vries, 1994; Goffee and Jones, 2000; Hogan and Hogan, 2001). However, such observations do not appear to have stemmed our appetite for continuing the search. It has been estimated (Goffee and Jones, 2000) that, in 1999 alone, over 2,000 books were published on the topic of leadership. Last year a search on the Library of Congress database revealed in excess of 8,000 books on the topic of leadership (Aitken, 2002). Further evidence of the current level of fascination with the concept is provided by the devotion of a special edition of the Harvard Business Review to the topic in December 2001. With this background in mind, this paper sets out to explore the ``long line'' of study and attempts to make sense of what we have found in the context of today's business environment. The paper sets out to develop a framework for thinking about leadership in terms of combining personality and behaviours. Working from this framework the possible linkages between the concepts of emotional intelligence (Salovey and Meyer, 1990; Goleman, 1996; Higgs and Dulewicz, 1999) and leadership are explored with empirical data supporting these being presented.

Abstract

Explores the development of thinking on leadership and places it in the context of the dominant discourses of the period in which studies were conducted. Argues that if a ``sense making'' paradigm is adopted. it becomes feasible to identify a model of leadership, which is relevant to the context of complexity and change facing organisations in the early twentyfirst century. The model emerges when the measure of effectiveness is changed from organisational success to the impact of the leader on followers and on building of capability. The argument for such a shift is underpinned by the movement of dominant organisational logic from a Weberian rational/analytical one to a logic which acknowledges emotional considerations. Within the leadership arena it has been proposed that emotional intelligence is a major factor underpinning success. Presents data from recent research, which empirically demonstrates linkages between emotional intelligence and leadership. These findings are examined in conjunction with the ``Emergent model''.

Received: August 2002 Revised: October 2002 Accepted: November 2002

The drivers of current interest
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 # MCB UP Limited [ISSN 0143-7739] [DOI 10.1108/01437730310485798]

Exploring the drivers of interest in leadership could be the subject of a paper in
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

its own right. Some suggest that it reflects a basic human need to be led (Collingwood, 2001a,b). Indeed Freud (1927) maintained that groups of individuals need leaders to provide them with an identity and sense of purpose. However, in order to attempt to make sense of leadership in today's context, it is helpful to consider some of the critical issues facing organisations, which have leadership implications. Reviewing the broader business literature, a number of common themes emerge: . Changes in societal values. Over the last fifty years there have been dramatic changes to society's values in the Western world (e.g. Fineman, 1997; Goffee and Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001). These changes, combined with significant economic and organisational developments, have led to the emergence of ``talent wars'' (Williams, 2000) and the underlying need to engage employees in a different way in order to secure effective commitment (Higgs and Rowland, 2001). . Changes in investor focus. For many, the indicators of a CEO's success are focused on their delivering increases in shareholder value (Collingwood, 2001a,b), indeed this has become an almost obsessive focus. In the USA, in the period from 1960 to 1990, market capitalisation was almost exclusively linked to current earnings of a business. Between 75 and 90 per cent of the variance in market capitalisation was explicable by earnings performance (e.g. Ulrich, 1999). However, since 1990 this relationship has changed dramatically with earnings accounting for only 45 to 50 per cent of the variation in market value (Ulrich, 1999). In seeking to understand this change, research with investors has shown that their decisions are increasingly influenced by ``intangibles'' (Ulrich, 1997), which include
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

[ 273 ]

(2001) would label this as ``popular science''. Conner. Higgs and Rowland. Jay. 2001). One is to focus more on the practical relevance than methodological rigour. Rousseau.. Indeed there is. 1999. Hogan and Hogan. in the leadership arena we appear to have moved in two directions away from this paradigm. it is useful to reflect on the history of leadership studies and insights ± to look back along a ``long line''. Indeed it has been estimated that up to 70 per cent of change initiatives fail to meet their aims (Kotter. 1988). 2001). However. competitive and complex business environment have come increasing pressures on individuals within organisations to work harder and deliver continuous improvements in performance (Alimo-Metcalfe. In looking at the way in which we have tried to make sense of our understanding of this abstract and diffuse construct it is relevant to reflect on how research in the behavioural sciences appears to be developing. Hogan and Hogan. 2001). Collingwood. 1967). For example. whereas a behaviour-based one would argue for development. In essence this is the debate around whether leaders are born or made. Below is a [ 274 ] . (Weick. 1995. In addition to lack of consensus on the focus of a paradigm for research there are challenges in terms of terminology and research methodology. Higgs and Rowland. There is a dominant discourse. 1989). As organisations operate in more complex. However. Collingwood. 2000. . In the author's view this is not a useful position from which to understand a complex phenomenon. in turn. 1994. the quality and depth of leadership in an organisation. for some time. certainly in relation to business-related issues. 1996.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 .b. Given the current importance of leadership there is a perceived imperative to develop a framework which will enable organisations to identify. 1996. many maintain that we have little real knowledge of what is required for effective leadership (Kets de Vries.b. 2001. 1998. In order to develop a framework. Development of leadership understanding It has been suggested that the study of leadership has a history stretching back over many centuries (Clemens and Mayer. 1995. Anderson et al. others maintain that it is not the effort and volume pressures which lead to stress. However. with each category of researcher denying and. through the biographies of successful CEOs ± Anderson et al. effectively. In essence. With the increasingly volatile. 2001a. Higgs and Rowland. 2001). 2001. competitive and volatile environments their need to change strategies. which draws a clear relationship between work pressure and increasing levels of stress. Challenges in implementing organisation change. However. 2001). In reviewing the above points it is evident that the drivers of interest in leadership are clearly associated with change and complexity in the business and organisational environment (Kotter. the ideal research framework should be one in which there is a combination of methodological rigour and practical relevance. 1999. has been whether or not leadership should focus on personality or behaviours (e. rather than a periodic necessity. 2001). Hogan and Hogan. select and develop leaders capable of meeting the challenges outlined above. McCall et al. has implications in terms of strategies for developing leadership capabilities. (2001) have described such a paradigm as being ``pragmatic science''. Many make the point that the rate and complexity of change is rapidly increasing and becoming an integral aspect of organisational effectiveness. A personality-based paradigm would argue for selection as being the main focus. 1995. Whilst this move has been taking place others have moved into the arena of greater focus on methodological rigour than practical relevance. which will result in effective change implementation and build sustained change capability (Conner. Awareness of the impact of stress on employees. 2001. Indeed an historical review of the development of attempts to understand leadership may be illuminating. 2000. Goffee and Jones. Approaches to understanding leadership Higgs and Rowland. This.g. McAlpine. Therefore. ignoring contributions from the other. 1999). little agreement on the paradigm within which such research should be framed. there is a driving need to identify leadership behaviours.. the ability of organisations to implement change effectively appears to be limited. Thus research into leadership has polarised. 2001). Hogan and Hogan. Higgs and Rowland. 1999. but rather the behaviours of leaders (Alimo-Metcalfe. A core issue. This is seen as ``pedantic science'' (Anderson et al. 1996. Kotter. which may return the study of leadership to a ``pragmatic science'' paradigm. within the vast literature. structures and processes in order to respond to the business challenges increases (Conner. 2001a.

1995. Alimo-Metcalfe. Higgs and Rowland. 1995). [ 275 ] . the paradigm was determined by the rational/analytical perspective of Weber (1964). Goffee and Jones. Reality. 1997. which is required to realise the leader's vision. etc. The impact of Table I Leadership discourses: an historic perspective Era Classical Dominant discourse Dalogue Society Democracy Ambition Individual Great man not great event Survival of the fittest Control Rationality Psychological Behavioural Examples of authors Plato Aristotle Homer Pericles Sophocles Petrarch Chaucer Castiglione Machiavelli Shakespeare Weber Darwin Durkheim Marx Freud Skinner Jung Renaissance Industrial Modern Source: Adopted from Clemens and Meyer (1999) the ``modern'' school. Jung. provides the second major leadership discourse in the latter part of the twentieth century (Collingwood. or belief. it is important to be aware that the process is not linear and early frameworks remain potential lenses for viewing leadership today. In focusing on toplevel leadership performance. 1995). The limitations of the ``style theories'' were the catalyst for the application of contingency theory to leadership. the key value of reviewing the historical discourse lies.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 brief review of trends and developments in thinking on leadership from such a perspective. In their book The Classic Touch Clemens and Mayer (1999) draw on literature to illustrate periods of leadership. in presenting developments in this way. until the late twentieth century. 1997. however. originally developed from research carried out by Fiedler (1964). However. An illustration of this development is provided in Table I. the common thread of ``charisma''. While the Trait theory tended to imply that effective leadership is a matter of selection. influenced by Freud. but rather the ability of the leader to adapt the style to the needs of the followers. A classic example of this approach is provided by the Blake and Moulton model (1964). Skinner. Fineman. 2001). through studying cases of successful leaders. This approach was underpinned by a point of view. Shamir (1992) described charisma as being the ability to inspire others to act in a way. 2001). using both style and contingency theories. 2001). 2001). The importance of understanding perceptions of leadership contextually is illustrated by Plato's observation. This led to the emergence of ``Taylorism'' and ``Fordism'' which has dominated. Once again research. 2000. From the above overview of leadership. The use of literature provides a means of identifying stories.. that there was a ``best'' style (AlimoMetcalfe. not in finding selective evidence for today's views. which help us to understand the dominant discourse. which in turn enables us to understand and make sense of a construct within a context (Fineman. the behavioural and situational theories focused more on the development of leadership capabilities. This approach led to a period (which continued into the 1990s ± Collingwood. 4 Charismatic theories. thinking on business organisation and leadership (Goffee and Jones. it is evident that. This was a personality-based approach. 1964). Shamir (1992) returned to the qualities of the leaders and identified. 1995). Higgs and Rowland. This approach drew on the relatively under-explored work on understanding leadership from the follower perspective. provided numerous examples of success employing ``less desirable'' styles (Higgs and Rowland. 1993) who maintained that it was not the leaders style per se which led to effectiveness. ``Society values whatever is honoured there''. and one which led to generally inconclusive findings (Fiedler.g. 1995. and to an extent continues to dominate. Weick. 3 Behavioural and situational theories of leadership. However. The ``modern'' study of leadership is viewed as having begun with Trait theory in the late 1920s (e. 1 The long line in retrospect. failed to provide consistent and compelling evidence for their validity across a wide range of contexts (Alimo-Metcalfe. A classic example of the contingency leadership model is that developed by Hershey and Blanchard (1969. 2000. The limitations of Trait theory were responded to by examining the behaviours and style of leaders (AlimoMetcalfe. Hatch. 2 Trait theories of leadership. but in understanding the dynamic between society and the dominant perspectives on leadership. 1999).

2001a. do not discover anything new. intellectual stimulation (encouraging individuals to challenge the status quo. but let us comprehend what we have known all along in a much better way. aspirations and development. using the distinction between ``near'' and ``distant'' leaders (Shamir. possibilities of [ 276 ] . 1995) there is little doubt that it has been influential in building understanding of leadership in a changing environment. Transactional leadership ± contingent reward (encouraging specific performance and behaviours by making rewards (in the broadest sense) contingent on delivery). contain much re-working of earlier concepts (Higgs and Rowland. proposed by Weick (1995) is considered a new way forward may be found. opening up new. 1992). vision and the full spectrum of human drives and desires (Zaleanik. While the instrument has not been without its critics (e. and the measure of success employed is the financial performance of the business. 1995). This approach not only failed to produce compelling results it also tended to be very USA focused (Alimo-Metcalfe.b. In the late 1970s. Bass (1985) labelled these as transformational and transactional leadership. In many ways this statement captured the key debate around the difference between leadership and management (Kotter. 5 Transformational and transactional theories. Weick proposes that: Social and organisational sciences. 1990). Bass and Avolio (1996) operationalised this model in the form of a questionnaire (the MLQ) that has been used as the basis for much empirical work in the field. Her research in the UK looked at leaders throughout the organisation. In addition it has been suggested that the extensive literature on leadership.b) in which the focus of much of the leadership research was on the qualities of the ``heroic CEO'' (Collingwood. Alimo-Metcalfe. They pay special attention to each individual's needs for achievement and growth. 2001). and management by exception (only intervening actively when a delegated task or function is failing to conform to expectations). findings on the nature of effective leadership share two common factors. The rational paradigm derived from a Weberian perspective was in conflict with the psychological paradigm.g. In 1977 Abraham Zalesnik summarised the issue. as opposed to physics or biology. Alimo-Metcalfe (1995) has challenged much leadership research as being too focused on the USA. Bass (1997) and Bass and Avolio (1996) carried out further work with this model in mind and identified the main characteristics and behaviours associated with each context as being: . to consider problems from new and unique perspectives and to be innovative and creative). in terms of the impact of leader behaviours on the followers.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 2001a. which identified different sets of behaviours and characteristics required in situations of organisational transformation and situations of stability. An emerging perspective on leadership The diverse. they coach and mentor. Furthermore. This criticism implies an alternative means of assessing the effectiveness of leadership behaviours. 1995). Alimo-Metcalfe. with their organisational diagrams and time and motion studies were missing half the picture ± the half filled with inspiration. she included the perspectives of followers in her studies. and changing schools of thought and models. 1977). Perhaps the frustration with the inability of leadership research is rooted in a paradigm which suggests that there is a fundamental truth which is yet to be discovered. a route initiated by Fiedler (1964) and further developed by AlimoMetcalfe (1995). Transformational leadership ± charismatic/inspirational (inspiring and aligning others by providing a common purpose allied with optimism about the ``mission'' and its attainability). and individualised consideration (a genuine concern for individuals' feelings. the state of leadership research was such that methodological and terminological debates were causing more confusion than enlightenment. and indeed failures of leadership research as follows: Theoreticians of scientific management. In parallel with (and possibly influenced by) this stream of thought Bass (1985) developed a leadership model. . and often contradictory. and too concerned with the examination of the behaviours and performance of top leaders. These are: focus on top-level leaders. unforeseen. If the view of sense making. Followers are treated differently and equitably).

Inspiring shared vision ± engaging others with a vision of how things can be and how progress may be made. Modeling the way ± acting as a role model and demonstrating integrity in terms of congruence of words and actions. 2002). . 2001). facilitating and developing capability ± ensuring that people are challenged to find their own answers and that they are supported in doing this. such as those outlined above. implementing and sustaining changes ± developing effective plans and ensuring good monitoring and review practices are developed. . which prompted a move from studying personality. .Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 reshaping. Examining leadership though this new lens produces insights not normally associated with the ``financial performance'' lens (e. and . may bring new and useful insights. Viewing leadership through this lens suggests a potential change in the measure of leadership effectiveness from hard business results to the impact of leaders on their followers. in a change context. Within this ``emerging theory'' school of thought there are two common strands which are: 1 the focus of study is on what leaders actually do. the work of Alimo-Metcalfe (1995) applies these transformational concepts in a follower context. In line with this thinking. there is a body of literature which is beginning to look at leadership through a ``new lens'' in order to attempt to make sense of this complex concept in today's business environment. creating the case for change ± effectively engaging others in recognising the business need for change. it becomes evident that this ``emerging school'' sees leadership as being a combination of personal characteristics and areas of competence. requires focus on building the capability of people within the organisation to deal with continuing change (Conner. Challenging the process ± a constant questioning of why things are being done in a certain way combined with openness to having their own actions challenged. in line with the above thought. which identified the following elements of effective leadership (with effectiveness judged from the followers' perspective). 1999). 1995). were: . The re-emergence of personality (implied in this school of thought) as a component of effective leadership is evident in some of the more recent studies of leadership where the focus in on building capability (Kets De Vries and Florent-Treacy. The areas of competence. which may be placed in this ``emerging school''. . Typical of these studies is the work reported by Kouzes and Posner (1998). It may have been Kotter's (1990) study. Furthermore. However. . and within a change perspective Higgs and Rowland (2001) conducted a study to determine the competencies of effective leaders of change they included a measure of their ability to build capability into their overall assessment of effectiveness. . His study of the work of leaders is certainly seen to influence many of the studies. . . In reviewing these findings clear overlaps with elements of transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio. Fineman (1997) and Goffee and Jones (2001) identify that the influence of Weberian rationality on organisation has begun to wane and this decline is being accompanied by a recognition of emotional realities. In reviewing studies. or testing theoretical models in the search for understanding of the nature of leadership. This view resonates with the view that leadership. this does not diminish the potential contribution of Kouzes and Posner (1998) when seen in a ``sensemaking'' context. engaging others in the whole change process and building commitment. and 2 the determinant of effectiveness includes the leader's impact on followers and their subsequent ability to perform. Goffee and Jones. re-engineering and restructuring our original social environment (Weick. although not made explicit. 1996) become apparent. Encouraging the heart ± providing recognition tailored to an understanding of the needs and personalities of each person. which they identified. [ 277 ] . Shifting the lens through which leadership is observed. 2000. Indeed Goffee and Jones (2000) are quite explicit in their acknowledgement that a number of ``effective'' leaders they studied would not necessarily have been considered so in the absence of the followers' perspective.g. Perhaps an alternative lens has already been identified. Although not explicitly acknowledging this shift in paradigm. Collins. Enabling others to act ± working on a belief in the potential of people and creating the conditions to enable people to realise their potential. creating structural change ± ensuring that the change is based on depth of understanding of the issues and supported with a consistent set of tools and processes.

2 Personal characteristics: . 2002). the way in which they can contribute. Integrity ± being consistent in what you say and do. 1998). 1998. Higgs and Dulewicz. 2000). . 1999. Authenticity ± being genuine and not attempting to ``play a role''. Enable ± acting on a belief in the talent and potential of individuals. Self-awareness ± a realistic understanding of ``who you are''. which will inform the way in which people direct their efforts and utilise their skills. 2000. However. 1995). Higgs and Rowland. Goffee and Jones. Dulewicz et al. 1999. Will ± a drive to lead. hence. . Hogan and Hogan. 2002. . a pattern is beginning to emerge. Emotional intelligence and leadership There is a growth of literature relating to emotional aspects of organisational life (Fineman. not acting in manipulative way. Goffee and Jones. 2002). 2001). . Whilst definitions vary there appears to be consensus on two elements which relate to self-awareness and emotional management. approaches to defining and researching into emotional intelligence fall into three broad areas e. . Dulewicz and Higgs. Collins. A significant component of this literature is the rapid growth in research into the concept of emotional intelligence. and the personal factors view (Higgs and Dulewicz. and persistence in working towards a goal. . In essence. 2000. Develop ± working with people to build their capability and help them to make the envisioned contribution. Higgs and Dulewicz. 2001). 2001. the ability view (Salovey and Meyer. which illustrate this third viewpoint. The way in which these skills and competencies are exercised is not prescribed. Hogan and Hogan. The elements of emotional intelligence developed by Higgs and Dulewicz (1999.g. Self-belief ± a realistic evaluation of your capabilities and belief that you can achieve required goals. Figure 1 An emerging model of effective leadership [ 278 ] . Self-awareness. Envision ± the ability to identify a clear future picture. 1999. 2001. having looked at the literature from a ``sensemaking'' rather than discovery perspective (Weick. Inquire ± being open to real dialogue with those involved in the organisation and encouraging free and frank debate of all issues.g. Engage ± finding the appropriate way for each individual to understand the vision and. One part of this pattern is that the personality of the leader is a determinant of their effectiveness (Hogan and Hogan. The elements in this model are summarised below: 1 Skill/competence areas: . It is not within the scope of this paper to explore the concept in detail. . This model is shown in Figure 1. 1997. 1990). it is necessary to provide some elucidation on the nature of the concept. While the concept of emotional intelligence remains the subject of some controversy and challenge there is an increasing stream which provides clear support for its validity (e. 1997) and the challenges to the dominance of the analytical/rational Weberian paradigm (Fineman. 2002. are: . 2001. how you feel and how others see you. and creating the environment in which these can be released. Bar-On. 1996. 2001).. 2000). 2001. but is the function of the underlying personality of the leader (Hogan. The awareness of your own feelings and the ability to recognise and manage these. in particular. The second element is that effective leaders are differentiated from other leaders through the exercise of a relatively small range of skill or competence areas (Kouzes and Posner. .Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 A potential model of leadership Having reviewed the development in thinking about the nature of effective leadership and. Building on this view it is possible to suggest a model which reflects the research and thinking on leadership emerging from a ``sensemaking'' paradigm. the competence view (Goleman.

. Dulewicz et al. Further review of the centre competencies indicated that three (strategic leadership.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 . 2000. Intuitiveness. Based on this work they mapped the Higgs and Dulewicz (1999) elements onto a range of leadership models. intellectual leadership and political leadership) were more related to A significant range of literature has provided evidence for the reliability and validity of this framework (Dulewicz and Higgs. The ability to use insight and interaction to arrive at and implement decisions when faced with ambiguous or incomplete information. In addition to assertions. 2001. Interpersonal sensitivity. issue or decision. 1999) with a sample of 74 managers. relating emotional intelligence to individual performance and success. in making the case for emotional intelligence. Conscientiousness and integrity. Bennis. To explore the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership in a more general leadership context. Goleman (1998). in an interview on BBC radio (1999).. The drive and energy. leadership is not exclusively (or even predominantly) related to organisational level. it is significantly more important for leadership roles. Emotional resilience. balance shortand long-term goals and pursue your goals in the face of challenge and rejection. further assertions have been made that emotional intelligence is strongly linked to effective leadership (Goleman. The results of the centre observer assessments of each competency as well as the overall assessment rating (OAR) were compared with the particpant's EIQ-M scores. which you have to achieve results. In order to test the relationships empirically they conducted research using the change leadership competency model (see above) and a measure of emotional intelligence (the EIQ-M. . These show strong relationships between the change leadership competencies and all but one (intuitiveness) elements of emotional intelligence. . 1989). In order to explore [ 279 ] . 2001). to act consistently and in line with understood ethical requirements. However. and empirical evidence. An example of this mapping is shown in Table IV. Table II Differences between chairman/CEO and other directors Measure Significance level Overall EQ competencies Differences significant Overall IQ competencies Differences significant Overall MQ competencies Differences not significant Note: Chairmen and CEOs achieved higher scores on ``EQ competencies'' than did the other directors the suggestion that emotional intelligence might be related more broadly to leadership Higgs and Rowland (2001) conducted a content analysis of the transformational leadership models and the work of authors classified above as being in the ``emergent theory'' area. The ability to persuade others to change their viewpoint on a problem. in which the differences between the emotional intelligence competencies of chairmen/ CEO's. Regression analysis showed that around 29 per cent of the variance in the OAR was accounted for by emotional intelligence elements. . Further support was subsequently provided in a study by Higgs and Dulewicz (2000). The centre was designed for a public sector application and built around the eight competencies shown in Table VI. as a part of the centre have all completed the EIQ-M. These results show that higher levels of emotional intelligence are associated with hierarchical progression within an organisation. Motivation. The results of this analysis using significance testing are shown in Table VII. The results of their study are shown in Tables II and III. Dulewicz and Higgs. asserts that while emotional intelligence is more important than IQ and technical skills for all jobs. he went further and asserted that the higher one progresses in an organisation the more important emotional intelligence becomes. 1998. The ability to be aware of the needs and feelings of others and to use this awareness effectively in interacting with them and arriving at decisions impacting on them. . From this it is evident that there is a theoretical case for a broader link between emotional intelligence and leadership. The ability to display commitment to a course of action in the face of challenge. and to explore its possible application in identifying leadership potential. executive directors and managers were examined. the author conducted exploratory work in the context of a development centre. The ability to perform well and consistently in a range of situations and when under pressure. Some 20 participants have been through the centre to date and. as the preceding sections in this paper have emphasised. Influence. The results of this research are summarised in Table V. Some support for this view was provided by Dulewicz (1999) who reported on an analysis of the competencies seen as important by a sample of UK company directors. Indeed.

However. Bar-On (2000) includes these as two factors within his overall model of emotional intelligence. determined Consideration for the individual Sensitive change management Tough empathy Interpersonal sensitivity Tough empathy Selectively show weaknesses Open style Influence Networking Model the way Encourage the heart Reveal differences Inspire shared vision Aligning people Open style Motivating and inspiring Tough empathy Enable others Setting direction Intuition Inspire shared vision Encourage the heart Capacity to concentrate Curious about innovation Role model Intuitiveness Decisive. achieving Conscientiousness and Individual integrity consideration [ 280 ] Integrity and openness Tough empathy Model the way Aligning people Reveal differences Encourage the heart . The concept of ``being yourself with skill'' implies a mix of intra. 2000) Self-awareness above. the findings of Higgs and Rowland (2001) provide evidence of a relatively high degree of relationship between emotional intelligence and the ``Emerging model'' of leadership outlined in Figure 1. When these three competencies were removed from the analysis some 37 per cent of the variance in the OAR was accounted for by the EI elements. In a recent study Dulewicz et al. evidence is beginning to emerge to support the assertion that emotional intelligence and leadership are related. from this study.and inter-personal competence. Indeed these two areas are seen as the base of leadership in the model of leadership proposed by Hogan (2002).Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 cognitive abilities and knowledge. (2001) established high Leadership models and frameworks Bass (1985) Transitional/ transformational Goffee and Jones Alimo-Metcalfe (1995) ± Leadership (2000) ± Four factors constructs Self-awareness Reveal differences Selectively show weakness Tough empathy Kouzes and Posner (1998) Kotter (1990) ± What leaders do Bennis (1989) Develop selfknowledge Develop feedback sources Balance change and transition Learn from adversity Role model Emotional resilience Challenges processes Enable others Challenge processes Motivating and inspiring Model the way Setting directions Challenge processes Aligning people Inspire shared vision Enable others Motivation Charismatic leadership Individual consideration Charismatic leadership Intellectual stimulation Charismatic leadership Individual consideration Intellectual stimulation Achieving. The concept of intra. together with the others reported Table III Differences between directors and managers (from 7-year follow-up study) Measure Overall EQ competencies Sensitivity and resilience competencies (two elements of overall EQ) Overall IQ competencies Overall MQ competencies Significance level Highly significant Highly significant Differences not significant Differences not significant Note: Directors achieved higher scores on ``EQ competencies'' than did managers Table IV Relationships between leadership ``models'' and emotional intelligence Elements of emotional intelligence (from Higgs and Dulewicz.and inter-personal attributes also appears in the emotional intelligence literature. The relatively small numbers available limit the ability to generalise from these exploratory findings. Furthermore.

377 0.029 0.056 0.005 Influence 0.391 ± 0.333 0.047 0.013 Interpersonal sensitivity 0.317 0. Higgs and Rowland (2000) reported a study.011 Self-aware 0.063 0.308 0.486 0. been inconclusive and often contradictory (Kets de Vries.354 0.043 0.008 0.284 0.483 0. As well as high overall correlations there were clear relationships between the EIQ-M scales and Bar-On's (2000) intra.384 0.176 0.311 0.025 0. Further research is required in order to explore and test the proposed model in a rigorous manner. both in practice and through further research. The skills encompassed within the model outlined in Figure 1 do not lend themselves to ``traditional'' training interventions. helps to establish an emerging framework. The shift from an obsessive focus on business results and willingness to accept a re-working of earlier theories as a part of sensemaking (Weick. They require a longer-term developmental approach combining workshops.and inter-personal scales. to date. Clemens and Mayer. In reflecting on Figure 2 and the EIQ-M leadership research described there is evidently a link to the model proposed in Figure 1 which attempted to capture the components of the ``Emerging leadership'' model. then we are potentially facing new challenges in selecting and developing our new leaders.214 0.010 0. potentially.332 0.034 0. before dramatic steps are taken it is important to recognise that the direct research undertaken to explore and support the emerging ideas expressed in this paper is somewhat limited and.381 0.367 0.362 0.131 0.026 0. Implications of a new model If personality is a significant determinant of effective leadership then a purely developmental focus will not contribute sufficiently to building an organisation's leadership capability (Hogan and Hogan. 1995.269 0.017 Intuitiveness Conscientiousness ± 0.344 ± 0. which captures this relationship.461 0.001 0.008 0. has shown some interesting developments when combining an ``emerging leadership'' perspective with emotional intelligence.056 0.340 0.170 0. is shown in Figure 3.368 0. which appears to facilitate the learning process and to stimulate new research.113 0.111 0.and intrapersonal behaviours.041 0.001 Emotional resilience 0.279 0.326 0.268 0. Research.100 0. Table VI Development centre competencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strategic leadership Leading capability building Leading political/stakeholder interface Leading change Intellectual leadership Leading culture building Building relationships and reputation Building personal learning Conclusions Whilst the research on leadership is vast and diverse it has. context specific.189 0. 1999).138 0. If the thoughts and research in this paper are borne out.029 0.325 0.074 0.411 0.241 0.317 0.290 0. 2001).009 0.287 ± 0.246 0.225 0.286 0.012 0.040 0. An expanded model.418 0.346 0.371 0.002 0.333 0.306 0.013 0.162 0. 1995). In the same study they highlighted Table V Results of analysis of EIQ versus change leadership competencies emotional intelligence Change leadership competencies Creating the case Structural change Engagement Implementation Facilitation Overall change competency EI total 0. This implies that any approach to building leadership capability needs to be underpinned by rigorous and effective selection procedures.025 0.015 0.298 0.249 0. Figure 2 summarises the EIQ-M in terms of elements related to inter.381 0.059 Motivation 0.455 0.054 0.022 0.020 0.461 ± 0.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 correlational relationships between the EIQ-M and Bar-On's (2000) measure of emotional intelligence (the EQ-I).075 0.391 0. to date. which demonstrated the effectiveness of such an approach in the context of developing change leadership capability.004 0.780 ± 0.034 Note: Bold = statistically significant [ 281 ] .134 0. However.038 0.208 0.144 0.001 0.388 0. coaching and monitored implementation through workbased projects.287 0.

(Eds).D. pp.97 21. B. Vol. J. Without appropriate metrics the required behaviours will be unlikely to be reinforced and developed (Eccles. 4.21 13. London. (2000).000 0.28 t 21. Heriot. (2001). New Zealand. ``Leadership's first commandment: know thyself''. and Mayer. ``Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm transcend organisational and national boundaries?''.000 0. Bar-On. J. (1985). 52.24 13. pp. December. References [ 282 ] .01 21. (2001).J. Vol. ``The practitioner ± researcher divide in industrial work and organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now and where do we go from here?''. J. Sage. (1964).66 51. Thus.03 22. 391-412. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Clemens. this is a point. Gulf.K.7 22. Houston. in Bar-On. On Becoming a Leader. B. pp. The triumph of humility and fierce resolve''.26 13.F.60 21.97 Degrees of freedom 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 2-Tail significance 0. presentation for MDC.81 21. or short-term goal related measures.25 22.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 Table VII Emotional intelligence compared to development centre OAR paired samples test (n = 20) Paris Self-awareness: OAR Emotional resilience: OAR Motivation: OAR Sensitivity: OAR Influence: OAR Intuitiveness: OAR Conscientiousness: OAR Total EI: OAR Intra-personal: OAR Inter-personal: OAR Paired differences Mean Standard deviation 50. Collingwood. London. Harvard Business Review. in addition to selection and development. Bass. N. New York.27 13. B.95 22. (2002).M. Bennis. Bass.A. CA. San Francisco. which is reinforced by Conner (1999).13 13.56 51. 2. (2001a).72 51. Jossey-Bass.R.41 52. The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. G. R. Aitken.99 51. 8. Collingwood. R. 1991). R. pp. ``Introduction to leadership''.S. the ``emerging'' model of leadership has implications for organisations in terms of metrics to track the performance of leaders.000 0. H.000 0. Anderson. W. Chicago.04 21. American Psychologist. ``Level 5 leadership. Vol. 130-9.000 0. TX.03 50.and intra-personal components Figure 3 Revised emerging model of effective leadership the importance of appropriate performance measures. B.40 13. 3-8. Indeed. NY.34 13. (1999). 10 No. and Parker.000 Figure 2 EIQ-M: inter. 27-38. ``Personal histories''. December.72 51.000 0. which go beyond the ``traditional'' financial. Postscripts: Recent Developments for Improving Organisational Effectiveness. J. The Managerial Grid. ``An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and empowerment''. Such metrics may well include climate studies/employee feedback and measures of capability development. p. Women in Management Review. (1997)..22 13. B.000 0. Hutchinson.000 0.38 51. (2001b). D. Alimo-Metcalfe. ``Emotional and social intelligence''.000 0.M. Contemporary Books. (1995). Blake. Bass. (1996). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. and Hodgkinson. IL. Harvard Business Review.P. 74 No. P.M. (1989).34 13. Collins. P. and Mouton.56 13. H.44 51. The Classic Touch: Lessons in Leadership from Homer to Hemingway. Free Press. and Avolio.

148. Manchester. (1999). S. Penguin Books. R. pp. M. M. A. M. ``Followership: it's personal too''. and Hogan. Goffee. M. ``What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality''. pp. 26-34..A. (1999). A.V. (1989). (1991). ``Emotional intelligence: a review an evaluation study''. ``Developing change leadership capability. ``HR of the future: conclusions and observations''. Lexington Press. Training and Development Journal. unpublished PhD thesis. (2001). San Francisco. pp. (1992). 67-76. Vol.V. Goffee. pp. (2001). ``Emotional intelligence and corporate leadership''. (2002). J. pp. Henley-onThames.J. Vol. 9. K.J. 20 No. 63-70. Prentice-Hall. CA. 2. M. Interview on BBC Radio. pp.. 20 No. pp. 36 No. Kouzes and Posner (1998). ``Leadership: what do we know?''. (1995). pp. R. (1990). Eccles. D. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Windsor. and Blanchard. and Slaski.J. 175-9. D. P. D. Academic Press. in Berkowicz. M.M. Shamir. (2000). (2000). Hatch. 4. pp. NY. S. K. Vol. ``A contingency model of leadership effectiveness''. leadership and culture''.R. Jossey-Bass. (1999).H.J. Kets de Vries. 386-407. M. R. Cognition and Personality. (1964). Goleman. (1988).R. Hersey.V. Vol.W. 6. F. May-June. and Dulewicz. Kets de Vries. E. D.P. ``Global leadership from A to Z: creating high commitment organsiations''. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2nd ed.P. 4. Vol. p. M. pp. ``Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader''. Management and Machiavelli. 9 No. M. Vol. Harvard Business Review.G.J. HR Management.H. September-October. Management Learning. 13-25. ``The leadership mystique''. P. ``Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?''. P. Kotter. ``Emotional intelligence''. M. Goleman. and Higgs. pp. Dulewicz. 185-211. and Dulewicz.M. Vol. NY.J. Jay. Leading Change. A.D. 5. Freud.). Harvard Business School Press. pp. London.J. (1990). Higgs. Rousseau. pp. ``Building change leadership capability: `The quest for change competence'''. and Blanchard. R. Dulewicz. (2002). J. Curphy. Lombardo. ``Emotional intelligence. Slaski.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 Harvard Business Review. (1997). January-February. ``Why should anyone be led by you?''. 40-51. UMIST. January-February. Organization Studies. Dulewicz. pp.V. The New Machiavelli.M. 1/2. 1. CA. Lessons of Experience. 01/21. pp. Ulrich. M. (2001). New York. (Ed. M. Making Sense of Emotional Intelligence. 22 No. and Jones. (1996). Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. London. ``The performance measurement manifesto''. 5. Imposters. (1997). M. Fiedler..D. R. 1. (1996). ``Exploring the empty spaces of organising: How improvisational jazz helps re-describe organisational structure''. ``Emotional intelligence: construct and concurrent validity''. 341-68. and Morrison. 121-39. Vol. Civilisation and Its Discontents. 23 No. D. (1927). (2000). A. 28 No. 131-7. MA. R.F. 73-5. (1994). Hogan.V. Competency and Emotional Intelligence. Fineman. Hogarth Press.J. (2002). (1998). ``An investigation into emotional intelligence''. Imagination.M. Boston. Kets De Vries. NY. 493-504. Windsor. 18-20. ``Psychological and implied contracts in organizations''. and Jones. 75-100. 2 No. ``Assessing leadership: a view from the dark side''. Vol. Life and Death in the Executive Fast Lane. (1998). 295-309 Kotter. (1993). Henley Management College. Vol. American Psychologist. Wellington. 6 No. ``Life cycle theory of leadership''. Henley Working Paper. HWP 2001/004. Jossey-Bass. (2001). Kets de Vries. Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology. G. CA. Journal of Change Management. V. M. Vol. Making Sense of Emotional Intelligence. 15 No. and Dulewicz. Fools. John Wiley. (2002). Goleman. Encouraging the Heart. 37-60. J.F. (2000). (1969). NJ. M. Salovey. Jossey-Bass. Vol. M. Vol. ``What leaders really do''. London. Higgs. (1967). Hogan. Dulewicz. pp. (1999). Harvard Business Review. ``Emotion and management learning''. McCall. NFER-Nelson.J. D. S. New York. Academy of Management Executive. V. London. 8 No. McAlpine. Management of Organizational Behavior. Higgs. Hogan. Vol. S. and Mayer. G. Spring. and Rowland. John Wiley & Sons. pp. (2002). Higgs. Slaski. J. Conner. Bloomsbury. NFER-Nelson. S. and Florent-Treacy. (1999). 116-31. Hersey. M. Higgs. J. Working With Emotional Intelligence. Utilising Human Resources.R. ``Managerial stress and performance in a UK supermarket chain''. S. London. D. Lexington. pp. D. ``Emotional intelligence and the bottom line''. S. (1993). [ 283 ] . The impact of a development intervention''. Oxford. and Rowland. New York. Bloomsbury. 2.. and Higgs. 3. Leadership & Organisation Development.J. L. Organisation Dynamics. San Francisco. presentation for MDC.D. Leaders. 1. (2001). Emotional Intelligence. Higgs. Leading at the Edge of Chaos. 242-52. 5. San Francisco. and Hogan. (1999). International Journal of Selection and Development. M. December. Englewood Cliffs. G. paper presented at Emotional Intelligence Conference. Harvard Business Review. Henley Working Paper Series. 49 No. Harvard Business Review. Inaugural Lecture. 1 No. B. pp.

Harvard Business Review. F. A. Sensemaking in Organisations.G. (1978). G. 183-7. Bull (1999 ed. ``Leadership in the twenty-first century: a speculative inquiry''. pp. 35-71. C. D. London.B. Kellerman. London. Sage. J. Owen. Leadership: The Cutting Edge. May-June. 189-207.P. R. M. pp. In Hunt. 74 No. pp.Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 Ulrich. London. (2000). ``HR and the bottom line''. pp. 126-35. (1999). (1948). paper presented at the Impact of Leadership Conference. NY. People Management. New York. Harvard Business Review. M. Journal of Personality. (1991). Santa Monica. Pan Books. Fiedler. Williams. pp. ``Leadership that gets results''. Boyatzis. M.A. ``Personal factors associated with leadership. and Laurie. D. (Eds). pp. IL. Harvard Business Review. Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organisational Effectiveness. 411-50. (Trans. (1997). Bass. Burns. The Prince.M. C. New York. (1992). C. pp. Bass and Stodghill Handbook of Leadership: Theory. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. M. Harvard Business Review. (1964).L. ``The leader as analyser''. Harvard Business School Press. 3. Goleman. 8. stress and commitment''. Kotter. ``The impact of managerial behaviours on group performance. Assessment Centres. San Francisco. Vol. and Laurie. NY. (1995). CA.)) Penguin Books. V. Goleman. Fletcher. 78-91.. Bryman. P. NY. 131-40. pp. McGraw-Hill. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Review. New York. (1997). 70-9. 1-27. Harvard Business Review. (1967). M. and Wilson. and McKee. Harper & Row. The War for Talent.N. ``The work of leadership''. December. Harvard Business Review. Levinson. and Zander. Carbondale. London. and Kanungo. D. Heriot. Collier-MacMillan. ``The work of leadership''. Bantam Doubleday. (2001). Machiavelli.E. CA. ``A theory of charismatic leadership''. A. Alimo-Metcalfe. M. R.J. NY. 5 No. NY. (1998). (2001). ``The content of the psychological contract''. D. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Conger. New York. 26-29 Zaleanik. Southern Illinois University Press. Weber. ``Primal leadership''. (2001). Zander. Whoosh: Business in the Fast Lane. IPD. House. and Higgs. K. Effective Leadership. ``Required reading''. R. R. N. Centre for Creative Leadership. pp. The Art of Possibility. Vol. P. Jossey-Bass. January/ February. (2000). Research and Applications. March/April. (1995). Perseus Publishing. J. F... 11-16. 25. 151-62.E. Assessment and Selection in Organizations. 43-51. ``Emotional intelligence: soul searching''. Bennis. De Pree. (2001). J. JosseyBass. in Howard. pp. (2001). IPD. pp. pp. (2001). Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. London. J. Free Press. Wiley. 15-24. pp. MA. pp. London. ``Managers and leaders: are they different?''. Perseus Publishing. A survey of literature''. New York. NY. Further reading Heifetz.A. H.L. J. Colorado Springs.(1990). paper at the CIMD Conference.G. Leadership is an Art. CA. W. Duelwicz. San Francisco. (1989). A. British Journal of Management. and Larsons.S. March-April. ``Self-awareness ± a neglected attribute in selection and assessment?''. ``Leading change: why transformation efforts fail''. (Ed. L. (Eds) (1988). (1976). R. Skipper. Vol. B. L. NY. In Search of Leaders. (1999). House. 71-97. Sage. 11 January. B. Heifetz. Managing the Dream. Vol. (2000). Woodruffe. Vol. McGehee. J. W. T. ``The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire''. Blackpool. R.A.L. October. Harvard Business Review. Weick. (1977). (1997). ``What titans can teach us''. The Changing Nature of work. New York. 1.M. R. Charisma and Leadership in Organisations. 63-70. and Kidd. A. The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. December. ``Promotional intelligence''. C. pp. People Management. (1990). R. Adair. H. December.S. Heriot. (1996). Boston. D.. Tedlow. New York. London. J. John Wiley & Sons. (2000). and Alban-Metcalfe. January-February. (2001). Manning. Stodghill. CO.) (1989). Woodruffe. (2000). A. (1976). (1994). Leaders' Work. pp. [ 284 ] . (Ed.). B.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful