Chapter II: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter is broadly divided into five areas of research: (a) leadership, (b)
organizational culture, (c) Emotional Intelligence, and (d) Performance of the unit. The first
section discusses definitions of leadership, research into leadership, and a summary of methods
used to measure leadership. The second section analyzes definitions of organizational culture as
an intellectual and as a representative phenomenon, research into organizational culture, and an
overview of methods used to measure organizational culture. The third section analyzes
definitions of Emotional Intelligence and an overview of methods used to measure Emotional
Intelligence. The fourth section examines financial methods for determining financial
performance and the measurements used. The chapter ends with a summary of the literature
review.

2.2 Leadership Styles

The purpose of the study was to determine whether one or more types of leadership
behaviour styles (transformational, collaborative, direct/direct-informational, and/or non-
directive) are conducive to performance for Branch Managers.

2.2.1 Leadership

This section of the chapter reviews the literature pertaining to leadership for this study,
leadership skills, Leadership traits and Leadership styles as relevant to this study. Furthermore, it
explores the roles of Leadership styles within leadership theories. Fourth, it reviews various
methods for measuring leadership style. Fifth, it reviews relations with other variables in the
study such as, Culture, Emotional Intelligence and Performance It concludes with a summary of
research in leadership.

2.2.2 Defining Leadership

Shartle (1957) noted that "no satisfactory theory or definition of leadership was
available". Stogdill (1974) detected that "there are almost as many definitions of leadership as
there are persons who have attempted to define the concept". This is not to suggest that within
this period no sufficient definition of leadership was prepared. Rather, it indicates the complex
nature of leadership that results in the need to create a seemingly endless array of terms to
describe it (Bennis, 1959).

In Contemporary practice, researchers tend to articulate or embrace a definition of

leadership that best fits the phenomenon of interest to them (Yukl, 1998). Northouse (2004)
offered leadership concepts in which the components of leadership are described in terms of
process, influence, group context, and goal attainment. As a process, leadership can move
outside of the existing culture in order to bring about evolutionary change (Schein, 1992) or it
may help people make sense of their present culture, increasing their clarity and commitment
(Drath & Palus, 1994). As an influence Leadership goes beyond a mechanical compliance to
organizational objectives (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and enables others to find ways to contribute to
organizational success and effectiveness (House et al., 1999). Within the groups, leadership
mobilizes institutional, political, and psychological resources in ways that stimulate followers
(Burns, 1978), motivating them as an organized group toward goal attainment (Rauch & Behling,
1984). In goal attainment, leadership provides meaning and purpose to collective direction
(Jacobs & Jaques, 1990) by articulating vision, embodying values, and creating an environment
in which goals are achieved effectively (Richards & Engle, 1986).

Jago (1982) defined Leadership by describing leadership as both a process and a

property. He incorporated many leadership definitions and described the process of leadership as
a non-coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of members of an organized group
toward the accomplishment of group’s objectives. He further described the property as a set of
qualitative attributes and characteristics of those who are perceived to successfully employ such
influence.

Northouse (2004) summarized and simplified these definitions in stating "Leadership is a

process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal".

Behavioral scientists, Psychologists, and others have been studying and writing about
leaders and leadership for many years. Their studies have evolved from a focus on leadership
traits to a desire to better understand "the experiences, the contexts, and the circumstances within
which Leadership emerges and perform with productive effect" (Clark & Clark, 1990).

Blanchard and Hodges (2003) noted that leadership is “an influence process—any time
you are trying to influence the thoughts and actions of others toward goal accomplishment in
either their personal or professional life you are engaged in leadership” (p. 10).

This study explored leadership styles and their effect on Emotional Intelligence,
organizational culture and financial performance of their units. The following sections provide a
Brief overview of the development of leadership styles and where they fit within the context of
leadership theory. In First section, it looks at the focus on leadership traits. In the second section,
it summarizes the transition from leadership traits to leadership skills. Third section, it explores
the shift from skills to behavioral styles. Finally, it concludes with an examination of the role of
behavioral styles in leadership theories.

2.2.3 Leadership Traits

Galton (1869) began with the hypothesis of the "Great Man Theory" early research into
leadership (Edwards et al., 1989; Yukl, 1998) focused on trait theory. The goal of these studies
was to empirically identify the traits that were essential to effective leadership. In his review of
leadership research literature, Stogdill (1948) classified the factors associated with leadership as
capacity (intelligence, alertness, verbal facility, originality, judgment); achievement (scholarship,
knowledge, athletic accomplishments); responsibility (dependability, initiative, persistence,
aggressiveness, self-confidence, desire to excel); participation (activity, sociability, cooperation,
adaptability, humor); status (socio-economic position, popularity); and situation (mental level,
status, skills, needs and interests of followers, objectives to be achieved). He went on to conclude
that

A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of
traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant
relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers. Thus, leadership is
conceived in terms of the interaction of variables which are in constant flux and change.
 Stogdill's conclusion contained three significant elements: (a) it provided "devastating
evidence" (Stogdill, 1948, p. 65) against the concept of leadership as the operation of measurable
traits, (b) it acknowledged the situational aspect of leadership including the interaction between
leaders and followers, and (c) it introduced the concept that leadership may be learned through
the acquisition of particular skills.

2.2.4 Leadership Skills

Early studies, provided evidence that skills were related to leadership effectiveness.
Ackerson (1942), Cattell (1946), Newsletter, Feldstein, and Newcomb (1938) and Stogdill
(1948) suggested that it was more than the mere possession of some permutation and
combination of traits that distinguished a person as an effective leader. According to the said
authors effective leadership was manifest in an individual's ability to attain necessary skills and
to actively apply those skills in an all-encompassing effort that resulted in successful objective
achievement.

It was Katz (1955) who suggested that industry would be better served by setting aside its
search for the specific traits or qualities that make an executive and concentrate instead on the
skills necessary for executives to accomplish their tasks effectively. Traits were viewed as innate
or inborn characteristics; skills could be learned and developed. Katz concluded that effective
Management could be accomplished through the development of three basic skills: technical
(mechanics of a particular job), human (build cooperative effort), and conceptual (grasp
interrelationships between various factors).

More recently Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman (2000) suggested a
skills based model for evaluating leader performance based on three key types of skills: complex
problem solving (define, research, formulate ideas, construct potential solutions); solution
construction skills (evaluate restrictions, identify consequences, identify causes, evaluate
organizational mental models); and social judgment skills (cooperation, adaptability, consensus,
understanding people).

Skills-based models of leader performance go beyond the traditional traits-based models

by examining the capabilities that are developed through the interactions of traits and experience
(Mumford et al., 2000). Yet the ideas associated with both of these models limit their scope
primarily to relations occurring in the workplace or while involved in task oriented activities
(Northouse, 2004).

2.2.5 Leadership Styles

Behavioral paradigms moved the emphasis of leadership research to focus on what

leaders do and how they performer. This "expanded the study of leadership to include the actions
of leaders toward subordinates in various contexts". Initial studies at Ohio State yielded the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). Within this questionnaire, Hemphill and
Coons (1957) attempted to identify the behaviors in which a leader engages as he or she moves a
group toward goal accomplishment. Their research produced the ten leadership dimensions of
initiation, membership, representation, integration, organization, domination, communication up,
communication down, recognition, and production.

The items within these dimensions which reflected the extent to which a leader
demonstrated the factors of consideration (friendly, supportive, and concerned toward
subordinates without being lax) and initiating structure (organize and define relationships
between him/her and subordinates to attain group goals) were seen as primary indicators of
leadership behavior (Halpin & Winer, 1957; Stogdill et al., 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957).
These factors were not regarded as opposite ends of a behavioral continuum. Rather, "a given
leader may utilize all of them to the same degree or he may use one at the expense of others"
(Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p. 37).

Parallel to the studies at Ohio State were studies conducted in human relations at the
University of Michigan's Survey Research Center. Their approach of locating positively
correlated clusters of characteristics that identified the elements of leadership style resulted in the
concepts of employee orientation and production orientation (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1987).

Employee orientation is described as behavior by a supervisor, which indicates that he

feels that the "human relations" aspect of the job is quite Significant; and that he considers the
employees as human beings of intrinsic importance, takes an interest in them, and accepts their
individuality and personal needs. Production orientation stresses production and the technical
aspects of the job, with employees as means for getting work done (Bowers & Seashore, 1966, p.
242).

At first these conceptions were considered as opposite ends of a behavioral continuum

but later came to be viewed as independent behavioral orientations (Kahn, 1956).

These findings that the key factors in leadership behavior were consideration and
initiating structure (Ohio State), employee orientation and production orientation (Michigan
State), and the addition of the findings of interpersonal relationships and task accomplishment by
Bales (1958) at Harvard seemed to indicate that the most effective leaders demonstrated a great
degree of both relationship centered and task centered behavior (Sashkin & Burke, 1990). This
led to the development of The Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964) as a leadership
development tool intended to help managers increase their capacity for behavior in each of these
areas.

While the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness is not without its successes
(Fleishman & Peters, 1962), in general the research has indicated an unpredictable relationship in
most criteria of leadership effectiveness (Larson et al., 1976; Bass, 1990a; Yukl, 1998). Trait
theory has begun to find new support in leadership research as findings suggested that a leader's
personality traits are a factor in leadership (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Lord et al., 1986;
Stogdill, 1974). In the 1990s the skills based model began to make a resurgence in leadership
studies as research indicated that leaders can develop their abilities by acquiring specific skills
(Schriesheim et al., 2000; Mumford et al., 2000).

Neither trait theory, skills theory, nor behavior (styles) theory have leader-follower
interactions as a central focus; they deal instead with the capabilities that an individual should
possess to perform effectively in organizational leadership roles (Mumford et al., 2000). Models
such as Fiedler (1964) least preferred coworker Graen and Cashman (1975) leader-member
exchange theory, House et al. (1999) path-goal theory, and Bass and Avolio (1993a)
transformational theory are some examples of theory-guided research that focus on leader-
follower relations. This is not to imply that emerging leadership theories focusing on leader-
follower relations do not identify a set of preferred behaviors for leaders. The following is an
overview of the literature pertaining to leadership styles and contemporary leadership theories.
2.2.5.1 Leadership Styles in Contemporary Leadership Theories

Leadership theories that explore leader and follower interactions as their dominant theme,
behavioral styles continue to serve as a primary means for schooling and measuring leadership.
This part of the chapter explores the three emergent leader-follower focused leadership theories
of (a) authentic leadership, (b) servant leadership, and (c) appreciative leadership and their
respective behavioral styles.

2.2.5.1.1 Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership best represents the confluence of Positive Organizational Behavior

(POB), transformational/full-range leadership (FRL), and research on ethical and moral
development (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). It results in better self-awareness and fosters positive
self-expansion in leaders and associates. The authentic leader demonstrates confidence, hope,
optimism, resilience, transparence, moral and ethical behavior, is future oriented, and develops
the leadership capabilities of others. These behaviors are regarded as leadership skills or styles as
opposed to leadership traits in that they can be learned and measured.

2.2.5.1.2 Positive Organizational Behavior

Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) was created from the positive psychology
movement (Luthans, 2002). The field of positive psychology was presented in 1998 by Seligman
(1998b). Seligman challenged the psychological community to broaden its focus on the negative
mental health effects of undesirable and painful life-events to include the positive mental health
effects of such events. While recognizing the substantial progress made by research psychology
in understanding trauma, abuse, and physical illness, he proposed the study of personal growth,
mastery, drive, and insight that can result from adversity. Seligman challenged the psychological
community with his vision that

“social science, working at the individual level, will take as its mission the delineation,
measurement and promotion of human fulfillment and will, working at the group level, take civic
virtue as its proper subject that social science will become a positive force for understanding and
promoting the highest qualities of civic and personal life”.
 Initially within positive psychology, 14 personality traits were put forward as
characteristic of a good person (Seligman, 1998a). These traits were grouped into the three
general categories of relationships and connections, individual qualities, and life regulation. They
included qualities such as capacity for love, courage, inter-personal skill, aesthetic sensibility,
perseverance, forgiveness, originality, future mindedness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom.
Social science researchers were challenged to investigate the nature of these traits, how they are
developed within an individual, and if they were inherited.

In contrast to the trait like dispositional characteristics emphasized in positive

psychology, POB seeks to identify state like positive capacities in people (Luthans & Avolio,
2003). Luthans (2002) defined POB as "the study and application of positively oriented human
resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively
managed for performance improvement in today's workplace". A central concept of Positive
Organizational behavior is that its constructs can be learned by leaders and managers as opposed
to being inborn traits.

2.2.5.1.3 Positive Approach to Leadership.

Drawing from the positive psychology movement and Positive Organizational behavior,
Luthans, Luthans, Hodgetts, and Luthans (2001) proposed the Positive Approach to Leadership
(PAL) as a theory for leadership development. PAL incorporates the construct criteria of POB
which are (a) measurable, (b) open to development, and (c) manageable in both self and others
for performance improvement in today's organization. To further differentiate PAL from
previous approaches to leadership that might also meet this academic criteria, Luthans et al.
(2001) added a fourth criterion that PAL constructs be relatively unique to the field of
organizational leadership. In accordance with these criteria they put forth the four PAL
constructs of realistic optimism, intelligence (especially emotional intelligence), confidence, and
hope, identified by the acronym RICH.

The term realistic optimism was selected to include the documented array of positive
results associated with optimism (Peterson, 2000) and to exclude deceptive aspects of
overoptimistic or falsely optimistic leaders. This construct was operationalized in Schneider
(2001) three leadership behaviors of (a) leniency for the past where unmet past expectations are
accepted rather than becoming a source of self-condemnation, (b) appreciation for the present
where attention is paid to the positive potential of current situations, and (c) opportunity-seeking
for the future where assignments are framed as challenges rather than problems. Seligman
(1998b) has demonstrated the positive impact that optimism can have on work-related
performance outcomes.

Bar-On (1997b) provided a measure for emotional intelligence that encompasses (a)
intra-personal skills, (b) interpersonal skills, (c) adaptability, (d) stress management, and (e)
general mood. These capabilities, competencies, and skills have been demonstrated to influence
one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures. Emotional
intelligence has been shown to increase as an individual continues to develop self-awareness,
emotional management, and self-motivation (Caruso et al., 2002; Mayer et al., 2004). Abraham
(1999) demonstrated the positive impact of emotional intelligence on organizational performance
in the areas of work-group cohesion, performance feedback, and organizational commitment.

The research of Bandura (1982, 1997, 2000) the development of self-efficacy or

confidence in an individual has been shown to be a process involving (a) mastery experiences or
successful performance, (b) vicarious learning or modeling other's success, (c) receiving
positively-oriented persuasion and feedback, and (d) physiological and psychological arousal.
"Self-efficacy is concerned not with the number of skills you have, but with what you believe
you can do with what you have under a variety of circumstances" (Bandura, 1997, p. 37).
Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) found that self-efficacy had a greater impact on goal-achievement
than did goal-setting, feedback, or job satisfaction.

Snyder (2000) defined hope as a multidimensional construction consisting of (a) goals

(providing the endpoints or anchors of mental action sequences), (b) pathway thoughts (the
ability to envision a route to a goal), and (c) agency thoughts (the perception that one can move
toward a goal and persevere in its fulfillment). While there is considerable evidence that hope
has a significant impact on academic achievement (McDermott & Hastings, 2000), athletic
accomplishment (Curry & Snyder, 2000), emotional health (Cheavens, 2000), and social issues
(Koeske & Kirk, 1995; Lopez et al., 2000; Snyder & Feldman, 2000), the relationship between
hope and performance in the workplace has yet to be examined.
 The positive approach to leadership provides a positive perspective and a theoretical
model for authentic leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Transformational leadership, on the
other hand, is an extensively tested approach to leadership development. Full-Range Leadership
(FRL) in particular provides a setting, a set of leader characteristics, and the ethical/moral
theoretical foundations for authentic leadership.

2.2.5.1.4 Full-Range Leadership (FRL)

Burns (1978) expressed leadership as achievement of the values, needs, aspirations,

expectations and wants of both leaders and followers. He divided this relation into a transactional
form and a transformational form. Thus, Burns considered leaders to be either transactional or
transformational. In building on this definition of leadership, Bass (1985) found that, rather than
regarding these forms as fundamentally different, "leaders will exhibit a variety of patterns of
transformational and transactional leadership. Most leaders do both but in different amounts" (p.
22). Avolio (1999) continued the development of this definition by contending that a
constructive transactional leadership style can help a leader, in time, "move up to the higher end
of the full range, where [he or she] will focus on transformational leadership".

FRL (Avolio & Bass, 2002) has transformational leadership as its developmental goal.
FRL is characterized by the four specific behaviors of (a) idealized leadership, where leaders
behave in ways that motivate and inspire, winning them admiration, trust, and respect; (b)
inspirational motivation, where leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire, arousing team
spirit, optimism, and enthusiasm; (c) intellectual stimulation, where leaders stimulate innovation
and creativity resulting in new ideas and creative solutions to problems; and (d) individualized
consideration, where leaders pay attention to individual goal achievement and growth resulting
in the development of new leaders.

For more than a decade research has indicated that transformational leadership is far
more effective than transactional leadership at generating higher levels of organizational
performance and goal achievement (Lowe et al., 1996; Masi & Cooke, 2000). The Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1992) has been used extensively to assess
transformational and transactional leadership styles. As with the positive approach to leadership,
FRL focuses on the relation between leaders and followers. Both of these leadership theories
incorporate leadership skills and styles as the behavioral constructs for measurement and
development of leadership.

2.2.5.1.5 Servant Leadership

Both considered high order leadership, transformational leadership and Servant

leadership within leadership paradigms (Stone et al., 2004). Both conceptions focus on the
follower and its well-being and development. The principle difference is in the transformational
leader's focus on getting followers to support organizational objectives while the servant leader is
primarily concerned with serving his or her followers. Servant leadership is operationally defined
as

“An understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the
self-interest of the leader. In addition, servant leadership promotes the valuing and developing of
people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for
the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each
individual, the total organization and those served by the organization (Laub, 2003, p. 3).”

From this definition Patterson (2003) suggested, as constructs of servant leadership, the
seven behavioral characteristics of (a) love, (b) humility, (c) altruism, (d) vision, (e) trust, (f)
empowerment, and (g) service. Of these seven constructs, the Servant Leadership Assessment
Instrument (Dennis, 2004) measures love, humility, vision, empowerment, and trust. Love is the
goal of the leader (Ferch & Mitchell, 2001). It is a reciprocal relationship in which the leader and
follower are emotionally, physically, and spiritually present for each other. Humility is the non-
overestimation of one's merits (Hare, 1996). It is fitting for leaders in that, it is often the leader
who may have the greatest leaning to regard themselves as superior. The humble are better
enabled to respect the worth of all persons (Patterson, 2003). Vision refers to Greenleaf (1977)
central tenet that those served should experience personal growth. Leaders should regard
followers as viable and worthy individuals and assist them realizing their greater potential
(Patterson, 2003). Empowerment is entrusting power to others. It involves listening to,
validating, and valuing people (Russell & Stone, 2002). Trust rather than fear is the foundation
for the leader/follower relation (Patterson, 2003). It is leaderships' belief in the followers' unseen
potential and in their ability to accomplish goals. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 Russell and Stone (2002) noted the historic link between servant leadership's emphasis on
follower development and the Ohio State University conducted Leadership studies (Hemphill &
Coons, 1957). These studies identified the two primary elements of leadership as task behavior
and personal relationships. Russell and Stone (2002) observed the shift in the emphasis of
leadership theory in the late 1970s away from personal relationships and toward organizational
performance. They regard servant leadership as resurgence in the importance of personal
relationships. Even though servant leadership focuses on leader/follower interaction it uses
behavioral styles as a means to develop leaders and measure their effectiveness.

2.2.5.1.6 Appreciative Leadership

Appreciative Leadership is grounded in the field of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) defined by

Cooperrider and Whitney (2005) as "the co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their
organizations, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what gives a
system 'life' when it is most effective and capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI
involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system's capacity to heighten
positive potential" (p.17). Norum (2006) identified the connection of "purposeful action that
integrates the depth and perseverance of servant-leadership and the intentional pursuit of the
positive core represented in Appreciative Inquiry" (p. 475). She shifts the focus from the work of
leaders to the work of leadership thereby creating a truly democratic relationship. It is in the life-
confirming space created by this relationship that leadership identifies and brings out "the 'more'
of people, organizations, and systems so that strength can be fused with strength" (p. 457).

Srivastva, Fry, and Cooperrider (1999) summarized appreciative leadership in the context
of the primary tasks of an organization's executives which are envisioning the future, leading in
collective sense-creation, and enacting the collective views of what is required. Thus,
appreciative leadership is

“a way of knowing and perceiving the present that generates visions of the possible; a
way of relating with others in making sense of shared experiences so that collective action is
desirable; and a way of acting or being that, in itself, enables the executive to provide a life-
giving force to the continuity of everyday organizational reality, (p. 30)”
 As such, Mirvis (1999) contended that an appreciative executive needs to develop an
enlarged vision for the organization, an enriched view of human nature, and the ability to infuse
action with larger meaning.

Nurturing the best in others and being a change catalyst is the key role of an appreciative
leader (Whitney et al., 2010; Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Leaders are considered to be role
models of appreciative inquiry in their relationships with others and participate along with other
staff and colleagues in the inquiry process. An Appreciative Leader is a strength-based leader,
In-fact the leader is considered less important than the queries he asks, the discourse these
questions create, and the ongoing quest of seeing the positive potential in both the employee and
organization.

Leader Membership Exchange (LMX) and Transactional theories of leadership (THL)

theories focus on the relationship of leader and member (Avolio et al., 2009). Both theories
originate in behavioural theory although Leader Membership Exchange (LMX) theory has
moved beyond to focus on different aspects of leader-follower dyads. Appreciative Inquiry
moves beyond this behavioural analysis and discussion of leader and follower dynamics to a
broader view of organizational stakeholder participation as a catalyst of present and future
potentials.

Appreciative Leaders work towards a flatter hierarchical structure such that all staff
participate in answering the central positive questions at hand and are empowered to innovate
and create what is needed to move the organization forward. Appreciative Leaders trust the
people they work with enough to step back and allow their staff, co-constructors of the
organizational future vision, to get to work. This is a very different leadership role and although
models of distributed and shared leadership may come closer in reflecting a flatter and more
shared leadership structure, the key to Appreciative Leadership is the leader's place within an
appreciative process which sets this leadership theory apart from many others.

Appreciative Leadership centers around how senior leaders develop and introduce high
human values in an organization (Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1990). In 2000, Deanna Riley, along
with Bea Holland and Marjorie Schiller, developed a model of Appreciative Leadership based on
interviews conducted by over 100 OD practitioners (Schiller et al., 2002). They concluded that
the characteristics of the Appreciative Leader can be explained using three categories: World
View, Practices, and Values.

World View is seen as the conceptual framework or leadership philosophy of the

Appreciative Leader. This philosophy includes how the leader envisions the world, his/her role,
and the role of others; what the leader views as inspirational and how he/she inspires
organizational members; and what holistic views the leader has of him/herself, others, and the
organization.

Practices indicate the day-to-day behavior of the leader and how he/she challenges,
encourages, enables, and coaches subordinates, and how' they create a dialogue and inquire into
the daily activities of the organization. Values indicate the depth of feeling and commitment the
leader has. It is measured in how genuine, credible, or respectful the leader is to subordinates,
peers, and other leaders in the organization.

These three dimensions work together—much like the layers of organizational culture—
to influence leadership behavior on a conceptual, behavioral, and valuebased level. Appreciative
leadership is in its early stages. A review of the literature has not revealed an operationalized
definition. Yet, if this approach to leadership is to be taught or more importantly, learned, some
body of content must be identified as the object to be examined. Vaill (1999) put forth
appreciative executive formation as transcendent development.

He suggested a system, as opposed to a list, consisting of seven behaviors. The first of

these challenges the leaders toward embracing new values, the possibilities they imply, and the
relativity of values with each other. Within an organization each person has a piece of the truth
while no one has all of the truth. Life for a leader is a process of discovering all of the ways
organization members have their truths. It is the capacity to embrace the many facets of any
human situation. Second, the leader is engaged toward an obsessive reason. This is expressed as
an ever developing synergy between creativity, courage, and leadership. It is the manner
whereby the leader balances his faith in the process and remains involved with people, problems,
and objectives. Third, the leader is confronted toward the development of an open value system.
This is not to be thought of as a list of values that one adds to and or takes away from. Openness
draws the leader out of his value system and into the value system of others.
 Fourth, the leader is called toward transcendent development that is shared with others.
"It involves leading organization members into a fuller realization of their interdependence and
of their common feelings, common loyalties, common opportunities, and common strengths".
Fifth, leaders are directed toward a new vocabulary and grammar of Transcendence. This will
serve as a vehicle to better comprehend organizational members' commitment, spirit, and
expressions of self while remaining honest to one's own essence and responsive to the essence of
others. Sixth, leaders are moved toward appreciation of the spirit in larger and larger wholes.
Appreciating the entire, the big picture, is not a once and for all experience. The whole always
exists within a larger whole. Seeing the big picture is a progressive and transcendent process.
Seventh, leaders are urged toward centering in the present. The present is the moment where the
spirit is most naturally found. If the system is to be cultivated it will be done in the present or it
will not be done at all.

2.2.5.2 Outcomes of Leadership Styles

Leadership has long been assumed to be critical to organizational success. It is difficult to

recall highly successful organizations without thinking of prominent leaders that helped make the
organization successful. Top leadership is statistically linked to firm performance (Hart & Quinn,
1993). In Addition, empirical analysis of businesses’ financial performance has found that CEOs
effect 15 percent of the total variation in financial performance of Business (Nohria et al., 2003).
Many researchers believe that in the modem business setting, more adaptive, flexible styles of
leadership are needed for modem organizations to be successful (Bass et al., 2003; Bass &
Avolio, 1993a).

Geyery and Steyrer (1998) report there is disagreement concerning the effectiveness of
different leadership styles but their research found a significant relationship between leaders’
effectiveness and transformational performance. In addition, they report the transactional
component of contingent reward is positively related to organizational performance but the
relationship is weaker than that of transformational leadership. They found correlation of the
transactional component of management by exception is low and often may be negative; these
negative results are attributed to the damage already done. Furthermore, laissez-faire leadership
is negative when correlated by outcomes.
 In summary, research shows that transformational leadership is significantly correlated to
organizational performance, transactional leadership is positive but weaker, and laissez-faire
leadership is negatively related to organizational performance and outcomes.

Investigation by Ulrich, Zenger, and Smallwood (1999) determined successful leadership.

Factors they found to be successful in results-based leadership of an organization include a focus
on results, clear and specific performance targets, determining what leaders should personally do
to improve results, and use of results as a test of leadership application. These factors are
behaviors of the transactional leadership components of contingent reward and active
management by exception. Ulrich, Zenger, and Smallwood also proposed the following key
leadership attributes including setting direction, mobilizing individual commitment, and
demonstrating personal character. These components are alike to the transformational leadership
factors of idealized influence and inspirational leadership. Both styles of leadership, transactional
and transformational, are supported as determinants of organizational success. It is important to
note Ulrich, Zenger, and Smallwood do not suggest only one method is useful, but both
techniques are essential.

Other researchers support the concept of using both styles of leadership. Hart and Quinn
(1993) discovered that leaders are more effective when they have multiple styles and their
leadership is multi-dimensional. Successful organizations are likely to have both styles of
leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1993a). Avolio and Bass (1995) concur that though transformational
leaders may be preferred; there are situations when transactional behaviors are as effective.
Stable environments such as bureaucratic settings with routine activities are often are managed
adequately by transactional tools and techniques. In addition, employees requiring detailed
direction and structure in their environment may need to be lead in a transactional or directive
manner. In these situations, transformational leaders may frequently display transactional
behaviors (Howell & Avolio, 1993).

Lowe et al. (1996) performed a meta-analysis of transformational literature to integrate

the different findings and evaluate different moderating variables suggested by other research.
Results of this analysis of 33 studies support the positive correlation of transformational
leadership with work unit effectiveness. The level of the leader was examined to evaluate the
assumption that effective transformational leaders have a higher probability of being found in the
executive levels of an organization. This hypothesis was found to be not significant. The level a
leader held in an organization was not a moderating effect in performance and there was no
difference in the effectiveness of transformational leaders at different levels in the organization
(Lowe et al., 1996).

Charismatic leaders are often selected when an organization needs a turn-around

(Landrum et al., 2000). An organization in trouble needs a new vision and it is the charismatic
leader’s task to develop the new vision and to communicate it to the organization and get their
support during execution. Furthermore, leadership and organizational culture have a positive
affect on each other, though different leadership styles may have varying levels of success.

Most organizations studied consider transformational leadership superior in effectiveness

to transactional leadership (Palmer et al., 2001). In self-rating surveys, most effective leaders
consider themselves transformational in nature (Palmer et al., 2001). Howell and Avolio (1993)
concluded that managers need to mature transformational leadership behaviors to become more
effective leaders and increase their positive influence on the organization. Transformational
leaders have the ability to influence the direction and focus of the organization while the actions
of transformational leaders only have short term control on performance.

Additional research indicates that managers can be skilled in the use of transformational
leadership, adding to its appeal as a tool for organizations to increase overall organizational
performance (Barling et al., 1996). Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) conducted a research at Ford
Motor Company to improve the leadership within the corporation. Sr. Executives at Ford decided
that transformational leadership was the preferred leadership style but it should not be confined
to upper management and should be encouraged in the layers of mid management. Traditional
management training methods had a history of limited influence on behaviors in the workplace.

Changes in the behavior of man managers would require changes in the mind set in
addition to strategic, culture and structural modifications to the work environment. After
behavioral training, half the managers increased their transformational behaviors. Spreitzer and
Quinn (1996) determined mid managers were able to make significant changes to their
organizations. Those managers with positive feelings about work relationships were the most
likely to make transformational changes. In addition, this study found that organizational culture
may work against change by cementing existing behaviors and adding to the organizational
inertia that needs to be overcome. With effective training and support from senior management,
and a conscious effort to change the cultural environment, it was possible to increase the
occurrences of transformational leadership.

2.2.6 Leadership and Organizational Culture

The two important constructs of leadership styles and organizational culture are not
independent of each other. Research has shown there is constant interplay between
organizational culture and leadership (Berrio, 2003; Parry, 2002; Bass & Avolio, 1993a). Block
(2003) did not confirm the linkage of leadership behaviors with distinct cultural traits but
measured that 24 to 30 percent of variance in employees’ perceptions of culture could be
attributed to the leadership style of their immediate supervisor. It is the leaders and managers that
help shape & change the culture of an organization at the same time influence the employees’
perception of that culture. In addition, leaders that have the ability to set or influence culture
need to be aware of the culture in which they are operating or they will not be effective.

Bass and Avolio (1993a) found that effective leaders need to be attentive to beliefs,
values and assumptions in an organization, in short, the culture. Having high levels of emotional
intelligence, these leaders can understand the emotions of team members and the influence of
organizational culture on the situation (Barling et al., 2000). These leaders may use this
understanding of the culture and its effect on the organizational members to assist them in
selecting optimal leadership techniques.

Hart and Quinn (1993) found that managers are more effective when they are culturally
multifaceted. They have more tools to deal with different situations. Managers adept at different
Competing Values Framework quadrants are rated as being more effective. Consequently,
effective leadership requires a range of leadership techniques and skills. It may be contingent
that leaders who identify and understand the present culture, and also know which leadership
styles are more effective in distinct cultures, will be more successful. Therefore, it is important to
know which styles of leadership are the most effective in which type of organizational culture.
2.2.7 Leadership and Emotional Intelligence

The term Emotional Intelligence (EI) was originally introduced by Salovey and Mayer
(1990), though questionably, forms of what would later become known as emotional intelligence
date back to as early as (Gardner, 1983; Thorndike, 1920). Salovey and Mayer (1990) formulated
a distinct form of intelligence that was related with mental abilities which focused specifically on
an understanding and managing of one’s emotions and being separate from other disticnt
intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as “the ability to monitor one’s own and
others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide
one's thinking and actions” (p. 186). EI was subsequently promoted by Goleman (1995) in his
book entitled, Emotional Intelligence. In his investigation, Goleman found that while it is true
that the qualities conventionally associated with leadership, such as cognitive intelligence,
decisiveness, determination, and vision are indeed a requisite for success, they are nevertheless
inadequate by themselves. Real leaders, according to Goleman (1998), have a high degree of
emotional intelligence which includes self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and
social skill. Goleman (1998) observed that “The components of emotional intelligence-self
awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill-can sound un-businesslike. But
displaying emotional intelligence at the workplace does not mean simply regulating your anger
or becoming popular with people. Rather, it means understanding your own and other people’s
emotional makeup well enough to move people in the direction of accomplishing your
company’s goals.” (p. 96)

In Addition, Goleman’s work, incorporated various features of personality and

motivation; there arose inconsistencies in the literature concerning the definitional features of
Emotional Intelligence which led to controversy associated with the theoretical underpinnings of
the construct (Emmerling & Goleman, 2003; Caruso, 2008). The central debate about EI is
whether the very term is effective and valid, Such as, whether emotions can comprise a form of
intelligence; though, there have been several studies focused on the overlap between Emotional
Intelligence and personality traits (Lopes et al., 2003). Nonetheless, Goleman (1998) observed
that, in his research of leaders in over 200 companies, 90% of the differences found in their
performance were attributed to their comparative levels of Emotional Intelligence, rather than to
their cognitive abilities. Antonakis (2004) questioned into question the validity of Goleman’s and
other similar claims, demonstrating that they are unclear from a statistical perspective and are not
backed up by any empirical data published in any peer-reviewed journals. Roberts, Zeidner, and
Matthews (2001) supported Antonakis, stating

“Despite the important role attributed to a wide array of emotional competencies in the
workplace, there is currently only a modicum of research supporting the meaningful role
attributed to EI (and nested emotional competencies) in determining occupational success. Many
of the popular claims presented in the literature regarding the role of El in determining work
success and well-being are rather misleading in that they seem to present scientific studies
supporting their claims, while in fact failing to do so. In short, despite some rather fantastic
claims to the contrary, the guiding principle appears presently as “caveat emptor” (i.e., let the
buyer beware)”. (p. 393)

In Groves (2006), a study was leveled including 108 senior organizational leaders who
were asked to complete a survey measuring emotional expressivity that also gathered
organizational data. Three hundred and twenty five staff members working for these leaders were
asked to fill out evaluations rating their leader’s level of visionary leadership, effectiveness of
leadership, and the ability to create organizational change. The study determined that there was a
significant relationship between a leader’s ability to express their emotions and thier visionary
leadership. Furthermore, the study showed that the top 33 leaders with respect to emotional
expressivity and vision were also leading companies with the highest levels of organizational
change.

It should be noted that the knowledge, skills and experience of individuals are important
factors in the success of the organization and, therefore, expected that future managers pay more
attention to the improvement of emotional intelligence to improve performance in organizations
(Razer, 2005). Ability of leaders to understand manage emotions in yourself and others, to
increase the participation and commitment of staff, improve motivation and productivity of
individuals and ultimately profitability is higher. Also, high levels of emotional intelligence in
leadership, leading to results beyond expectations from the staff. By the same indication, a
higher level of emotional intelligence of leaders who are able to develop values that are
acceptable to employees and to the organization will facilitate this process. Humphrey (2008)
says that a leader is someone who skillfully manages his own feelings of employees and also
provides a crisis management operation on about leadership in their researcher also concluded
that moderate to high correlation between emotional intelligence and leadership. His research
also showed that successful leadership is largely about 67% is related to emotional intelligence is
a key factor for people who are socially effective emotional intelligence in leadership as a
determining factor in effective leadership.

A study by Coetzee and Schaap (2005) indicates a significant correlation between the
emotional intelligence scores and the effective and ineffective leadership scores (r = 0.342; p <
0.01) of their sample group. Cherniss and Goleman (2001) opine that emotional intelligence
contributes to about 90 percent of leadership success. There is a growing number of theoretical
evidence that emotional intelligence is positively correlated with transformational leadership
(Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). In a study examining transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence in 32 individuals in management positions, Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found that
the level of emotional intelligence as measured by the Bar-On (1997b) Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ - i) significantly relate to transformational leadership style (R = .50) Also, the
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2002) reports a positive correlation between EI and
transformational leadership.

In 2000 an English company, Hay Management Consultants, compared 200 highly

effective principals to 200 senior executives in business. The group identified five domains of
leadership: Teamwork and Developing Others, Drive and Confidence, Vision and
Accountability, Influencing Tactics and Politics, and Thinking Styles (conceptual and analytical)
(Fullan). Fullan compares this study to a claim made by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002)
in which they stated that emotionally intelligent leaders and emotionally intelligent organizations
are essential in complex times.

Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership Styles and Emotional Intelligence:

Transformational and transactional are the two of the most prominent leadership styles
proposed by the theorists in late 1980s. Several theorists have proposed versions of
transformational and transactional ever since then. Theoretically and conceptually transactional
and transformational leadership are defined differently, yet several researchers and practitioners
believe that transformational leadership expressively extends transactional leadership, leading to
advanced echelons of performance at individual, group, and organizational levels. At the same
time as several researchers and practitioners believe that transactional leadership is a subclass of
transformational leadership (Robbins & Coulter, 2007; Cole, 2006; Weihrich et al., 2008).

Transformational leaders are individuals who inspire and stimulate or transform followers
for accomplishing amazing results (Robbins & Coulter, 2007). They give notice to the concern
and changing essentials of particular followers. Transformational leaders change followers’
cognizance of problems through aiding them to look at timeworn complications in an innovative
approach, and moreover are proficient to stimulate, enthuse and encourage followers to give
added attempts for accomplishing collective goals. In actuality, the theory of transformational
leadership advocates for leadership that makes positive transformation in the followers where
leaders and followers give notice to each other's interests and take action collectively in the
wellbeing of the group overall (Warrilow, 2012; Robbins & Coulter, 2007). On the other hand,
transactional leadership, which is as well specified as managerial leadership, concentrates on the
role of supervision, organisation, and group performance. Transactional leadership in fact is a
leadership style where the leaders stimulate acquiescence of their followers by means of both
rewards and penalties. Different to transformational leadership, transactional leaders having
approach of transaction do not lean to transform the future, instead look for just keeping things
the similar. Transactional leaders give notice to followers' work for finding mistakes and
aberrations. This sort of leadership is effectual in situations of emergency and crisis, together
with whilst projects require to be undertaken in an explicit approach and system (Hay, 2012;
Robbins & Coulter, 2007).
Table 2. 1:Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership

Transactional Transformational
Leadership is responsive Leadership is proactive
Work within organizational culture Work to change the organizational culture by
implementing by ideas
Employees achieve objectives through rewards Employees achieve objects through higher
and set by leader ideals and moral values

Motivate follower by appealing to their own Motivates followers by encouraging them to

self interest
Management-by-exception: maintain the status
quo; stress correct actions to improve
performance
put group interests first
Individualised consideration: each behavior is
directed to each individual to express
consideration and support
Intellectual stimulation: promote creative and
innovative idea to solve problems

Precisely, transformational and transactional leadership theories signify unflinching

efforts by researchers and practitioners to elucidate the nature and influence of leadership. Both
transformational and transactional leadership styles have their different strengths and
weaknesses, nevertheless, the impact of situational changes on leadership results in the
framework of both styles of leadership must not be overlooked. More empirical studies require to
be carried out as regards the effectiveness of both leadership styles in different situations and
organizational concerns from the perspective of followers.

Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, and Boyle (2006) find in their study that leaders who keep score
high on emotional intelligence are supposed by followers as showing more transformational
leadership performances. Barbuto and Burbach (2006) find that the emotional intelligence of
leaders accounts for the bulk of the change in transformational leadership. They further find that
transformational leadership essentially intermediates the rapport stuck between emotional
intelligence and the group performance or result. Hence, emotional intelligence approach and
performance of transformational leaders must be assessed from the perspective of group results,
which is held up wide-ranging studies.

In their study Harms and Crede (2010) find that the emotional intelligence has the
positive and significant relationship between transformation-centered management and the
performance of the management. They get their results based on 62 independent samples. Lately
Chatterjee and Kulakli (2015) have conducted an empirical study investigating the relationship
between emotional Intelligence, transactional and transformational leadership styles in banking
sector using MSCEIT. The four variables of emotional intelligence are applied in the forms of
perceiving emotions, facilitating thought, understanding emotions, managing emotions. Applying
MSCEIT, they find no significant relationship between these variables of emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership style. These results are totally opposing to what the current
prevailing literature. In fact, a comparison of the supposed transactional leadership styles of the
public sector bank managers and their emotional intelligence demonstrates no significant
relationships, as was hypothesized by the literature. Alike to the results for the transformational
leadership extents, the transactional leadership extends too are found having no significant
relationship with the identified variables of emotional intelligence. The clear inference of this
latest study is that there exists no positive and significant relationships between emotional
intelligence and transactional leadership; as a result, the significance of emotional intelligence in
everyday leadership is completely overstated. Moreover, the results of the study as well point out
towards several limitations of the MSCEIT, with the low down reliabilities do not permit for
these inferences presently and further study is necessary.

2.2.8 Leadership and Performance

The relationship between leadership and performance has received considerable scholarly
attention. Most studies about the relationship between transactional leadership and organizational
performance have yielded disappointing findings. However, when Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) was used (Bass, 1985), a high correlation was found between the leader's
transformational style and the organizational performance level. This correlation was
consistently higher than the positive correlation between the leader's transactional style and the
organizational performance. In other studies that followed, a negative correlation was usually
found between the transactional leadership style and organizational performance (MacKenzie et
al., 2001; Parry, 2003; Geyery & Steyrer, 1998; Lowe et al., 1996).

According to Bass (1985), employees choose to perform tasks out of identification with
the leader or with the organization. This relationship results in the employees' basic agreement
with the norms to which they are required to perform. Bass suggests that transformational
leadership can create identification with and internalization of desirable values, as opposed to the
limited goal of transactional leadership to create a compliant workforce. Parry (2003)
specifically examined leadership styles in public sector organizations and found that a
transformational leadership style has a positive effect on the innovation and effectiveness of
these organizations. Recently, Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen (2005) suggested the leader
member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen, 1976) as a good explanation for a mediating role
between leadership styles (especially transformational leadership) and organizational
performance as well as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In many respects, the LMX
theory is in line with Vroom (1964) expectancy theory and Blau (1964) exchange theory that call
for a stronger balance between managers and employees. According to these theories, better
performance can be achieved only when there is a reasonable level of expectation-fit and when
the social exchange between managers and employees is fair and equal. Wang et al. (2005)
suggest that subordinates have role expectations of their leaders and that they are not passive role
recipients, as they may reject, embrace, or renegotiate roles prescribed by their leaders. A
reciprocal process is based on fairness and equity of exchange and expectations, and is
developed over time.

Elenkov (2002) examined the impact of transactional and transformational leadership

practices on organizational performance in a number of companies in Russia. The survey
consisted of 253 leaders and 498 followers. The study used Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure leadership behaviors. The findings of this study showed a
strong correlation (0.80 to 0.61, p < .01) between transformational leadership styles and
organizational performance. The correlation was weak (0.30 to 0.21, p < .01) between
transactional leadership components and organizational performance.

Zhu, Chew, and Spangler (2005) conducted a study in 170 companies in Singapore to
investigate the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors of their CEOs and
performance and several other factors such as human resources management, sales, and
absenteeism The results of Zhu et al. (2005) study showed a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational performance (β = 0.59, p < 0.01). Most relevant
to the present study is that when the authors added the human resources management variable to
their regression test, the effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance
decreased ( β = 0.32, p < 0.01). This indicates that human resources management mediated the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance in these 170
Singaporean companies.

Historically, prior research studies attempted to explore the relationship between

leadership styles and organizational performance (Bolman & Deal, 2003; DeClerk, 2008;
Elenkov, 2002; LaRue, Childs, & Larson, 2004; Scott & Davis, 2007; Zhu et al., 2005).

Within the BFSI sector; however, no empirical studies have examined the effects of
leadership styles on organizational performance. Most recent research that examined the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance included those
of Roi (2006) and Moore (2007). Roi (2006) found a positive association between
transformational leadership and the financial performance of the 94 corporations. Roi (2006)
reported a positive and significant relationship between transformational leadership and long-
term net income growth.

Moore (2007) studied the linkage between leadership style and organizational
effectiveness in the United Way of America organization. To measure transactional,
transformational, and hands-off leadership, Moores used the MLQ instrument. Moores found a
positive correlation between transactional leadership style and organizational performance,
which was a surprise compared to other similar studies. When the author controlled the gender
variable; however, the result reflected a positive relationship. To conclude, Moores wrote,
“…there is a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership (rs (118) =
0.308, p = 0.001) and the revenue component of organizational effectiveness for female leaders.”
(p. 103).

Pradeep and Prabhu (2011) in their study examined the relationship between effective
leadership style and employee performance in India. Their study revealed that leadership was
positively linked with employee performance for both transformational behaviour and
transactional contingent reward leadership behaviour.

A similar research carried out by Paracha, Qamar, Mirza, Hassan, and Waqas (2012), to
determine which leadership style can increase the performance of employees of some selected
private schools in Pakistan, demonstrated that transactional and transformational leadership
styles are both positively associated with employee performance. However, transactional
leadership was found to be more significantly related to employee performance than
transformational leadership style.

Muterera (2012) in his study, carried out in the United States of America, revealed that
both transactional and transformational leadership behaviours are positively related with
organisational performance but that transformational leadership behavior positively contributed
to organizational performance over and above the contribution made by transactional leadership.

In summary, while the field of leadership studies lacks agreement about what leadership
is, there is ample evidence of a viable construct called leadership and that the study and measure
of this phenomenon is valuable (Kouzes & Posner, 1990). Quantitative and qualitative research
suggest that a productive approach to examining leadership "is to examine and identify key
behaviors of leaders, how these behaviors manifest themselves, and how these practices can be
nurtured and developed in people" (p. 214). The following section reviews the literature
regarding the measurement of leadership style.

2.2.9 Measuring Leadership Styles

To measure leadership, one must first define leadership. Leadership researchers adopt
and or modify definitions of leadership that relate their work and to the work of others in the
field (Clark & Clark, 1990). Much more progress has been made in defining and measuring the
qualities (traits, skills, and styles) of leaders than in defining the events and behaviors associated
with the environmental contexts from which leaders emerge. This study explores leadership and
financial performance as expressed in the behavioral styles exhibited by the unit leaders, and
managers.

In his research into the development and measurement of styles, Sternberg (1990)
suggested that the development of intellectual styles are related to variables associated with
gender, age, culture, nurturing style, schooling, and profession among others.

Myers (1980) suggested 16 types resulting from the combinations of two ways of
perceiving – sensing versus intuition; two ways of judging - thinking versus feeling; two ways of
dealing with self and others - introversion versus extraversion; and two ways of dealing with the
outer world - judgment versus perception. If styles are socialized in their development, they
should be modifiable and measurable Gregorc (1985) proposed four main types or styles from
combinations of two dimensions - concrete versus abstract and sequential versus random.

Styles are socialized constructs that are developed as “we perceive certain modes of
interaction to be rewarded more than others, and we probably gravitate toward these modes,
while being constrained by our built-in predispositions as to how much and how well we are able
to adopt these rewarded styles,” (p. 487)

Renzulli and Smith (1978) have identified various learning styles and their corresponding
teaching styles: projects, drill and recitation, peer teaching, discussion, teaching games,
independent study, programmed instruction, lecture, and simulation.

Holland in 2006 offered a typology of personality styles to assist in understanding job

interests: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional (Career Key,
2016). From over 100 self-assessment tests Cheldelin and Foritano (1989) found that the
instruments tended to group into five types. These five types are composed of instruments
designed to (a) assess personality or aspects of the personality; examples include the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & Briggs, 1977) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
(Cattell, 1978); (b) to assess self-knowledge and awareness; examples include the Learning Style
Inventory (Kolb, 1976) and the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (Jastak & Wilkinson,
1984); (c) to assess behavior in the context of the external world; examples include Life Styles
Inventory (Lafferty, 2004), The Pinch Package: For Renewing Relationships at Home and at
Work (Scherer, 1984); (d) to assess vocational interests and competence; examples include the
Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (Strong & Campbell, 1981) and the Career Assessment
Inventory (Johansson, 1986); and (e) to assess data specific to career or profession; examples
include the Wesman Personnel Classification Test (Wesman, 1965) and the Bennett Mechanical
Comprehension Test (Bennet, 1980). A common weakness attributed to self-assessment
instruments is the tendency of respondents to indicate how they would like to be seen as, the
social desirability factor, rather than more objectively rating their own behavioral styles.

Kets de Vries, Vrignaud, and Florent-Treacy (2004) described the measurement of

leadership as the examination of “the triangle of mental life, consisting of emotion, cognition,
and behavior” (p. 477). Within their realm, the aspect of emotion was addressed by the clinical
orientation to leadership. It was concerned with understanding the dynamic processes existing
between leaders and followers. The aspect of reasoning was found within the situational
orientation. This was concerned with the effect that external forces and environmental
constraints have in shaping the leader. The aspect of behavior was the focus of the personal
orientation. This was concerned with the specific personality variables that influence leadership
effectiveness. They concluded that most leadership self-assessment instruments do not examine
the underlying psychodynamic processes of leadership and that self-assessment measures fail to
provide the quality of measurement found in most 360 degree instruments.

Multi-rater instruments have been shown to reliably evaluate managerial performance

(Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Common objections to the use of multi-rater evaluations include the
concern that personal issues may contaminate evaluations by peers or subordinates as well as the
difficulties associated with finding raters who have had sufficient time observing the person
under evaluation (Bracken, 1994). The Life Styles Inventory (LSI) was selected for this research
in part because, although it is a self-assessment instrument, when used in combination with the
Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI), the leader’s self-assessment can be evaluated in relation
to the organizational culture described by the organization’s members.

The LSI measures a leader’s self image in terms of constructive, passive/defensive, and
aggressive/defensive dimensions. Masi and Cooke (2000) used the LSI in conjunction with OCI
to investigate transformational leadership. McClellan in 1995 used the LSI and the OCI to
determine the impact of culture and behavioral styles on the adoption of training technologies in
business and industry. Marshall (2001) used the LSI to examine the impact of conflict
management and leadership styles on succession planning in family-owned businesses.

In the context of organizational performance research, very little attention has been given
to the examination of the behavioral styles of Unit Managers.

2.2.10 Leadership Behaviour Styles for the Life Styles Inventory (LSI)

The Life Styles Inventory1M (LSI) 1 is a tool to help leaders analyze their thinking and
leadership behaviour style. The 12 leadership thinking styles described in the LSI include : (1)
Humanistic-Encouraging; (2) Affiliative; (3) Approval; (4) Conventional; (5) Dependent; (6)
Avoidance; (7) Oppositional; (8) Power; (9) Competitive; (10) Perfectionistic; (11)
Achievement; and, (12) Self-Actualizing. Because the LSI measures what motivates the
candidate's behaviour which is comprised of thoughts and selfconcept, it is a tool that prompts
self-discovery. Thoughts and self-concept are the two key components that determine one's
behaviour.

The LSI grid is designed in the shape of a clock with 12 sections on the circumplex, also
referred to as the circular grid (Figure 1). Twelve o'clock to 3 o'clock (Self-Actualizing,
Humanistic-Encouraging, Affiliative, and Approval thinking styles) comprise a behaviour style
of leadership which is concerned with People/Satisfaction which is most reflective of
transformational leadership. The range from three o'clock to six o'clock (Approval,
Conventional, Dependent, and Avoidance thinking styles) comprise a leadership behaviour style
which is most concerned with People/Security and is reflective of non-directive leadership. The
range from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock (Oppositional, Power, Competitive, and Avoidance thinking
styles) best describes a leadership behaviour style focused on Task/Security and is most
reflective of direct/direct-informational leadership. The range from 9 o'clock to 12 o'clock
(Perfectionistic, Achievement, Self-Actualizing, and Humanistic-Encouraging thinking styles) is
most concerned with Task/Satisfaction and is most reminiscent of collaborative leadership.

All LSI terminology, style names and descriptions: From Life Style Inventory ™ by J.C.
Lafferty, Human Synergistics International, Copyright 2009 by Human Synergistics
International.. Adapted by permission. Figure 1(a) refers to the components of the LSI
circumplex in relation to: (1) the leadership behaviour styles as described by Glickman, Gordon
and Ross-Gordon (2007), Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999)
and Leithwood, Steinbach, and Jantzi (2002) (transformational, collaborative, direct/direct
informational, and non-directive); (2) the three LSI Style subscales (Constructive,
Aggressive/Defensive, and Passive/Defensive); (3) the four LSI Concern subscales
(People/Satisfaction, People/Security, Task/Security, and Task/Satisfaction); and, (4) the 12
thinking styles with their relative clock position.
Figure 2. 1: Flowchart of LSI Circumplex Information
Source: Adopted from Cooke and Lafferty (2011)

Note: Figure 2.1. The Life Styles Inventory ™ (LSI) and LSI style names and
descriptions: From Life Styles Inventory™ by J.C. Lafferty, Human Synergistics International.
Copyright 2009 by Human Synergistics International. Adapted by permission.

Inventory used as the basis of development for the flowchart in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2
Life Styles Inventory TM Circumplex by Human Synergistics.
Figure 2. 2: Provides the circumplex depicted in the Life Style

Source: Adopted from Cooke and Lafferty (2011)

Note: Figure 2.2. The Life Style Inventory Circumplex. Researcher and Development by
J. Clayton Lafferty, PhD. Copyright 1973-2009 by Human Synergistics International. Used by
permission.
Figure 2. 3: LSI Styles and Leadership Behaviour Styles by Glickman and Leithwood

Source: Adopted from Cooke and Lafferty (2011)

Items in bold type represent the thinking styles reflective of the LSI Constructive Style
and the overlap between thinking found in both Transformational (Leithwood et al., 1999, 2002)
and Collaborative (Glickman et al., 2007) Leadership Behaviour Styles. Note: All LSI style
names and descriptions: From Life Styles Inventory ™ by J.C. Lafferty, Human Synergistics.
Copyright 2009 by Human Synergistics International. Adapted by permission.

Conceptually, the 12 thinking styles reflect the distinctions between security and
satisfaction needs, tasks, and people orientations (Rawlins & Daumer, 1987; Ware et al., 1985;
Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). With respect to the security and satisfaction distinction, 7 of the 12
scales are associated with lower-order needs (Concern for People Task and Security) and the
upper 7 of the 12 scales with higher-order needs (Concern for Task, People and Satisfaction)
(Maslow, 1954). Split the opposite way, 7 of the 12 scales reflect a task orientation similar to
Stogdill (1963) initiating structure, Blake and Mouton (1964) concern for production (Concern
for Task/Satisfaction and Concern for Task/Security), and Katz, Maccoby, and Morse (1959)
production-centered behaviour.Additionally, the opposite 7 of the 12 scales reflect a people
orientation, similar to consideration, concern for people, and employee centered behaviour
(Concern for People/Satisfaction and Concern for People/Security). Refer to Table 2.2 for the
LSI connections to Katz et al. (1959), Maslow (1954), Stogdill (1963) and Blake and Mouton
(1964) theories. These two major theoretical understandings suggest four general areas of
Concern: (1) People/Satisfaction; (2) People/Security; (3) Task/Satisfaction; and, (4)
Task/Security (Lafferty, 1973). These four general areas or personal orientations categorize the
factors into 12 leadership behaviour thinking style indices

Table 2. 2: LSI In Relation to Maslow, Stogdill & Blake & Mouton

Concern for Concern for Task Concern for Task Concern for
People and & Satisfaction & Security People & Security
Satisfaction
Self-Actualizing Competitive Style Competitive Approval Style 3
Style 12 o’clock 9 o’clock Style 9 o’clock o’clock
Humanistic- Perfectionistic Power style 8 o’ Conventional
Encouraging style 10 o’ clock clock style 4 o’ clock
style 1 o’ clock
Affilliative style Achievement Style Oppositional Dependent Style
2 o’clock 11 o'clock Style 7 o'clock 5 o'clock
Approval style Self-Actualizing Avoidance Style Avoidance Style
3 o'clock Style 12 o’clock 6 o’clock 6 o’clock

The italicized information in the chart refers to Maslow's higher-order needs. The non-
italicized information refers to Maslow's lower-order needs. The information bolded refers to
Stogdill (1963) and Blake and Mouton (1964) concern for production. The plain text information
refers to Katz et al. (1959) consideration for people and employee behaviour. Note: All LSI style
names and descriptions: From Life Styles Inventory™ by J. C. Lafferty, Human Synergistics.
Copyright 2009 by Human Synergistics International. Adapted by permission.

2.3 Organizational Culture

The purpose of the study was to determine whether one or more types of leadership
behaviour styles (transformational, collaborative, direct/direct-informational, and/or non-
directive) are conducive to performance for Branch Managers.
 Organizational culture forms the way people think, behave, act, and feel in the
workplace. It provides a basis for making decisions in organizations, for rewards and
punishments, and orienting workers to the norms and values of the organization. Organizational
culture is a shared experience, a "collective phenomenon" that workers share (Druckman, Singer,
& Van Cott, 1997, p. 67). It is also a socially constructed phenomenon that includes the norms
and assumptions, artifacts, values, observed actions and beliefs that motivate us to action and
provide meaning and direction to activities, including controlling them (Ott, 1989). As social
beings, we adhere to and often reinforce these norms, even when they are dysfunctional. For
these reasons, organizational culture remains a powerful factor in organizational life.

Few researchers of organizational culture are as widely cited as Edgar Schein. Schein
(1992) defines organizational culture as “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group
learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked
well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 12)”.

Schein's definition provided an insight into how an organizational culture is formed,

structured, and maintained over time. The socially constructed nature of culture means that
organizational members must agree to some extent on what is important to share with others.
They then take steps to ensure that all new organizational members receive the same information
over time to preserve what has been created.

This information can be viewed from the three levels of artifacts, espoused values, and
basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 1992, p. 17). Artifacts are the tangible elements of
organizational life that are the easiest to identify, and most often referred to in organizational
climate surveys. Language, dress code, policies and procedures, corporate events, and
technology usage are all examples of artifacts. These are supported and influenced by the
espoused values of the organization, which include strategy statements, vision statements,
business goals, and ways of dealing with workers that often originate with higher levels of
management. The third level, basic and underlying assumptions, are the most difficult to identify
and also one of the most powerful aspects of organizational culture. The assumptions drive
behavior and thinking in organizations, often unconsciously. Schein (1992) describes them as the
taken for granted ways of doing business that no one questions. As such, they are both difficult
to understand and to change.

This groundwork provides some insight into the features of organizational culture.
According to a comprehensive analysis of organizational development literature by the National
Academy of Sciences, (Druckman et al., 1997), the research on organizational culture supports
the following statements (p. 69)

1. Cultures are a property of groups of people and not individuals.

2. Cultures engage the emotions as well as the intellect.
3. Cultures are based on shared experiences and thus on the histories of groups of
people; to develop a culture takes time.
4. Cultures are infused with symbols and symbolism.
5. Cultures continually change because circumstances force people to change.
6. Cultures are inherently fuzzy in that they incorporate contradictions, paradoxes,
ambiguities, and confusion.

These statements provide important consideration for understanding what organizational

culture is, how it is maintained, and what contributes to its ongoing development. Cultures are
created by the interaction among people, and the complexity of their meaning is wrapped up in
the assumptions, rituals, symbols, and structures that allow the cultures to persist over time.

Since organizational culture influences individuals' thoughts, feelings, and actions

(Druckman et al., 1997; Schein, 1992), it is no surprise that it also affects organizational
performance (Huselid et al., 2005; Meehan et al., 2006). Research has determined a link between
organizational culture and organizational performance (Skerlavaj et al., 2007; Balthazard et al.,
2006), although culture is often measured through perceptual measures or using organizational
climate surveys. Plenty of subjective statements abound where managers claim in industry
articles how important managing culture is to overall performance. This influence is mediated
through social interaction. Culture cannot directly affect performance, but the behavior of an
organization's workforce can (Druckman et al., 1997). Individuals with a large degree of social
or hierarchical power, like managers, have the ability to shape how workers perceive and
perform their work. This is akin to the espoused values Schein (1992) describes. Kotter and
Heskett (1992) conducted research that showed that strong organizational culture was indeed
linked to a firm's long-term financial performance, and showed substantial increases in revenues,
stock price, and net income for these organizations when compared to competitors during the
same time frame. They denned strong organizational cultures as those in which employees'
actions are aligned with business goals. This is akin to what Kaplan and Norton (2006) refer to as
alignment, when all aspects of the organization are aligned to achieve strategic business goals.
Culture theory must bridge such gaps to explain firm performance because shared values and
assumptions are largely outside the scope of most business research (Asif, 2011; Glisson &
James, 2002; Richard, McMillan-Capehart, Bhuian, & Taylor, 2009; Schneider, Salvaggio, &
Subirats, 2002).

Knowing the ways culture influences performance can help Business managers and
organization leaders to choose specific tactics to shape the culture and organizational
performance. There are several leverage points for modifying or ways to influence organizational
culture. These include employee selection, socialization, and definition of cultural forms,
leadership practices, and subculture development (Druckman et al., 1997). Huselid et al. (2005)
would argue that training (formal learning), workforce development, and retention methods are
included in this list of leverage points. Indeed, all the social activities in which cultural elements
are shared are candidates for being leveraged. Managers can use various ways for creating a
powerful culture (Druckman et al., 1997):

1. A unique and clearly articulated ideology

2. The recruitment of like-minded employees
3. The use of symbols to reinforce cultural attributes
4. Repetitive socializing and training of employees in the key cultural values
5. The appraisal and rewarding of behavior consistent with the desired culture
6. The design of an organizational structure that reinforces the key cultural values
among all organization members

The goal of any organizational culture development or maintenance effort, though,

should be alignment among artifacts, espoused values, and basic and underlying assumptions of
the organization. Lack of alignment between managers and subordinates lead to a dysfunctional
organizational culture and very little ability to learn and adapt to changing needs of the
marketplace. Strong organizational cultures reinforce values and expectations, to the point that
employees identify with it and consistently reinforce it with other organizational members
(Meehan et al., 2006), even after key influencers of the culture leave the organization (Cook &
Yanow, 1993). Kotter and Heskett (1992) would likely agree, as they state that sustaining and
maintaining a performance-enhancing culture requires attention to the creation of the culture, the
reinforcing behavior that supports it, and maintenance during the easy times when employees
and managers can often become satisfied or complacent.

Strong organizational cultures can be healthy or unhealthy. In an organization with an

unhealthy culture, it may have devolved into a dysfunctional culture where bizarre and often
destructive behavior occurs, and learning is inhibited or non-existent. "A dysfunctional
organizational culture is defined as one that constrains or limits individual and group-level
capabilities and that actually encourages and rewards ordinary individual and group-level
performance" (Van Fleet & Griffin, 2006, p. 699). In these cultures, dysfunctional behavior is
rewarded at the expense of behavior that helps the organization achieve its objectives. Kotter and
Heskett (1992) found three components of unhealthy organizational culture in their research of
arrogant managers who believe they have all the answers, devaluing of constituency groups in
some form, and hostility toward change and progressive leadership in the organization. These
items if combined can derail any efforts to improve organizational performance in the long-term,
and severely inhibit the learning and knowledge sharing. Managers who allow a dysfunctional
organizational culture to exist can expect to see deterioration in the efficiency and effectiveness
of the organization over time (Balthazard et al., 2006). It is clear, through research and
experience, that leader’s behavior is a key factor in an organization's success or failure.

Leader’s behavior plays an influential role in defining and modifying organizational

culture. In many cases, the way leaders and managers work to manage the culture will determine
whether or not it will change (Meehan et al., 2006). Leaders are in many ways the trigger for
change in an organization - "the single, most visible factor that distinguishes major cultural
changes that succeed from those that fail is competent leadership at the top" (Kotter & Heskett,
1992, p. 84). Employees look up to leaders and their managers for behavioral cues about what is
valued in an organization's culture, and for this reason, managers are particularly influential in
aligning organizational values with business actions (Kotter & Heskett, 1992).

Organizational culture includes the visible behavior and the practices that become routine
in the organization. Furthermore, Avolio and Bass (1991) argued that an organization’s culture
develops in large part from its follower-ship, as well as its leadership, and the culture of an
organization can also affect the development of its leadership. For example, transactional leaders
work in their organizational cultures, following existing rules, procedures, and norms; whereas,
the transformational leaders change their culture by first understanding it, then realigning the
organization’s culture with this new vision and a revision of its shared assumptions, values, and
norms (Bass, 1985).

2.3.1 Organizational culture a Symbolic occurrence

Trice and Beyer (1984) planned the study of the symbolic phenomenon of rites and
rituals within an organization to better understand culture. They identified rites of passage,
degradation, enhancement, renewal, conflict reduction, and integration as a starting point for
research. Deal and Kennedy (1982) summarized the ways that organizations with strong cultures
communicate to their members what they need to do to be successful. These cultures are
expressed through values, the basic concepts and beliefs; heroes, the behaviors to emulate; and
rites and rituals, from mundane daily manifestations to extravagant ceremonies. Similarly,
Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders (1990) regarded perceived practices as more significant
than values in emphasizing the priority of shared perceptions of daily practices as the
determining factor in an organization’s culture. These practices included conventions, customs,
habits, mores, traditions, and usages. In addition, Barley (1991) studied the deep structure of a
work setting to identify the system of signs that carry symbolic cultural meaning. These signs
included furnishings, colors, paintings, and the physical layout of a room. Van Maanen (1991)
observed a system of symbolic forms employed by an animated workforce to create culture. He
focused on appearance, status, social life, and codes of conduct. Kilduff, Funk, and Mehra (1997)
emphasized the symbolism of shared patterns of behavior and public manifestations when
defining organizational culture in terms of meetings, repetitive events, and the physical layout of
the office. For them organizational culture was a function of the individual’s organizational
experiences. Rafaeli and Worline (2000) asserted that physical cues within an organization
served to create shared cyphers of meaning. These cyphers capture the essence of emotion,
cognition, and behavior and serve to underline the organization’s culture.

2.3.2 Organizational Culture as an intellectual occurrence

Hofstede (1984) addressed the intellectual aspect of organizational culture in defining it

as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human
group from another” (p. 21). This programming was accomplished through a system of values
and norms. Cooke and Rousseau (1988) constructed a quantitative assessment of culture-based
understanding to measure the shared norms and expectations that guide behavior within an
organization. Their research was based on culture as ways of thinking, behaving, and believing
that are shared among members of a social unit. Gordon and DiTomaso (1992) defined strong
cultures as those consistent in their perception of company values. This constancy provides
management with a common orientation and outlook. DiMaggio (1997) focused on individuals’
use of culture to explore the shared intellectual structures that are its foundation. These consisted
of the automatic comprehension of ideas, images, opinions, and information to which individuals
are inclined to attribute plausibility. Denison (1990) based his research into organizational
effectiveness on a cultural theory that the values, beliefs, and principles of an organization
impact the management system, motivate the organization’s members, and create and reinforce
culture. For this research, organizational culture was viewed as a primarily intellectual
occurrence.

2.3.3 Organizational Culture and Organizational performance

Deshpande, Farley, and Webster (1993) investigated the influence of organizational

culture type on organizational effectiveness in Japanese firms. The research indicated cultures
that are responsive such as the market culture and cultures that are flexible such as the adhocracy
cultures perform significantly better those hierarchical cultures. Customer orientation and
innovativeness factors are greatly aided by the appropriate culture in an organization. As
important as customer focus and innovation are to organizations, many managers reported they
are both difficult to measure and even more difficult to improve. An easier organizational change
was adopting a market culture to improve focus on customer transactions to improve
organizational performance. This research was conducted on Japanese firms competing in their
domestic markets against a majority of rivals with hierarchal cultures. The drive to be innovative
and responsive to customers enabled the successful firms to out-maneuver their competitors. The
weakness of Deshpande et al. (1993) is that it may not be applicable to other organizations in
different environments.

Furthermore, Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) noted that “drawing on extensive empirical
research, an irrefutable business case can be made that the culture and capabilities of an
organization—derived from the way it manages its people—are the real and enduring sources of
competitive advantage” (p. 37). Robbins (2003) branded culture as “a system of shared meaning
held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations” (p. 525). Culture
can be further characterized as “the aggregate total of beliefs, attitudes, values, assumptions, and
ways of doing things that are shared by members of an organization and taught to new
employees” (Lussier & Achua, 2004, p. 410).

Lussier and Achua (2004) expanded the point that the power of any culture represents the
degree of accord among its people about the significance of specific ways of doing things. A
weak culture symbolizes a lack of accord on key norms, and a robust culture symbolizes
widespread consensus and agreement. (p. 412) regarding the sense of connectedness that culture
motivates, Senge (1999) observed that Leaders must realize that everything is interconnected.
The world is becoming more interrelated and interdependent, and business is becoming more
dynamic and multifaceted. We have to learn new ways to communicate and learn while
interacting with all and at all levels. We have to evolve a sense of association, of working
together as part of an interrelated system, where each member is contributing and being
contributed by the others, and where the whole is greater than the sum of its varied and various
decimated parts (p. 54). The result of culture on employee Turnover is important to organizations
due to the understood and obvious costs associated with excess levels of unwanted turnover in
employees. As noted by Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, and Lockhart (2005), “Churn / turnover not only
erodes performance by depleting organizational skill banks but, perhaps more dramatically, by
altering the social structure and fabric of an organization” (p. 594). Pfeffer and Veiga (1999)
observed that “most research on the effects of high performance management systems has
incorporated employment security as an important dimension. Employment security is
fundamental to the implementation of most other high performance management practices” (p.
40). McElroy (2002) noted that the employment re-assurance affirmed by the management and
the organization towards employees would obviously result in lower turnover simply as a result
of a sense of duty felt by the employee to return the allegiance. Another element of organization
culture that is particularly significant for organizational success is the lessening of grade
differences. Regarding these element, Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) noted it is considered appropriate
to make all organizational associates feel the most high commitment management systems
attempt to resolve the grade distinctions that separate individuals and groups and cause some to
feel less valued than others. This is achieved in two ways; (p. 9)

1. Figuratively, through the use of language and labels, physical space, and dress,
and
2. Fundamentally, in the lessening of the organization's degree of wage
inequality, particularly across levels.

In terms of Organizational Performance, Trust is considered especially important.

Communication (Giffin, 1967), management by objectives (Scott, 1980), leadership (Atwater,
1988), labor-management relations (Taylor, 1989), and negotiation (Bazerman, 1994), all
consider establishing a Trusting environment organizationally as a significant factor. Rotter
(1980) suggested that trust is a concept that develops over time; “it takes time to form by
building incrementally and accumulating” (Robbins, 2003, p. 336). Robbins (2003) also further
noted that “trust is a primary attribute associated with leadership; and when this trust is broken it
can have serious adverse effects on a group’s performance” (p. 337). Blanchard and Hodges
(2005) noted that “without trust, it is impossible for any organization to function effectively” (p.
24).

To ensure high performance work systems information sharing is crucial of materials

such as financial performance, strategy, and operational measures, with employees at all levels
and hierarchy of the organization Pfeffer and Veiga (1999). Information and performance system
sharing has impact on employees’ feelings of being important. For Robbins (2003), “it appears
increasingly evident that it’s impossible to lead people who don’t trust you” (p. 337). There is
consensus among academics that Employee and organizational trust is an important subject
valuably applied to various organizational constructs such as, Objective setting, performance
evaluation, development of employee relations, team cooperation’s, leadership and negotiation.

Robbins (2003) observed when we study Trust we need to look at various levels of Trust
as they may have deeper meanings. Most Primeval is the trust of deterrence trust which involves
an all-encompassing fear of the negative consequences of breeching a trust relationship.
Secondary is the trust that builds over a period of time, due to relationships with another which,
creates a sense of predictability concerning the other person’s likely behaviors. Thirdly, the
highest level of trust referred to as identification-based trust which is “trust based on a mutual
understanding of each other’s intentions and appreciation of the other’s wants and desires”
(Robbins, 2003, p. 339). Empowerment is another important element of organizational culture
basically it concerns motivation through delegation, executed by managers and leaders by
passing authority to the lowest level in an organization where learnt and judicious decisions can
be made (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Seibert, Silver, and Randolph
(2004) operationally defined empowerment climate as “employees' shared perceptions of
managerial structures, policies, and practices related to empowerment” (p. 334). Seibert et al.
(2004) further stated that there is increasing consensus regarding the organizational structures
and policies associated with empowerment (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Blanchard et al., 1999;
Block, 2003). Seibert et al. (2004) noted that the “empowerment climate was shown to be
empirically distinct from psychological empowerment and positively related to manager ratings
of work-unit performance” (p. 332).

Elangovan and Shapiro (1998) observed that objective mismatch; politics within the
workplace, dysfunctional teams, and differences lend themselves to a greater number of
dysfunctional incidents. The environments in such organizations may result in cultures where
teams, departments, have more value than organizational success and norms such hoarding
resources and information become the norm. Such norms positively influence the assessment of
values associated with dysfunctionality, thus contributing to a lower culture and organizational
affinity, which, in turn, results in a sharp motivation to betray and dissatisfaction towards the
organization (p. 551). The study of culture as it relates to organizational effectiveness is difficult
due to the inherent difficulty associated with the measurement of culture. Without such
measures, the comparability of culture from one firm to another becomes difficult. The concept
of Organizational performance is also challenging from the viewpoint that it must be defined by
experts and practitioners who often may hold very different meanings and sometimes
contradictory perspective of what performance means to them at varied times and may change
over time. Lastly Denison and Mishra (1995) noted “Joining the two concepts of culture and
performance thus defines a research question which is important, but often problematic” (p. 205).

In many ways, the study of culture can be likened to the story of the six blind men and
the elephant as Saxe (1963) narrated, and as Roberts and Boyacigiller (1993) used
metaphorically when they questioned whether the elephant (culture) was too large or whether
researchers were too blind. Whether the elephant is too large or the researchers too blind, the
specific concept of culture that a particular researcher adopts is an important matter as it
influences the research questions asked, the problems investigated, the methods applied and the
interpretation of results (Bodley, 1994). This implied that in undertaking any critical
investigation into any aspect of culture, a researcher needs to define the perspective of culture
being assumed and its underpinning theories to define the context in which the research is valid.

Notwithstanding the differences in methodological approach applied to the study of

organizational culture, it is important that all attributes be clear and that most contemporary
definitions of culture embrace one or more elements of what Pettigrew (1979) described as a
family of concepts. Prominent components of Pettigrew (1979) family of concepts included
values, beliefs, assumptions, myths, rituals, and symbols that organizational members shared in
common and that guided their everyday survival.

2.3.4 Sub-Culture

As Morgan (1986, p. 126-127) observes: "Culture is not something that is imposed on a

social setting. Rather, it develops during the course of social interaction. In organizations there
are often many different and competing value systems that create a mosaic of organizational
realities rather than a uniform corporate culture."

Subcultures may offer variations of the organizational culture. Individuals and groups
within units of the organization different promote different and/or additional values inside their
unit (Young, 1988).
2.3.5 Organizational Culture and Performance

There is large number of theories about the influence of culture on organizations and
organizations performance at the same time there are a small number of researches conducted in
this regard (Gillespie et al., 2008). In the last decade, organizational culture has been studied
more than before especially with variables such as style of leadership, organizational structure,
productivity, efficiency and effectiveness.

Furthermore in the recent times some effort has been made to study culture has been
examined with performance and organizational effectiveness. Culture researchers have devoted
numerous articles to the nature and definitions of culture, relatively fewer articles have been
contributed towards culture and performance research Reichers and Schneider (1990). One
reason for this was the difficulty in operationalizing the culture construct (Lee & Yu, 2004).

There are different opinions how organizational culture affects performance. In Alvesson
(2013) ” concept of culture” surveys existing views about how culture affects performance.
Many studies confirm the influence and power of culture on the performance of organization
(Xenikou & Simosi, 2006; Lee & Yu, 2004).

Denshen, claims that if active organizations value flexibility and change in rapidly
changing environment, they will act better, he calls this culture Adaptability Culture (Hatch &
Cunliffe, 2006). Denshen further argues that strategy and culture should be aligned, but also
compatible with the environment.

Others Researchers believe that pervasiveness of an organization’ culture requires that

management recognize the underlying dimensions of their organizational culture and its impact
on employee-related variables such as commitment, cohesion, strategy implementation,
satisfaction, and performance, among others (Lund, 2003).

Petty, Beadles, Lowery, Chapman, and Connell (1995) found that a cultural emphasis on
cooperation and teamwork were conductive to organization effectiveness. Likewise, showed that
support, innovation, and goal orientation were related to higher performance in American
colleges and universities in comparison to bureaucratic orientation (Smart & St. John, 1996). The
other cultural trait which concerns a higher performance is “humanistic orientation” that is
characterised by cooperation among organizational members, employee’ self-actualization,
teamwork, , and empowerment (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006).

It is difficult to investigate and test these diverse ideas. The relatively few systematic
empirical studies on the culture-performance link, lead the researcher to conclude that none of
these four ideas have received much empirical support (Zahedi, 2002; Alvesson, 2013; Lee &
Yu, 2004).

“In Search of Excellence” by Peters and Waterman (1982). The authors described the
culture of 62 financially successful firms; making claims of a link between a particular type of
“strong cultures and superior performance” (Lee & Yu, 2004).

In a research that aimed to examine organizational culture and financial performance of

modern retail in United Kingdom, the results showed something contrary to this fact. The results
revealed that a store format, physical factor, is the most important element in explaining Sale
intensity. Employee’s morale is the most significant human cultural variable, followed by
employee’s perception of manageable workloads. Fascinatingly, job satisfaction is a significant
forecaster; it is in a negative direction. The more employees are satisfied, the more Sale intensity
decreases (Booth & Hamer, 2009).

In India Aftab, Rana, and Sarwar (2012) have conducted a study investigating the effect
of organizational culture on people’s performance in Indian banking organizations. The study as
well investigates the significance of the positive and strong organizational culture that puts an
effect on the performance of individuals. The authors measures the results using Cronbach alpha
value demonstrating a very well-built reliability value or may well be postulated that the results
point towards a high internal consistency of data. In view of the entire dimension of
organizational culture and performance level correlation coefficient value is high demonstrating
a positive and significant relationship between organizational culture and performance of people
in the organization as regards their roles. Precisely, the beta coefficient for regression analysis
was not different from zero. The p-value for beta coefficient of Culture was 0.000. Therefore the
null hypothesis developed by the researcher rejected and alternative accepted establishing that
organizational culture is positively and significantly related to individuals role based
performance in the organization.
Table 2. 3: Studies about organizational culture and performance

Researcher Year Results

Peters and 1982 High productive organizations are in relationship with
waterman strong Culture.
Shifei Chung 2001 The results confirm a positive relation between Culture and
Performance and marginal industry effect between banks and hotels.
Lee & Kelvin 2004 Culture was found to impact a variety of organizational
Processes and performance. While more research remains to be done
in this area, this study has demonstrated the power of culture in
influencing organizational performance
Owusu 2005 Culture is surveyed as one of effective factors on performance in
public sector.
At h en a 200 6 A path analysis showed that the achievement and adaptive cultural
Xe ni k ou orientations had a direct effect on performance
P aul F. 2007 Employees' self-reported job involvement significantly predicted
R ot enberr y certain supervisor performance ratings above and
beyond work centrality
Gillespie 2008 Relationship between organizational culture and customer satisfaction
is surveyed in construction industry and car Sellers. In first section job
involvement and mission have the highest score and for car sellers,
adaptability has the highest. Contrary to the strong culture thesis, the
results show that whilst job satisfaction is a significant predictor, it is
in a Negative direction. The more employees are satisfied, the
More SI decreases.

Simon A.
Booth 2009
Susita Asree 2010 leadership competency and organization culture are important factors
which effect on responsiveness and performance of
firms
Dani el I . 2011 Developmental culture was found to be the strongest predictor among
Prajogo the four cultural dimensions, as it shows relationships
with three of the performance measures.

2.3.6 Organizational culture and Leadership, and their combined effect on performance

Leadership and culture are highly interconnected that it is possible to describe an

organizational culture characterized by transformational qualities (Bass & Avolio, 1993b). The
literature on transformational leadership makes an attempt to approach leadership as a social
process by placing emphasis on how leaders stimulate their followers to transcend their own self-
interests for the sake of their team and the larger organizational objectives Transformational
leaders are typically described as those who inspire their followers to adopt goals and values that
are consistent with leader’s vision. According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders are
primarily concerned with changing organizational culture.

Bass and Avolio (1993b) suggested that transformational leaders move their
organizations in the direction of more transformational qualities in their cultures, namely,
accomplishment, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration, therefore, suggesting that
transformational leadership has a direct effect on culture. Similarly, Bass proposes that
transformational leadership promotes a working environment characterized by the achievement
of high goals, personal development and self-actualization. Pillai and Meindl (1998) found that
when the relationship between charismatic leadership and organizational culture is concerned;
charismatic leadership is associated with the presence of collectivistic values in work groups and
a heightened sense of community. As far as, found that employees who rated their immediate
supervisor high in transformational leadership were more likely to perceive the culture of their
organization as adaptive, involving, integrating, and having a clear mission Block (2003).
Moreover, Waldman and Yammarino (1999) found that there is an inverse cause and effect
among senior manager’s Charismatic leadership and adaptive organizational cultures; a
charismatic leader is in a position to have an impact on organizational culture and adaptive
cultures tend to proceed with the emergence of charismatic leaders.

As per the related literature we know that transformational leadership has a direct effect
on Organizational culture Inventories (OCI’s) achievement, humanistic, and adaptive culture
orientations. With regard to the joint effect of organizational culture and transformational
leadership on organizational performance, Ogbonna and Harris (2000) have conducted the only
study which provides some empirical evidence on this issue. They found that supportive and
participative leadership were indirectly and positively linked to performance via the innovative
and the competitive cultures, whereas transactional leadership had an indirect negative effect on
performance. The results of the study showed that the relationship between leadership style and
performance is mediated by the form of organizational culture that is present in the organization
Ogbonna and Harris (2000). In addition, Lim (1995) has proposed that leadership influence
organizational performance through the filter of culture.
 Therefore findings suggest that organizational culture might be the filter through which
leadership influences various organizational outcomes (Lim, 1995; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000),
and thus the researcher explores transformational leadership and its relations to performance
through its effect on unit culture.

Jan and Maqbool (2015) have conducted a study investigating relationship between
leadership style and culture making use of Competing Values Framework and Multi Factor
Leadership Questionnaire models measuring Organizational Culture and Leadership Styles
factors correspondingly. The findings of the study point out that there is a significant positive
relationship between explicit sorts of Organizational Culture and Leadership Styles. Shravasti
and Bhola (2014) argue that organizational culture plays very decisive role in organizational
performance and effectiveness, all the way through teamwork developing , unification, focused
and collective goals and mission in the midst of organizational members. Organizational culture
joint with leadership style are the foremost dynamics to develop positive looks in the direction of
employees involvement, satisfaction and eventually performance. Moreover, there are absorbed
fresh changes equally. In fact leaders in an organization design create such organizational culture
where individuals feel confidence, all set to bear risk and new challenges etc. the findings of the
study establish that there is a positive and significant relationship between organizational culture
and leadership style leading to organizational effectiveness and performance in Indian banking
sector.

2.3.7. Organizational Culture facilitating relations between Emotional Intelligence and

Leadership styles

Issa and Mahmood (2016) carried out a study to ascertain if organizational culture
facilitates the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. To
ascertain this, end data was collected from academic leaders in eighteen Malaysian public
universities. The technique of bootstrapping resampling was deployed to ascertain the role
played by organizational culture as a moderator with emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership. Despite the fact that results proved the positive impact of emotional intelligence on
transformational leadership, it needs to be understood that the relationship itself is an effect that
organizational culture had on the emotional intelligence-transformational leadership relationship.
An inference is that emotional intelligence has the ability to predict transformational leadership
behavior and thereby inculcate a suitable organizational culture. It is imperative that an
organization should have a suitable organizational culture for the relationship to develop.
Though it is true that emotional intelligence correlates with transformational leadership,
organisations need to promote organisational culture to be able to have a remarkable impact on
the relationship. Bezrukova, Thatcher, Jehn, and Spell (2012) Studied culture as a moderator of
the relationship between group fault lines and performance identified that stronger fault lines
were negatively related to performance. However, they found that a results-focused culture
moderated that relationship. All these studies indicate that culture acts as moderating variable in
an organization.

In summary, Newman and Nollen (1996) concluded that financial performance is better
in European and Asian work units of multicultural companies because such companies practice
and adopt the local culture. Such a strategy can foster organizational performance because
adapting local cultural values then can become an asset to the organization; therefore, culture
could and should influence organizational effectiveness (Newman & Nollen, 1996; Kotter &
Heskett, 1992). Block (2003) stated, “If we are to succeed in our efforts to build healthy,
sustainable organizations, we must continue to invest in the development of cultural leaders who
understand and respect the people that are the heart of their success” (p. 332). Therefore, having
better understanding of the organizational culture allows the middle level managers to tailor
leadership strategies that create a positive impact in a worker unit’s performance. Regardless of
the definitions and theories of leadership styles and culture, the literature is contradictory.
Leadership theorists argue that leadership styles largely contribute to organizational cultures,
whereas culture theorists argue that values and behaviors make up culture. There is agreement in
the literature (Bass, 1997; Maritz, 1995) that leadership is a critical factor in the success or
failure of an organization; excellent organizations begin with excellent leadership, and successful
organizations reflect their leadership.

2.3.8 Measuring Organizational Culture

There are many questionnaires that measures organizational culture. Ashkanasy et al.
(2000) have created a typology for these questionnaires that categorizes them as either typing or
profiling scales. Typing surveys (Glaser, 1983; Handy, 1979; Harrison, 1972; Margerison, 1979)
describe culture in terms of discrete types. Lessem (1990) typing instrument, for example,
viewed organizational culture as the Strong or weak manifestations of primal, rational,
developmental, or metaphysical Dimensions. These dimensions are viewed within an
organization across a spectrum of Physical, social, intellectual, economic, organizational,
environmental, and creative Attributes. A limitation associated with Culture typing is the discrete
nature of the Culture types. Harrison (1972) observed that culture types are invariably mixed
within an organization resulting in Interactions that are both helpful and costly. Another
limitation, as Schein (1992) Argued, is the implication that organizations of a specific culture
type are similar is contrary to the observation that similar experiences across multiple cultures
may have different meanings from culture to culture or be the result of divergent causes.

Profiling assessments describe organizations in terms of the strength or weakness of a

Number of values and beliefs held by the organization’s members (Ashkanasy et al., 2000).
These assessments are divided into the three categories of (a) descriptive, those measuring values
without attaching any significance to them (Migliore et al., 1992; Reynolds, 1986; Hofstede et
al., 1990); (b) effectiveness, those identifying the values that an organization needs to be
effective (Harris & Moran, 1984; Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985; Woodcock & Dave, 1989); and ( c )
fit, those examining the congruence between Values held by the organization’s members and
those held by its Leadership (Enz, 1986; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), for example, developed a
person / culture Fit tool that allowed respondents familiar with the organization to develop an
Organizational culture profile by sorting value statements according to the extent these
statements characterized the organization. Individuals were then asked to sort the same Value
statement according to their personal liking. The individual preference profile was then correlate
with the organizational profile assessments to determine fit. Fit surveys may be Limited both
their ability to detect the effect of subcultures within an organization’s Culture and by their
reliance on the assumption that values are primarily the result of the Social and cultural setting
rather than individual differences (Enz, 1986).

The Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Lafferty, 2003b) was the Survey
instrument used to measure organizational culture for this research. It is unique Among
organizational culture assessment instruments in that it has been reported as Reliable and
possessing consensual, construct, and criterion validity (Ashkanasy et al., 2000). It can also be
applied as either a typing or as a profiling tool. The OCI Measures 12 sets of behavioral norms
(Cooke & Szumal, 2000). Theses norms are Associated with three general types of
organizational cultures: Constructive, Passive/Defensive, and Aggressive/ Defensive. An ideal
vs. current profile has been created by Human Synergistic International to help organizations to
fit their Culture to a comparable industry accepted ideal culture.

2.3.9 Culture Measures

As defined, Organizational culture is a shared perception. To measure it individual

insights are combined in a way that reflects the culture as a whole. This combination is not
intended to provide an average of dissimilar experiences. Rather, it should provide insight into
the depth of perceptual agreement that exists regarding a particular culture. In studying
organizational climate James (1982) postulated that a climate construct at the aggregate level is
defined in precisely the same manner as it is at the individual level. For example, a shared
perception that an environment is volatile allows one to describe that environment as volatile...
At the same time perceptual agreement must be demonstrated before climate scores are
aggregated, the ability to measure perceptual agreement within or among groups plays an
important role in research (Conway & Schaller, 1998). Two of the more common measures of
this consensus are inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability. Agreement refers to the extent
to which raters provide essentially the same ratings. It is the degree of interchangeability among
raters (Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). Reliability references the proportional consistency of
variance among raters. It indicates that the relationship or ranking between rated targets is the
same; however, the ratings assigned may differ from rater to rater. It provides an index of
consistency.

Fleenor, Fleenor, and Grossnickle (1996) concluded that due to various sources of
measurement error, inter-rater reliability, when reported alone, does not indicate the quality of
the ratings. Their findings demonstrated that measures of inter-rater reliability and inter-rater
agreement are separate indices and that they should be reported together on each set of rating
data to provide a more complete evaluation of rating quality.
2.4. Emotional Intelligence

The Emotional intelligence has become a focal point in the business world, with many
researchers endeavoring to comprehend how it can be enhanced and what it is and moreover how
EI impacts the bottom-line. To address the topic of emotional intelligence methodically, it is
necessary to examine its antecedent. This will entail the review of academic literature past and
present, scientific studies focused on understanding the emotions, and present ideas on the
subject.

2.4.1 Past Theorists

The academic work on this topic began as academicians attempted to better understand
intelligence and evolved into a study of how workplace achievement occurred that was
attributable to IQ alone. While reviewing the predictive power of IQ, Thorndike (1920) study
revealed that IQ alone failed to consistently predict individual success in the workplace. To
better explain the discrepancies of results not validated by IQ, Thorndike (1920) presented the
social intelligence theory which was an idea that individuals have three different types of
intelligence including: abstract intelligence, the intelligence measured in IQ tests through the
testing of one’s ability to understand mathematical and verbal concepts; mechanical intelligence,
the intelligence required to understand and maneuver shapes and objects; and social intelligence,
the ability to identify and communicate with other people.

Gardner (1983), a psychologist, continued to expand this idea of multiple intelligences,

suggesting that rather than three types of intelligence, there were actually seven. These seven
types of intelligence include: verbal, mathematical-logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Gardner (1983) went on to define
interpersonal intelligence as the aptitude to identify with other people, and intrapersonal
intelligence as the ability to be self-reflective and form an accurate view of one’s own self. These
theories of social intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence, varied
from Intellectual Quotient (IQ), became the foundational work for emotional intelligence.
2.4.1.1 Theories of Intelligence

Two general schools of thought for intelligence existed for most of the 20th century
(Sternberg, 1997a). These included the Classicist who believe intelligence is a cognitive
capacity, based on cognitive performance when dealing with a specific task, and that it is a
single, fixed, inheritable entity (Gardner, 1999). Theodore Simon, Charles Spearman, Sir Francis
Galton, Alfred Binet and, Wilhem Stem, Lewis Terman, and Henry Goddard, are some of the
proponents of the purist theory of intelligence. These theorists are associated with “Spearman's
g” for “general intelligence” (Spearman, 1904). The second are pluralists who propose that an
individual may not only possess analytic or cognitive intelligence, but other types of intelligence
as well, and that as one learns, their intelligence increases. The section will describe some of the
purists and the mass use of intelligence test, and some of controversy over its use as they relate
to the future development of emotional intelligence.

Alfred Binet is credited with the real development of intelligence tests as known today,
Binet is also known as the “Father of IQ.” Binet and his colleague, Theodore Simon, defined
intelligence as “judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical sense, initiative, the faculty of
adapting one’s self to circumstances. To judge well, to understand well, to reason well” (Binet &
Simon, 1905, p. 197). In 1904, Binet and Simon developed the first standardized test of human
intelligence which was a test designed to identify predicted success and difficulty in school
(Gardner, 1999). Binet illustrated that while IQ tests can provide some prediction about the
academic scores of children in subsequent years, they provide little prediction as to life outcomes
for many individuals. Hence, they noted, IQ tests may not provide an adequate description of an
individual’s ability to adapt and learn in novel or unpredictable situations. This became a major
debate as intelligence tests grew in popularity.

Between 1917 and 1919, the first mass use of Intelligence Quotient testing began in the
United States. With each theorist and measurement, intelligence was redefined. In 1921, the
editors of the Journal of Educational Psychology asked 14 famous psychologists to give their
views on the definition of intelligence (Thorndike et al., 1921). The responses had two common
themes. Intelligence is (a) the ability to learn from experience, and (b) the capacity to adapt to
the environment (Sternberg, 1997a). Throughout most of the 20th century, psychologists have
continued to debate intelligence and Intelligence Quotient. Critics of this construct were also
prevalent.

By the mid-1920s, intelligence tests were common in educational practice in the United
States and throughout much of Europe (Gardner, 1999). There was a perceived need to rank
individuals for progress along the academic ladder (Gardner, 1995; Perkins, 1995; Sternberg,
1997a). Schools and the military and other organizations have used these instruments as
selection, diagnostic, and evaluative criteria.

Intelligence Quotient tests are in limited use today, and are used as other measures of
mental abilities. Intelligence Quotient testing in schools is now restricted to a case in which there
is a recognized problem or a selection procedure (Lemann, 1999). At the same time, many
widely used scholastic measures are actually intelligence tests that correlate highly with scores
on standard psychometric instruments (Gardner, 1999). These include the California
Achievement Tests (the CAT), the Stanford Achievement Test, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (the
ITBS), and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale for the U.S. Department of Education,
February, 1994.

There still are, however, proponents of intelligence testing and Intelligence Quotient. In
Herrnstein and Murray (1994) Murray published the controversial book “The Bell Curve:
Intelligence and Class Structure in American life” (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). Similar to the
claims of past classicists, Hermstein and Murray asserted that intelligence was stable and could
not be increased. The authors focused on intelligence and Intelligence Quotient, rather than
education or social class as a fundamental variable. It did not consider the emergence of
information age in which individual success will depend on brains not strength.

Herrnstein and Murray (1994) led to an outcry of controversy. Various theorists and
psychometric classicists reanalyzed the author’s claims and challenged the book saying it is
based on faulty reasoning, mis-citations, and statistical errors (Fischer et al., 1996; Miller, 1995;
Neisser et al., 1996). The controversy was also supported by two subsequent books, “The Bell
Curve Wars” (Fraser, 1995) and “Intelligence: Genes and Success. Scientists Respond to the Bell
Curve” (Devlin et al., 1997).
 Although Intelligence Quotient tests were originally designed to test school success, it
became a measurement of life success. These theories are also being disputed. Opinions range
from the view that there is no justification for a test of cognitive ability for job selection
(McClelland, 1973) to a view that cognitive-ability tests are valid predictors of job performance
in a wide variety of job roles (Barrett & Depinet, 1991), or even in all job surroundings (Schmidt
& Hunter, 1981; Gottfredson, 1986; Hawk et al., 1986).

Doing poorly in primary section of the school did not indicate poor success in life. Some
of the most gifted contributors to society, such as Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison, did not
perform well on tests or in school during their early years (Sternberg, 1997a). Einstein did not
speak until he was 3 years old. Biologist James Watson’s low Intelligence Quotient scores did
not prevent him from co-discovering the structure of the DNA molecule and thereby winning a
Nobel Prize. In “Successful Intelligence,” Sternberg (1997a) recounted his successes in life
following his poor Intelligence Quotient score. In summary, he states, “Just as low scores on test
of inert intelligence don’t preclude success, neither do high scores guarantee it” (p. 12).

To sustain Sternberg’s claims, research has been done on those who do well in school.
Illustrated by, Ruth Duskin Feldman’s 1982 book, “Whatever Happened to the Quiz Kids,”
follows the stories of some extremely bright children when they became adults. These
individuals were found to live normal lives, and none turned out to be grand successes. Similarly,
managers interviewed during Sternberg (1997a) studies of practical intelligence complained they
could hire a top-level graduate of business school who was unable to be innovative for new
business products or services. Consequently, there are gaps between the performance needed for
success in a business setting and the kind required for success in school environment.

Academics have attempted to quantify how much Intelligence Quotient is associated with
real- world outcomes. When Intelligence Quotient test scores are correlated with how well
people perform in their careers, the highest estimate of how much difference Intelligence
Quotient accounts for is about 25% according to Goleman (1998) and Hunter and Hunter (1984),
less than 10% according to Herrnstein and Murray (1994) statistics, and only a small variances of
about 4% according to Wagner and Sternberg (1985). In conclusion, the percentage is quite
minimal. This means that Intelligence Quotient alone leaves 75-96% of job success un-answered.
At the same time, much depends on the type of job role one performs. A doctor would need a
higher Intelligence Quotient to succeed on the job than an assembly-line worker.

2.4.1.2 Theories of Multiple Intelligences – Non IQ intelligences

Throughout the intelligence arguments of the 20th century, other academics were busy
trying to find other “intelligences” that helped other aspects of life success. From this, multiple
and Non IQ intelligences theories and measurements were developed. This second school of
thought on intelligence is more diverse in nature, regarding intelligence as a multiple entity.
Broadly thought and agreed, Non IQ intelligence addresses the personal, emotional, social, and
survival dimensions of intelligence. This belief also incorporates the theory that as one learns,
their intelligence increases. The concept of emotional intelligence evolved from academics
theories of intelligence.

Prominent academics in the last century include Edward L. Thorndike, Howard Gardner,
Louis L. Thurstone, David Wechsler, J. G. Guilford, Robert Sternberg, Raymond Cattell and
John Horn, and David Perkins. Thorndike, Gardner, and Sternberg are discussed here as they
added to the development of emotional intelligence.

In early 20th century Edward L. Thorndike was one of the first researchers who
suggested that social intelligence was an important component of intelligence (Hedlund &
Sternberg, 2000). In 1920, Thorndike thought of intelligence as consisting of three forms:
mechanical, social, and abstract. Related to emotional intelligence, (Thorndike, 1920) believed
that social intelligence is the ability to understand and manage others, and to act wisely in these
relations.

Howard Gardner, a psychologist, challenged Intelligence Quotient testing with his

research on multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983). Based on his theory, Gardner’s definition of
intelligence is “a bio-psychological potential to process information that can be activated in a
cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture” (p. 34).
Furthermore, multiple intelligence attempts to take into account both biological and cultural
aspects of intelligence. Gardner (1999) revised his intelligences in 1999 to include as an eighth
intelligence. Of the eight intelligences, the inter-personal and intra-personal intelligences were
the most influential to the development of emotional intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence was
defined as an understanding of other individuals (Gardner, 1983). Intrapersonal intelligence was
defined as an understanding of oneself.

In 1985, Robert Sternberg, started to develop his own theories of intelligence.

Intelligence, Sternberg (2003) defined as “the ability to achieve success in life in terms of one’s
personal standards, within one’s sociocultural context”(pp. 55-56). Sternberg (1985, 1988,
1997a, 1997b) developed a theory otherwise known as Successful Intelligence that focuses on
three abilities: analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence (Sternberg,
1997b, 2003). Sternberg (1997a) asserted, “Successfully intelligent people don't just have
abilities, they reflect on when and how to use these abilities effectively” (p. 138).

Intelligence is an uncertain and ambiguous concept, with its definition and boundaries
varying from one academician to another. Sixty five years after the initial journal symposium in
1921 on the definition of intelligence, 24 different experts were asked to give their views on the
nature of intelligence (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). Once again, the experts noted the themes
of learning from experience and adapting to the environment. At the same time, these experts
placed more emphasis on the role of people’s understanding and control of their own thinking
processes (Sternberg, 1997b).

2.4.2 Bridge between Emotions and Intelligence

In the mid-1900s, emotions were not thought of highly in the realm of “intelligence
testing” and therefore thought of as a function disparate from intelligence.

Robert Solomon stated (Lewis & Haviland, 1993): “One of the most enduring metaphors
of reason and emotion has been the metaphor of master and slave, with the wisdom of reason
firmly in control and the dangerous impulses of emotion safely suppressed, channeled, or
(ideally) in harmony with reason,” (p. 3)

The “master and slave” concept was challenged by some of the philosophers of
intelligence theories. Some of these proponents helped add emotional intelligence believing the
brain consisted of various different intelligences.
 Today, the study of emotions can be found in psychological, sociological, philosophical,
anthropological, and biological research. Definitions of emotions vary. “An emotion,” according
to Lazarus and Lazarus (1994), “is a personal life drama, which has to do with the fate of our
goals in a particular encounter and our beliefs about ourselves and the world we live in” (p. 151).
Sousa (1980) claimed that emotions “are not to be identified with a species of judgment” (p.
148), which brings him closer “to assimilate emotions to something else, namely beliefs or
desires.” Averill (1980) considered emotions as “cognitive systems or rules of behavior” (p. 39).
Solomon (1980) stated that “emotions are rational and purposive and, we choose an emotion
much as we choose a course of action” (p. 252). Frijda (1994) spoke about emotions as a
“general process of evaluation.” Emotions “represent a process of relevance signaling, which can
be considered as the mechanisms whereby the organism signals to its cognitive and action
systems that events are favorable or harmful to its ends” (p. 113). “But the question, ‘What is an
emotion?’” Robert Solomon stated, “Has proved to be difficult to resolve as the emotions have
been to master (Lewis & Haviland, 1993). Just when it seems an adequate definition is in play,
some new theory rears its unwelcome head and challenges our understanding” (p. 3).

Following are some of the prominent concepts. Beginning with the controversial views of
Darwin on biology and evolution, emotion and intelligence are explored for the purpose of
survival. Emphasizing how emotions and intellect work together, the field of cognition and affect
marked philosophical considerations of these two fields from an interaction list approach by
various philosophers. However, emotions and thoughts were also believed to not only originate
within a person, but to also be influenced socially and culturally by an understanding of one’s
self, interpersonal relationships, and culture.

2.4.3 Evolution and Biology

Evolution, as comprehended and described by Charles Darwin in ‘The Origin of Species”

(1859) in 1959 (Darwin, 1859), influenced the understanding of emotion among animals and
humans. His theory of evolution asserted that the development of intelligence was a key step in
human evolution (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). In addition, Darwin published

“The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872/1985). Darwin contended
that emotions were universal expressions of internal feelings about relationships. His theory was
met with skepticism by social psychologists that believed emotions were manifested differently
in different cultures (Ekman, 1973). Among his studies of emotions, Darwin also determined that
emotions serve an intelligent purpose. His theories on emotions, however, were not accepted in
the 1800s since emotions and intelligence were thought to be disparate. A century later, however
psychologist began to take notice According to Lazarus and Lazarus (1994), emotions and
intelligence evolve together because they are both needed for survival. Emotions facilitate
survival in three ways by: a) mobilizing individuals by providing added strength and endurance
in emergencies; b) focusing the mind’s attention on the emergency and what might be done to
cope with it; and c) signaling one’s state of mind to others. Although the field of emotional
intelligence does not emphasize the biology of survival as the basis for its importance, the ability
to adapt to inter-personal and environmental signs is important for successful communications.

2.4.4 Research on the Physical Brain and Emotional Intelligence

Extensive brain research in the last few decades began to report scientific connections
between emotion and cognitive intelligence. Notable thinkers in the field of brain research
include Paul MacLean, Antonio Damasio , Robert Zajonc Joseph LeDoux, and Candace Pert.

Paul MacLean, a Scientist, spoke about the evolution of the brain in terms of three
systems with associated functions: the neocortex (thoughts), the limbic system (emotion), and the
R-system (behavior). They are distinct and separate systems, yet interact as one brain (MacLean,
1978). Although LeDoux (1996) supported MacLean’s triune brain approach, he considered the
limbic system theory too general, stating that other parts outside the limbic system also involve
emotions. Damasio (1994) called the brain “a super-system of systems” (p. 30) in which every
system connects with other systems through complex and wide neuro-circuitry.

Although, Damasio supported MacLean (1990) triune brain, like LeDoux, he emphasized
that these systems are all interconnected. Damasio (1994) proposed:

“Reason may not be as pure as most of us think it is or wish it were, that emotions and
feelings may not be intruders in the bastion of reason at all: they may be enmeshed in its
networks, for worse and for better. The strategies of human reason probably did not develop in
either evolution or any single individual, without the guiding force of the mechanisms of
biological regulation, of which emotions and feelings are notable expressions, (p. xii)”

In addition, Zajonc (1980) pointed out that “Affective reactions are inescapable, most
often, these experiences occur whether one wants them to or not. One might be able to control
the expression of emotion but not the experience of it itself’ (p. 156). Sometimes emotions
overcome a person and it is hard not to feel even physical changes that come with them it.

Furthermore, Pert (1999) believed that the brain is integrated with all of the body at a
molecular level, and that emotions run throughout all of the body as a “mindbody intelligence”
(p. 19). She used the term “mobile brain” referring to it as a “psychosomatic network through
which intelligent information travels from one system to another” (pp. 188-189). Based on her
scientific research, Pert (1999) affirmed:

“Emotional states or moods are produced by the various neuropeptide ligands, and what
we experience as an emotion or a feeling is also a mechanism for activating a particular neuronal
circuit—simultaneously throughout the brain and body— which generates a behavior involving
the whole creature, with all the necessary physiological changes that behavior would require, (p.
145)”

2.4.5 Interface between Emotions and Cognition

Building on brain research, the field of cognition and affect emerged. Within this area,
researchers sought rules of what emotions meant and when they arose. Albert Ellis and Richard
Lazarus, are proponents of this interface approach that intertwines emotion and reason as part of
the larger process of cognition.

Albert Ellis is considered the father of Rational Emotive Therapy. In his book “Reason
and Emotion in Psychotherapy” in 1962, Ellis wrote, “Human thinking and emotion are not two
disparate processes but they significantly overlap and are, for all practical purposes, essentially
the same thing. None of the four fundamental life operations—sensing, moving, emoting, and
thinking—is experienced in isolation” (pp. 50-51). Ellis argued, emotion involves reason, motor
activity, perception, and feeling. “Feeling” refers to relatively pure sensory appraisals.
“Feelings” and “emotions” are distinct from influence. Emotions require more cognitive input
than do feelings, while feelings are more insticntive.

Lazarus (1991) supported Ellis’ perspective and thought of emotions as a source of

information, and a source of insight into oneself and others. “When we react with anxiety, anger,
happiness, or whatever, there is usually some awareness and understanding of how the emotion
was precipitated as well as the emotional reaction” (p. 18). This is a form empathy and self-
awareness. Lazarus in his appraisal theory described appraisals as consisting of a continuing
evaluation of the significance of the person-environment relationship for information regarding
one's personal well-being, whether about a specific encounter or their life as a whole. The
appraisal theory consists of six psychological ingredients that include: the fate of personal goals,
self or ego, appraisals, personal meanings, coping, provocations, and action tendencies (Lazarus
& Lazarus, 1994).

2.4.6 Social concept in Emotional intelligence

In addition to the inference approach, Brian Parkinson and Paul Ekman are two
individuals who perceived emotions to be socially constructed, arguing against theories that
emotions are internal and personal.

Parkinson (1996) argued that theories of emotions should include a “social psychological
analysis” because there are social causes of emotions through social relationships. What people
say and how they act are what causes one to react emotionally. In addition, Parkinson believed, a
person has to be strongly affected by an event in order to experience any emotion. In one-on-one
relations, if the analysis of communication through facial and other body language is correct,
then “there will be an automatic tendency to catch the mood of the person with whom you are
interacting”. Parkinson concluded “Interpersonal factors are typically the main cause of emotion,
and emotions lead people to engage in certain kinds of social encounter or withdraw from such
interpersonal contact” (p. 15). Parkinson also described the impact of values and cultural norms
on emotions in order to support his theory of the role of society in emotion and thus emotional
intelligence. Ekman (1973, 1992, 2003) studied different facial expressions in different cultures.
Ekman (1980) stated that the expression of emotions is conditioned by one’s cultural behavior -
which it not only influences the expression or the lack of expression of emotions, but also body
stances, facial expressions, and body poses.

Other Theorist noted on emotions in different cultures. Different cultures influence the
expression, arousal and regulation of emotions. Japanese versus American culture are generally
different in that one is more collective and the other more individualistic, respectively (Lazarus
& Lazarus, 1994). This influences the different arousal of emotions relating to effort and failure
in each culture. Culture also influences the expression and control of emotional expression. The
Yanomamo people of Venezuela, are among the most aggressive cultures that have been studied
by anthropologists (Vayda, 1969). In contrast, Tahitians’ display of anger is met by gossip,
coolness, and instructions about how to handle it (Levy, 1984). At the same time, in sharp
contrast to the Tahitians are the Utku-Inuit Eskimos who have been described as not feeling,
much less expressing, anger (Briggs, 1970). Cultural values share the expression of emotional
anger rather than provide the evidence of the arousal about emotion in general.

Sociologists are also interested in emotion, and explain variations on the basis of the
social structure within a society. Individuals within the same culture also differ based on the
socializing of different parents, values, etc. (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994).

2.4.7 The advent of Emotional Intelligence

Over 2 decades of research and theories have worked towards defining, assessing, and
developing emotional intelligence. Scholars investigated dimensions of emotional intelligence by
measuring related concepts, such as social skills, interpersonal competence, psychological
maturity and emotional awareness, long before the term “emotional intelligence” came into use.
The reviewed theories, definitions, and measurements of intelligence and emotions have assisted
in the development of emotional intelligence.

Scholars and Academicians explored to define the term “emotional intelligence” in an

explicit fashion and connect the term to relevant and substantiate research. John Mayer and Peter
Salovey give credit to Wayne Payne for first describing emotional intelligence (Payne, 1986)
described.

“emotions as distinguished from more purely cognitive forms of intelligence as follows:

 The facts, meanings, truths, relationships, etc., [of emotional intelligence] are those that
exists in the realm of emotion. Thus, feelings are facts.... The meanings are felt meanings; the
truths or emotional truths; the relationships are interpersonal relationships. And the problems we
solve are emotional problems, that is, problems in the way we feel. (p. 165)”

Not everything that connects intellect to emotion is emotional intelligence. The

differences in definitions have led to the lack of consensus and difficulty in measuring the
concept model. Another challenge in the field of emotional intelligence is to demonstrate some
empirical evidence for the concept. There has been a rapid propagation of measures of emotional
intelligence. The substance of these measures varies as a function of the different theoretical
conceptualizations and interpretations of emotional intelligence appearing in the literature.
Measurements of emotional intelligence that assess non-cognitive characters, such as
assertiveness, optimism, impulse control, seem to be tapping dimensions of individual
differences that are different from modern notions of what constitutes intelligence. Thus, the
assessment of emotional intelligence can be categorized by mixed-model or ability measures.

The following section explores emotional intelligence in more detail. The differences
between the mixed and ability models are explored in depth with literature from prominent
scholars in the field of emotional intelligence.

2.4.8 Models of Emotional Intelligence

2.4.8.1. The Mixed Model

Emerging out of the empirical studies, the definition of emotional intelligence, and the
importance of emotions in everyday life, various models of emotional intelligence have been
introduced. These models can be organized into two categories: mixed models and ability models
(Feyerherm & Rice, 2002). Advocates of the mixed model have been (Bar-On, 1997b; Coleman,
1995; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). Mixed model encompasses a more comprehensive definition of
emotional intelligence than the ability models, mixed models view emotional intelligence as a
construct including but not limited to competencies, personality, dispositions, traits,
characteristics, and Skills (Caruso et al., 2002; Feyerherm & Rice, 2002).
2.4.8.1.1 Bar-On's Model

Reuven Bar-On's model of emotional intelligence concentrates on skills, competencies,

and non-cognitive abilities. Bar-On built the model based upon five broad areas that pertain to
success: intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, adaptability, stress management, and general
mood (Bar-On, 1997b). According to Bar-On (1997b), emotional self-awareness, assertiveness,
self-regard, self-actualization, and independence fall under the umbrella of intra-personal skills.
Inter-personal skills embody interpersonal relationships, empathy, and social responsibility.
Adaptability encompasses capabilities such as problem solving and flexibility in situations.
Stress management includes impulse control, as well as stress tolerance. Finally, general mood
includes both happiness and optimism.

2.4.8.1.2 Goleman's Model

Goleman's (2000) model is one of the most popular mixed models and consists of four
components of Emotional Intelligence consisting of particular competencies. These four
components are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skill. The first
component is that of self-awareness. Self awareness consists of the competencies of emotional
self-awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-confidence. The second component is self-
management. Self-management includes self-control, trustworthiness, conscientiousness,
adaptability, achievement orientation, and initiative (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001). The
third component is social awareness and includes the competencies of empathy, organizational
awareness, and service orientation. The fourth and final component is that of social skill or
relationship management. It includes the competencies of visionary leadership, influence,
developing others, communication, change catalyst, conflict management, building bonds, and
teamwork and collaboration (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001).

2.4.8.1.3 Cooper and Sawaf's Model

Cooper and Sawaf's emotional intelligence model has been labeled the four cornerstone
model (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997). These four cornerstones comprise of emotional literacy,
emotional fitness, emotional depth, and emotional alchemy. Emotional literacy involves
identifying, respecting, and valuing feelings (Cooper, 1997). Contributors to emotional literacy
include emotional honesty, emotional energy, emotional feedback, and practical intuition
(Cooper, 1997). Emotional fitness, the second cornerstone is characterized by trust, resiliency,
authenticity, and renewal (Cooper, 1997). Trust is essential for any organization to foster
collaborations between teams, departments, and divisions (Cooper, 1997). The radius of trust can
be deepened and expanded through disclosure, believability, and established credibility (Cooper,
1997). The third cornerstone, emotional depth, involves applying integrity and core values to
impact others without the exercise of control (Cooper, 1997). It is easy for a leader to rely on
command and control tactics, logic, or the analysis of technical data to accomplish a task.
Furthermore, it takes an emotionally intelligent leader to rely on personal character, integrity,
and emotional fortitude to obtain commitment, establish motivation, and accomplish an
objective. The fourth cornerstone is emotional alchemy which is the amalgamation of forces that
enable individuals to uncover opportunities and creatively to turn those chances into reality. It
includes being in tune with the emotions that mean more than intellectual thinking, technical
analysis, and arrogance (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997).
Figure 2. 4: Models of Emotional Intelligence

Models of emotional intelligent

Ability Mixed Mixed Mixed

model Mayer model model model
and Salovey Bar-On Goleman Cooper
(1997) (1997) (1997) and Sawaf

EI is “the ability to
perceive accurately,
appraise, and express
EI is the ability to “EI is the ability to
“EI refers to the "motivate oneself and sense, understand, and
emotion; the ability to capacity to recognize persist in the face of effectively apply the
access and/or enerate our own feelings and frustration; to control power and acumen of
feelings when they those of others, to impulses and delay emotions as a
facilitate thought; the motivate ourselves, and gratification; to regulate source of human
ability to understand to manage well in one's moods and keep energy, information
emotion and emotional ourselves and in our distress from swamping connection and
knowledge; and the relationships” (Bar-On, the ability to think; to influence (Cooper &
ability to regulate 1997, 37). empathize and to hope" Sawaf, 1997, xiii).
emotions to promote
(Goleman, 1995, 34).
emotional and
intellectual growth”
Mayer and Salovey
(1997, p. 10)

2.4.8.2 The Ability Model

The ability model theorizes emotional intelligence as a mental aptitude in which emotions
and intelligence function together in a meaningful way (Caruso et al., 2002; Feyerherm & Rice,
2002). Emotional intelligence is viewed as verbal intelligence, although it operates on and with
emotional substance (Caruso et al., 2002). The ability model of emotional intelligence centers on
an individual’s skill in recognizing emotional information and carrying out abstract reasoning
using this information (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The model typically uses performance
measures to assess emotional intelligence, whereas the mixed models tend to use self-report
measures.

Mayer and Salovey (1997) identified four criteria that must be met EI to be defined as
intelligence. These criteria are as follows: (1) the intelligence must be defined; (2) a means must
exist to measure the intelligence; (3) there must be documentation proving independence from
already established intelligences; and (4) the intelligence must demonstrably predict success
according to real-world criteria (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
 Mayer (2000) added additional benchmarks to this list for an intelligence to be deemed
technically valid. The criteria were as follows: (1) the intelligence must consist of a set of mental
abilities; (2) the intelligence should adhere to particular correlational criteria; and (3) the
intelligence should develop with age and with experience. Over time it has been proven with
evidence that the construct of emotional intelligence meets all the above criterias (Mayer et al.,
2003).

2.4.8.2.1 Salovey and Mayer's Model

Mayer and Salovey (1997) constructed the emotional intelligence model based upon the
premise that emotional intelligence consists of abilities that form mental aptitude and this
aptitude assists process emotions and intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). The said ability is
built upon distinct emotional reasoning abilities including: perceiving, using, understanding, and
managing emotions. The current model is a model consisting of four branches with the first two
branches defined as experiential EI, due to relating closely to feelings. The second two branches
are defined as strategic EI, as each is involved in planning and calculations on the basis of
emotional evidence (Mayer et al., 2004).

Branch one is the ability to identify or perceive emotions in self and others correctly. This
involves the ability to recognize emotion in others, as revealed through facial or postural
expression. It also includes the perception of both the verbal and nonverbal expressions of
emotion in the voice or other related channels of communication (Mayer et al., 2004). Branch
two is the emotional facilitation of thought. This branch encompasses the ability to use emotions
to enhance or assist in the thought process. At times, this may mean using emotions to relay
attention to priorities, generating emotions that aid in the decision making process, in a manner
that will encourage different problem solving tactics (Mayer et al., 2004). Branch three is the
ability to understand and analyze emotions. Understanding emotions involves knowing how and
why emotions change, and how those emotions will change people and behaviors in the long-run.
It also involves the ability to understand complex emotions, how emotions are linked to one
another, how one emotion can transition into another, and what the outcome of emotions
expressed could be (Caruso et al., 2002).
 Branch four is the ability to manage emotions, otherwise known as emotional
management. This involves the ability to stay mindful of one’s emotions, and to allow those
emotions to become part of logical and effective decision making (Mayer et al., 2002). It also
encompasses the management of one’s emotions within the boundaries of individual social fit,
self-knowledge, and Objectives (Mayer et al., 2004).
Figure 2. 5: Mayer and Salovey’s conceptual framework (1997)
Branch 1:
Perception, The capacity to perceive and appraise
Appraisal, and emotions in others, and appropriately
Expression of express emotion
Emotion

Branch 2:
Emotional The ability to use emotions to enhance the
Facilitation of cognitive process
Thinking
Ability Model of
Salovey and
Mayer (1997

The ability to understand how emotions

Branch 3: change, in and of themselves, and how that
Understanding and change will influence others and the
Analyzing Emotions behavior of others over time.

Branch 4: The ability to regulate and integrate logic

Regulation of and emotion for enhanced decision-making
emotions to promote and personal growth.
emotional and
intellectual growth
Source: Adopted from Mayer and Salovey (1997)

2.4.9 Evaluation and Contrast between the two Models

In comparing the mixed models and ability models it is evident that there is similarity in
the way each has been constructed around emotional intelligence. For all four models, the
concept of emotional intelligence rests on the three ideas of self-awareness, understanding of
emotion in self and others, and emotional management. Although the different models have
different labels for the ideas, each of these three ideas can be found in all the three models.

The concepts of self-awareness is defined as self-awareness by Goleman (1995),

emotional depth by Cooper and Sawaf (1997), emotional self-awareness by Bar-On (1997b), and
perception of emotions by Mayer and Salovey (1997). They all mean the same for each model;
Self-awareness involves being conscious of one's own emotions and how those emotions impact
each and every interaction and relationships in the long term and short term.

The idea of understanding emotion in self and others also has different labels from one
model to the other. For Goleman (1995) and Bar-On (1997b), the label used is that of empathy,
for Cooper and Sawaf (1997) it is all about emotional literacy, and for Mayer and Salovey
(1997), it is about understanding and analyzing emotions. Once again, despite the difference in
some of the terms used, the basic idea of being able to recognize and empathize with the
emotions in one-self and others is crucial.

The last idea of emotional management is reckpned as self-management by Goleman

(1995), emotional alchemy by Cooper and Sawaf (1997), stress management by Bar-On (1997b),
and managing emotions by Mayer and Salovey (1997). Despite the difference in terms, the basic
meaning of these terminologies is the same. To be truly emotionally intelligent, an individual
must be able to control and manage emotions.

The primary divergence between the ability models and the mixed models is that the
ability models wholly focuses on the intersection of emotion and cognition. Mayer and Salovey's
(1997) definition and model of emotional intelligence is focused on this convergence. The mixed
models, on the other hand, include a broader definition of emotional intelligence which includes
character traits, various competencies, disposition and skills. Bar-On, Goleman, and Cooper and
Sawaf each have different definitions of emotional intelligence and models that vary widely from
each other.

The secondary difference between the two types of models is the measures each uses to
test emotional intelligence. The ability models use an emotional intelligence ability test that is
performance-based to measure levels of emotional intelligence. The mixed models use self-
report tools to measure levels of emotional intelligence, although these tools vary from one
scholar to another. These self-report measures are predicated on the thought that the participant
will accurately answer and be able to accurately assess their own levels of emotional
intelligence.
 In expectations, mix-up can occur when non-cognitive factors are characterized as
intelligence (Mayer & Stevens, 1994; Scarr, 1989; Sternberg, 1997a). In General, mental abilities
do not correlate strongly with other personality traits (Sternberg, 1994). For this reason, Mayer
and colleagues Mayer and Salovey (1997) and Mayer et al. (2000d) believe emotional
intelligence should be studied purely from the perspective of mental abilities rather than mixed
with other personality traits. They defined their model of emotional intelligence as the ability
model and the others (Goleman, 1998b; Bar-On, 1997b) as mixed models.

Emotional intelligence, to some theorists, consists of traits such as optimism or social

skills or being a “nice person.” This is considered a mixed model assessment of emotional
intelligence. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™), however, is
an ability measure of emotional intelligence. This means that one can receive a low score on the
MSCEIT, but through hard work and effort can behave in an emotionally-intelligent manner.
Conversely, one can receive a high score, but not utilize their emotional abilities.

Ability testing is perceived to be the “gold standard” in intelligence research, because

intelligence refers to the actual capacity to perform well at mental problems-not just one's beliefs
about such capacities (Mayer et al., 2000d; Neisser et al., 1996; Scarr, 1989). Ability (cognitive
or physical) refers to variations in performance among individuals who are given tasks that vary
in difficulty. A cognitive task is “any task in which correct or appropriate processing of mental
information is critical to successful performance” (Carroll, 1993, p.10). Many intelligence tests
assess one’s ability to build with blocks or solve puzzles, remember items of numbers. In doing
so, these tests tend to yield accurate measures of one's ability to learn. In principle, then, emotion
perception would appear to constitute an ability.

Other mixed-model theorists broadened the term emotional intelligence to include many
other aspects of personality such as traits and characteristics that describe a person’s character
(Bar-On, 2000, 1997b; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1995c, 1998b). Their goal was to
predict whether a person would be successful in a role based on these characteristics and
competencies in applying them in their work and life situations. Mixed models, Mayer and
Salovey argue, contain a combination of abilities, behaviors, and general disposition in
personality attributes such as optimism and persistence with mental ability (Cherniss &
Goleman, 2001).

The mixed models are appealing because they describe features of high performance.
Some studies indicate outcomes of a successful leader with highly developed emotional
intelligence (e.g., Ruderman, Hammum, Leslie, & Steed, 2001). But the personality
characteristics measured in the mixed models such as Bar-On’s EQ-i are more difficult to change
through learning than abilities to reason with emotional information.

Under the framework of an ability model, a psychological instrument directly measures

ability by having a person solve a problem, such as identify the emotion in a person's face, story,
or painting. The ability-based mode of assessment proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997) and
its underlying four-branch conceptual model of emotional intelligence, has gained acceptance,
largely because it appears ability-oriented and empirically based. Based on the current status of
research related to the measurement of the construct of emotional intelligence, the ability model
measurement instrument appears to be more empirically sound than any of the instruments
measuring the mixed models (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 1999, 2000d) However, other
aspects of emotional intelligence—such as examining one's own emotions and the use of
information on emotional state to guide thinking and action may be difficult to measure as a
result of problems in defining a correct response (Davies et al., 1998).

2.4.10 Prominent Theorists

The following section explores the three prominent groups of theorists in the field of
emotional intelligence. The above mentioned models are furthermore defined and measurement
in more detail.

The trailing compares and contrasts some of the most commonly known definitions on
emotional intelligence and the measurements used to support their claims. These involve Daniel
Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and the Emotional Competency Inventory; Reuven Bar-On and the
Emotional Quotient Inventory; and Jack Mayer, Peter Salovey, David Caruso, and the Mayer-
Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Various theorists who influenced their work are
also discussed in elaboration.
2.4.10.1 Goleman and Boyatzis

Science journalist, New York Times reporter and psychologist, Daniel Goleman
popularized the term “emotional intelligence” in a book in 1995. Goleman's (1995b) was loosely
modeled on the academic writing in the area by Mayer and Salovey, and written for the universal
audience. The book was mass-marketed and became a best seller.

Goleman used the term “emotional intelligence” to underline research and public policy.
Nevertheless, according to Meyer (2001) and Goleman's (1995b) book was filled with anecdotes
and presented only a few statistics. In Goleman’s book and its publicity, emotional intelligence
was said to be, possibly, the best predictor of life success, to be accessible by anyone, and to be
similar to “character.”

“Emotional Intelligence” Goleman (1995) was published just a year following the
controversial book, “The Bell Curve” (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). In sharp divergence to “The
Bell Curve”, “Emotional Intelligence”’s subtitle claims Why it can matter more than IQ. Aside
from the claims of “The Bell Curve” that intelligence was inborn, one could do nothing about it,
and low IQ was the source of social troubles, “Emotional Intelligence” provided hope with the
idea that success was linked mostly to emotional intelligence, which is a leamable tenet.

Goleman utilized Damasio (1994) and other’s studies to tie “soft skills” to the brain. He
specified there are rational and emotional halves of the mind. Emotional intelligence, Goleman
believes, is located in the amygdala, or the “emotional” half of the brain (Boyatzis et al., 1999;
Goleman, 1999a; Mayer et al., 1999). He used the term amygdala hijack to describe when one’s
emotions cause him or her to respond in a childish, intense, sudden, and inappropriate manner.
On the other hand, the prefrontal lobe is the part of the brain that is more adult and thoughtful,
and, therefore, the “rational” half of the brain. Emotional intelligence, according to Goleman
(1999), encompasses the interplay between the amygdala and prefrontal.

In “Emotional Intelligence” in 1995, Goleman built a strong event for teachers to spend
time with their students teaching them what emotional intelligence is, why it is so important, and
how they can improve this ability. Goleman was encouraged to write his second book, “Working
with Emotional Intelligence” in 1998, to help managers and other adults understand and develop
better emotional intelligence. This book focused on studying the star performers in the field of
business.

Goleman revised his model in the publication of his second book, “Work with Emotional
Intelligence” in 1998. He began to define his model from this point on as emotional competency,
rather than emotional intelligence, based on work done by McClelland (1973). McClelland
believed that traditional academic intelligence did not predict how well people would do in life.
He proposed that a specific set of capabilities such as empathy, self-discipline, and initiative
would better predict success. To measure the type of capabilities needed to succeed in a specific
job, he believed in studying the star performers in their field. Goleman (1998) used this tactic in
analyzing and defining his role models of emotional competency.

Goleman (1998) defined emotional intelligence as “the capacity for recognizing our own
feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in
ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). Goleman redefined the mental abilities proposed by
Salovey and Mayer (1990) into five broad skills, with related capabilities. The first was self-
awareness, defined as knowing one’s internal states, preferences, resources, and intuitions. The
second was self-regulation, defined as managing one’s internal states, impulses, and resources.
The third was motivation, defined as emotional tendencies that guide or facilitate reaching goals.
The fourth was empathy, defined as awareness of others’ feelings, needs, and concerns. Last was
social skills defined as adeptness at inducing desirable responses in others

In 1999, Goleman (1999) again revised his model to include four domains of emotional
competencies in contrast to the originally five. The four domains were self¬awareness, self-
management, social awareness, and social skills. This model was again refined in 2001 (Cherniss
& Goleman, 2001). At the time of this writing, his model consists of four competencies—self-
awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management—further broken
down into 20 subcategories as depicted in Table 2. The original 1995 model was conceptually-
based and the revised 2001 model was based on empirical testing of the concepts.

Table 2. 4: A Framework of Emotional Competencies

SELF Personal Competence OTHER Social competence

 RECOGNITION Self-Awareness Social Awareness
- Emotional self-awareness - Empathy
- Accurate self-assessment - Service orientation
- Self-confidence - Organizational awareness

REGULATION Self-Management Relationship Management

• Self-control • Developing others
■ Trustworthiness • Influence
• Conscientiousness • Communication
■ Adaptability • Conflict management
• Achievement drive ■ Visionary Leadership
■ Initiative • Change catalyst
• Building bonds
■ Teamwork & collaboration

Table 2.3. Note. Adapted from Goleman (2001). The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace:
How to Select for, Measure, and Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and
Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 28.

The measurement supporting Goleman’s theory is the Emotional Competency Inventory

(ECI) developed by Boyatzis and Goleman, along with colleagues at Hay McBer (Boyatzis et al.,
1999). The Emotional Competency Inventory measures the four basic competencies of
Goleman's (1999) model. These competencies and their subcategory competencies as previous
described are clearly not measurable by the standards outlined by the psychology discipline to
define intelligence. The Emotional Competency Inventory purportedly assesses all aspects of
emotional intelligence. However, the scale appears to measure the ability to regulate emotions in
others and the use of emotion (Davies et al., 1998).

Although the Emotional Competency Inventory may provide some understanding of

influences that may contribute to success in life, it does not limit measuring emotional
intelligence in terms of mental ability to reason with emotional information. The development of
emotional intelligence theory is marked by the development of psychological tests that report to
measure the construct of emotional intelligence (Mayer et al., 2000d). Intelligence testing must
meet three standards in the psychological community. First, it must reflect mental performance
of the desired construct rather than a belief in performance or a preferred way to behave. Second,
through the use of correlational criteria, the intelligence should describe a set of closely related
abilities that are similar and yet distinct from mental abilities already described by other well-
established intelligences. Lastly, the intelligence develops with age and experience (Mayer et al.,
1999). It should also demonstrate it predicts some real world criteria Mayer and Salovey (1997).
Although Goleman’s research has focused on the last two criteria, his work is lacking in the first
two.

Mayer et al. (2000d) consider it is important to limit the construct of emotional

intelligence to personality domains that can be measured through ability testing. In contrast,
Cherniss and Goleman (2001) and Bar-On (1988), discussed next, are two of the theorists who
have mixed mental abilities to work with emotional information and other personality traits.

There are challenges with mixed models such as Goleman’s (Cherniss et al., 1998) that
appear to cover all positive interpersonal traits, abilities, or characteristics into one model. While
reading “The Emotionally Intelligence Workplace” by Cherniss and Goleman (2001), one would
be skeptical of the research and references to “emotional intelligence” and “leadership.” It looks
like most of that has been researched under the heading of leadership for the past half-century is
now encompassed in Goleman’s model and repackaged as emotional intelligence. Furthermore
boasting Goleman (1995) claim that “[A] highly developed emotional intelligence will make you
a candidate for CEO” (n.p.).

2.4.10.2 Reuven Bar-On

The term emotional quotient (EQ) was first coined by Bar-On (1988) in the first draft of
his unpublished doctoral dissertation, as a counterpart to intelligence quotient (IQ). Bar-On
(1997b) was clinical psychologist at Tel Aviv University, he defined emotional intelligence as
“an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to
succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 14). It is interesting to that
Bar-On begins his definition by emphasizing that emotional intelligence is not cognitive. He
describes emotionally intelligent individuals as being optimistic, flexible, realistic, able to solve
problem fairly successfully, and able to cope with stress without losing control. They write
about emotional and social intelligence in terms of a symbiotic relationship and defines
emotional intelligence in terms of an array of emotional and social knowledge and abilities that
influence one’s overall ability to effectively cope with environmental demands (Bar-On &
Parker, 2000). Bar-On is trying to answer the question “Why are some individuals more able to
succeed in life than others?” (Mayer et al., 2000d, p. 402).

In 1988, Bar-On also developed the first attempt to assess emotional intelligence in
terms of the nature of well being in the context of a personality theory. Based on this definition,
Bar-On developed the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997b). Bar-On’s goal was to
develop profiles that reveal the specific abilities and capabilities of high performing people in
various professions (Schwartz & Johnson, 2000).

The EQ-i is composed of five meta-factors and 15 factors of emotional and social
intelligence depicted in Table 3. These areas include many skills and non-intelligence
capabilities reflective of a broad range of personality factors. Bar-On’s goal was to develop
profiles that reveal the specific qualities and competencies of high performing people in a range
of professions (Schwartz & Johnson, 2000).
Table 2. 5: EQ –I Factors

META-FACTORS FACTORS
A. Intrapersonal Emotional self-awareness
Assertiveness
Self-regard
Self-actualization
Independence
B. Interpersonal Empathy
Social responsibility
Interpersonal relationships
C. Adaptability Reality testing
Flexibility
Problem solving
D. Stress Management Stress intolerance
Impulse control
E. General Mood Optimism
Happiness
Source: Adopted from Bar-On (1997b)

Empirical data pointing to the substantial relationship between emotional intelligence

and existing personality measures have been used in support of the discriminant validity and
conceptual reliability of this concept (Bar-On, 2000). For example, a study by Dawda and Hart
(2000) revealed average correlations approaching .50 between measures of the Big Five
personality factors (e.g., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness) and general emotional intelligence derived from the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997b).
Noting the relative independence of each of the Big Five personality factors (e.g., Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), Roberts, Zeidner and
Matthews (2001) believed these data suggest that the EQ-i is nothing but a proxy measure of a
composite of Big Five personality constructs which may also be the case for other instruments.

Center for Creative Leadership (CCL)® in 2000 approved the EQ-i for use among five
comparable assessment instruments, some of which were the MSCEIT™ and ECI. Teh Bar-On
EQ-i was selected as a measure of emotional intelligence because it was thought to have the
greatest body of scientific data suggesting it was an accurate and reliable means of assessing
emotional intelligence (Ruderman et al., 2001). A Center for Creative Leadership research team
then conducted a study to correlate leadership skills with emotional intelligence. Middle
Managers completed the EQ-i, which were correlated with scores on Benchmarks®, a 360-
degree feedback instrument on leadership success.

The results of the research were not surprising. Those leadership skills associated with
interpersonal aspects of leadership were more highly correlated with emotional intelligence
(Ruderman et al., 2001). The report concluded:

“Due to the way the study is designed, we can’t conclusively say that a high level of
emotional intelligence will make you a better leader. It is also quite possible that being
in a leadership situation gives you opportunity to develop your emotional intelligence.
We can conclude, however, that there is a connection between leadership behaviors
and emotional intelligence, (p. 12)”

Evidence does not encourage a believe that the EQ-i is the best measurement of
emotional intelligence. The instrument assesses a variety of non-intelligence capabilities,
competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental
demands and pressures that are broadly defined by other personality assessments such as the
California Psychological Inventory™ or the NEO (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness)
Personality Inventory. Furthermore, it is understandable why Bar-On (Irish Management
Institute,1997) may make such a claim as “Emotional intelligence is just as important if not
more important in predicting success in the workplace than cognitive intelligence" (n.p.).

In addition, the EQ-i is a self-report measure which provides challenges in asking the
individual to assess their perceived emotional intelligence in questions such as “I have good
relations with others.” The EQ-i does, however, have practicality in assessing potential strengths
and developmental areas in leadership skills.

Bar-On is widely recognized for his work in the coining of the construct and developing
the first accepted measurement of emotional intelligence. However, as theorists and researchers
continue to refine this arena of understanding, the definitions change and so do the tools used to
assess it.

2.4.10.3 Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso

In furtherance to their predecessor Bar-On, two psychologists, John (Jack) Mayer and
Peter Salovey (Salovey & Mayer, 1989; Mayer & Salovey, 1993), began a sequence of research
based on the premise that emotional information may be processed differently than other types of
intellectual problems related to non-emotional information. Beginning in 1990, psychologists
Mayer and Salovey, published a series of articles on emotional intelligence. Mayer and Salovey
investigated much of the previously-reviewed research on intelligence and emotions and
developed a proper theory on emotional intelligence. In their 1990 article, Mayer and Salovey
were the first to describe the aptitudes to process emotional information as intelligence and
referred to it as emotional intelligence. Thereafter, they designed a test to measure the concept
(Mayer et al., 1990; Salovey & Mayer, 1989).

Salovey and Mayer's (1990) original definition identified emotional intelligence with a
intellectual emphasis as “a type of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s
own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use information to
guide one’s thinking and action” (p. 189). This definition incorporated the concept of social
intelligence (e.g., Buckingham, 1921) and Gardner's 1983) interpersonal and intrapersonal
intelligences. Salovey and Mayer (1990) also argued that their model must include some measure
of “thinking about feelings,” rather than simply focus on perceiving and regulating feelings.

In their article in 1993, Mayer and Salovey argued that emotional intelligence was an
overlooked intelligence and called for serious study in the area (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). At this
time, further foundations of emotional intelligence were developed, particularly in the brain
sciences (e.g. Damasio, 1994).

Mayer and colleagues (Mayer et al., 2001) argued, on the basis of their research findings,
that emotional intelligence is similar to traditional intelligence. First, it could be measured as an
ability for which there were correct answers. Second, the domain of emotional intelligence was
sizeable in that one could come up with 12 fairly diverse tasks to measure it, recognizing
emotion in faces to understanding how emotions are likely to change over time. Third, after
administering the test to 503 adults and 229 adolescents, they found that those 12 diverse tasks
were positively correlated. A factor analysis of those tasks indicated that they could be defined
by one general factor and that they also fell into four subgroups of skills (Mayer & Salovey,
1997). Finally, emotional intelligence ability increased with age, at least across the age ranges
they explored in cross-sectional studies.

Mayer, Salovey, and their colleagues (Caruso et al., 2001; Mayer et al., 2000a, 2000b,
2000c, 1999, 2000d, 2004, 2002) have gradually shifted from a more all-encompassing model of
emotional intelligence to a more restrictive model. The original theory by Salovery and Mayer
(1990) related emotional intelligence to personality factors such as warmth and outgoingness.
Since then, they contend that emotional intelligence should be distinguished from personality
variables and defined more strictly as an ability, specifically the ability to recognize the
meanings of emotions and to use that emotional knowledge to reason and solve problems. These
theorists have proposed a framework of emotional intelligence to organize the various abilities
involved in the adapter processing of emotionally relevant information. These abilities (as
depicted in Table 4) pertain to (a) accurate appraisal and expression of emotions in oneself and in
others, (b) assimilation of emotional experience in cognition, (c) recognition, understanding, and
reasoning about emotions, and (d) adaptive regulation of emotions in oneself and in others
(Mayer et al., 2000a; Mayer & Stevens, 1994).
Table 2. 6: The Mayer and Salovey’s Four-Branch Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence

BRANCH BRANCH DESCRIPTION

Perceiving Emotions (Branch 1) The ability to perceive emotions in oneself and others, as
well as in objects, art, stories, music, and other stimuli.

Facilitating Thought (Branch 2)
Understanding Emotions (Branch 3)
The ability to generate, use, and feel emotions as
necessary to communicate feelings, or employ them in
other cognitive processes.
The ability to understand emotional information, how
emotions combine and progress through relationships
transitions, and appreciate such emotional meanings.

Managing Emotions (Branch 4) The ability to be open to feelings, and to modulate them
in oneself and others so to promote personal
understanding and growth.

Source: Adopted from Mayer et al. (2002)

Mayer and Salovey’s after the addition of, David Caruso, changed their definition to “the
ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason
with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others” (Mayer et al., 2000c). In other words,
a better understanding of emotion leads to better problem solving in an individual’s emotional
life. They also believe emotional intelligence is broader than social intelligence because it
includes internal, private emotions important for personal rather than social growth.

A brief introduction to the Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso theory and measurement of
emotional intelligence as it relates to past theories of intelligence and emotion. An in-depth
background, analysis, and critique can be found latter.

The Mayer and Salovey 4-branch model is not a mixed model measuring personality
traits already assessed by measurements such as the NEO (e.g., Bar-On’s EQ- i) or leadership
behaviors already assessed by other leadership assessments (e.g., Goleman’s ECI). “While ...
emotional intelligence [as measured by the MSCEIT™] does not answer every question about
human behavior, research to date indicates that it is measuring a unique piece of the puzzle not
measured by other concepts” (Caruso & Wolfe, 2001). At the same time, some theorists such as
Davies et al. (1998) question how much is unique about emotional intelligence, how well it holds
together as a unified construct, and whether it will prove to have robust value as a new
psychological construct. Mayer and colleagues (Mayer et al., 2001) admit there are a few
questions posed by Roberts and colleagues (Roberts et al., 2001) that are yet to be resolved.
Sternberg (Sternberg, Lautrey, & Lubart, 2003) believed, however, the findings so far are
promising, but not yet definitive.

2.4.10.4 Summary of the Emergence of Emotional Intelligence

In the last 2 decades, theoretical research refinements in the area of emotional

intelligence have taken place, measurements have been developed, and serious research has
taken place within the field (Mayer, 2001). A number of refinements to the concept of emotional
intelligence have taken place, along with the introduction of new measures of the concept with
the first peer-review research articles on the subject (Bar-On, 1997b; Davies et al., 1998; Mayer et al.,
1999; Roberts et al., 2001).

The field of emotional intelligence is challenged with how to define the concept and how
it should best be measured. Wayne Payne is credited as the first to describe emotional
intelligence. However, it was Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso throughout the last 2 decades who
helped to refine, define and measure the theory. Measurements of emotional intelligence as
categorized based on mixed and ability models. This section compared and contrasted the most
prominent theorists which included Reuven Bar-On and the Emotional Quotient Inventory;
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso and the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; and
Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis and the Emotional Competency Inventory.

New research, articles, and books on this topic are being created each year looking to
redefine the concept of emotional intelligence in terms of various existing approaches in
psychology (Coles, 1998; Sternberg, 1997a; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Perkins, 1995; Weisinger,
1997). Some authors seek to differentiate between different forms of intelligence. Some seek to
broaden the expanse of intelligence to include emotions, morality, creativity, or leadership. And
others seek to bring emotional intelligence into the group, the organization, and the community.

Challenges with most assessments of emotional intelligence appear as a theoretical

problem that is plagued Binet, Simon, and their predecessors, when they first tried to develop
intelligence tests (Roberts et al., 2001). For illustration, the most widely used cognitive scales of
intelligence, the Wechsler Intelligence scales, are the product of 60 years of research. The
supporting research was initiated after an earlier 40 years of work on the clinical assessment of
intelligence and replaced the earlier Wechsler— Bellevue Intelligence Test (Wechsler, 1955)
used until 1981. If the history of the study of intelligence is any guide, there is much still to be
learned about emotional intelligence.

2.4.11 Emotional Intelligence and Performance

Johnson & Johnson funded a study that assessed the importance of Emotional intelligence
in leadership success in its organization. This study was inspired by Goleman’s work in 1995.
Three hundred and fifty managers were administered Emotional Competence Inventory
assessments and Leadership developed by Goleman and Boyatzis. The results brought forth a
significant association between performance of leaders and their emotional capability. The
research proposed that social factors and emotions are a significant cause in leadership
functioning (Cavallo & Brienza, 2001).

Studies by Cherniss (1999) found that Sales agents with high levels of EI outsold those
from the company who had low EI and were from company’s old selection processes. This study
was conducted in L’Oréal. Employees in the sales division from a large insurance company who
had higher levels of Emotional Intelligence sold insurance policies worth $70,000 more in
revenue for the company in comparison with Sales employee who had lower scores on EI.

Verbeke, Belschak, Bakker and Dietz (2008) studied the relationship of general mental
ability, social competence, and cognitive intelligence to sales performance. He sampled 171 sales
employees who sold media and advertising to large conglomerates and companies. In
conclusions; the results were examined, the findings brought forth that mental ability, thinking
style, and social competence do affect employees overall sales performance.

Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) studied Leadership effectiveness Emotional Intelligence,

personality, intelligence. The research question was “Do emotional intelligence, personality, and
cognitive intelligence positively associate with effective leadership and performance?” They
sampled 30 executives from a large Australian public service organization in a quantitative
study. The 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire and Mayers Solvay Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test was administered, and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence was used
to measure Intelligence. After the results were collected and analyzed, Pearson correlation
coefficients were used to study any associations between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and
leadership effectiveness. The conclusions of the study suggested leaders with higher EI were
more successful and were considered more effective by their team members, colleagues, and
management. Perceiving emotions was related to effective leadership. In contrast, further
analysis revealed Emotional Intelligence and personality had no correlation. A correlation was
found, however, between EI and intelligence (IQ).

Lopes, Cote and Salovey (2006) examined Emotional Intelligence, performance, and
positive workplace outcomes in 44 Research analysts who worked for a large Insurance
company. Their finding indicated higher Emotional Intelligence resulted in individuals receiving
greater pay increases. In addition, Emotional Intelligence led to better assessments and ultimately
higher-ranking positions and promotions within the Insurance firm. The participants were
assessed using the Mayers Solvay Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. The findings revealed
Emotional Intelligence affected performance positively with respect to worker attitude,
Promotions, pay increments.

Harris (2009) conducted a study to distinguish if there was a relationship between

Emotional Intelligence and sales performance in the medical industry. Harris examined 136 sales
representatives from medical and pharma organizations. In her study using the Bar-On EQ–i, no
correlation was found between Emotional Intelligence and sales performance. There was
insufficient evidence supporting Emotional Intelligence and its effect on Medical sales
performance. In fact there was observed difference between the Emotional Intelligence levels of
high- or low-performing salespeople. Harris (2009) recommended future research be conducted
in a replication study that focuses on sales results, larger sample size, furthermore the study of
different skills and positions within the organization.

Deeter-Schmelz and Sojka (2003) sought to examine if Emotional Intelligence aided to

distinguish an average sales employe eand outlier sales employee. This qualitative study sampled
11 sales professionals based on their strong performance records. The respondents were between
the ages of 25 and 50, with experience ranging from 1–24 years. Deeter-Schmelz and Sojka
(2003) interviewed the participants and asked all of them the same questions related to
Emotional Intelligence. The questions specifically addressed areas of self-regulation, self-
motivation, empathy, perception, and self-awareness. Their results established there might be a
correlation between Emotional Intelligence and sales performance. There was a link between
Emotional Intelligence and sales performance. The participants relied more on Emotional
Intelligence in their sales duties, and when interviewed they pointed more to the potential impact
of EI and its importance in the selling process. As a result, Deeter-Schmelz and Sojka (2003)
recommended future research in examining the role EI plays in previously developed models of a
salesperson’s job performance.

Dulewicz and Higgs (1999) sampled of 289 sales professionals from three different
organizations. The results indicated a strong relationship between overall EI and performance.
Higgs (2004) used a quantitative methodology with a correlational design. The participants in the
study were from inbound call centers. The results of the study confirmed most of the hypotheses
tests. Furthermore Higgs (2004) concluded that age and gender were also found as causative
factors.

Mishra and Mohapatra (2010) conducted research on Emotional Intelligence and job
performance in India. Using the Emotional Intelligence assessment by Chadha and Singh and
companies’ performance appraisal system scores to measure job performance, the authors found
a significant relationship between EI and work performance for the 90 executives in the study.
Mishra and Mohapatra (2010) recommended future research be conducted using different
Emotional Intelligence assessments and performance appraisal instruments, and using various
organizations.

2.4.12 Emotional Intelligence and Culture

An organizational culture consists of management, leadership, and employees, each of

which contributes to the atmosphere of the organization (McShane & Glinow, 2008). Regardless
of the culture, motivating employees to produce is an essential aspect of the success of the
organization (Reeves, 2009). The use of emotional intelligence by employees allows coworkers
to become friends who motivate one another to achieve higher performance (Cote & Miners,
2006). The influence of management though emotional intelligence helps to shape employee
attitudes, behaviors, and inclinations to excel (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006). A positive culture derived
from the corporation and employees and reinforced by emotional intelligence allows for
innovative techniques and approaches that result in a high-performance workforce (Kaliprasad,
2006). The use of emotional intelligence anywhere in the organization may have a positive effect
on one’s peers, supervisor, or other workers resulting in a supportive environment (Kaliprasad,
2006). Much different from intelligent quotient that stops increasing in the teenage years, one
may develop emotional intelligence though life and seems mostly a learned skill as one matures.

Momeni (2009) looked at the research question, Does Emotional Intelligence have an
effect or influence on organizational climate? Momeni's (2009) in his quantitative study
researched Emotional Intelligence and the ethical climate that manager’s produce examined 30
managers from diverse organization that Manufacture automobile parts in Iran. The participants
were administered the ECI–360 authored by Goleman to measure Emotional Intelligence. In
addition, the participants were given a questionnaire assessed by 140 employees and supervisors
to assess organizational climate. After the results were collected and data analyzed, the Pearson
product–moment correlation coefficient showed the higher the manager’s Emotional
Intelligence, the better the manager’s organizational climate. The significant finding showed
55% of organizational climate is influenced by Emotional Intelligence (Momeni, 2009). The
results also indicated organizational climate is affected by social awareness and self-awareness
of Emotional Intelligence (Momeni, 2009).

2.4.13 Emotional Intelligence and Leadership styles and their combined effect on
performance

Anand and Udasuriyan (2010), Kaura (2011) and Das and Ali (2015) have investigated
the relationship between leadership practices and the leadership style, emotional intelligence and
performance of employees in Indian banking and financial sector. Taken as a whole, the findings
of their studies reveal that in the framework of transformational and transactional leadership
styles, there is a positive and significant relationship between leadership style, emotional
intelligence and performance. Even though these relationships do not straight relate emotional
intelligence of leaders with engagement levels of employees working under them signifying that
the relationship is more about the leadership style and emotional intelligence behaviors emerging
from the style, and they have little to do with the leaders who control the emotional intelligence
behaviors. The point is that certain leadership style has definitive traits that create specific
emotional intelligence attributes motivating and engaging people in organizations to perform in a
defined direction as per the target fixed at both organizational and individual levels. Nonetheless,
the authors suppose based on their findings that since leadership style is adopted by leaders
based on their inherent leadership traits, therefore it may well be postulated that there can be
positive and significant relationship between leadership style or leaders and emotional
intelligence and people’s engagement and eventually their performance. Precisely further, based
on the studies of Anand and Udasuriyan (2010), Kaura (2011) and Das and Ali (2015), it is
established that emotional intelligence elements in the forms of emotion application, instruction
to emotion, appraisal of self-emotion and different other elements of emotional intelligence put
positive and significant effects on job enhancement which eventually leads to increased
individual and organizational performance. On the basis of these findings, it may well be argued
that managers in financial and banking organizations of India need to give notice to manage and
control their emotions and advance a few effectual dynamics for enhancing the individual and
organizational performance. However, the performance might diverge in view of the particular
leadership style namely transactional and transformational and their related emotional
intelligence attributes. Precisely the proposition emerges from these findings is that
transformational and transactional leadership styles have a positive and significant relationship
between leadership style, emotional intelligence and performance. However, latest studies have
contradicted these findings , where in pioneering latest study Chatterjee and Kulakli (2015) argue
that leadership theory and empirical findings fail to adequately substantiate how leader's
emotions influence their effectiveness. They argue that even though there exists a considerable
body of research as regards leadership and leadership styles, however literature is rather scarce
as regards the relationship between leadership style and emotional intelligence. Hence, an
advanced recognition of emotional intelligence and its relationship to leadership style may well
fill the current gaps in literature and present a more informed relationship between theories and
practices. Chatterjee and Kulakli (2015) attempts extend the knowledge base as regards the
relationship between leadership style, emotional intelligence and performance. Based on the
findings of their study the authors conclude that the capability and skill viewpoint of emotional
intelligence does not have any relationship with perceptions of leadership style. In this way the
findings of the study are opposing to the previous studies conducted, a few of which have been
cited and discussed above. In fact the findings of the study in a few contexts present mix results
so far as relationship between leadership style, emotional intelligence and performance is
concerned.

The studies discussed above suppose that in the case of Indian banking and financial
organisations the previous studies have clearly established that there is a positive and significant
relationship between leadership styles, emotional intelligence and performance. This is
particularly in the context of emotional intelligence elements of emotion application, instruction
to emotion, appraisal of self-emotion and different other elements. Furthermore, as regards
transformational and transactional leadership. Additionally, performance in relation to individual
and organizational levels. However, the latest studies are challenging these established facts
questioning the positive and significant relationship between leadership styles, emotional
intelligence and performance. Furthermore a study conducted by San Lam and O’Higgins (2012)
identified that Bank Managers in Sri Lanka were able to use their emotional intelligence
effectively to influence the employees in terms of significant outcome. From all these studies, it
could be inferred that emotional intelligence acts as moderator between employee and their job
performance.

2.4.14 Measures of Emotional Intelligence (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence

Test)

Emotional intelligence is “the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate

emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to
reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997, p.10). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) was
designed to measure emotional intelligence based on this definition.

Along with the previous history and overview of emotional intelligence and related
assessments, this section provides further more background on the MSCEIT. First, the types of
scoring methods used for the MSCEIT are discussed. The section concludes with further
descriptions of the different score levels of the MSCEIT, with specific focus on the four branches
of the model.
Scoring Methods:

The first version of the test Mayer and colleagues developed to measure emotional
intelligence ability was the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Ciarrochi et al., 2000;
Mayer et al., 1999). Based on the definition, this test has evolved into the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al., 2000d). The MSCEIT is based on the Mayer and
Salovey Four- Branch model of emotional intelligence that is limited to the edge of the
emotional and cognitive aspects of personality. Like most psychologists studying intelligence,
they follow the tradition of measuring their model based on psychometric measurement
standards of performance similar to the ones discussed earlier.

There are two options for scoring the MSCEIT™—general and expert consensus.
General consensus scores compare the participant’s answers to the more than 5000 people in the
normative database who have taken the test (Mayer et al., 2002). Because emotions are said to
evolve biologically and culturally, correct answers are determined by group agreement. The
expert consensus score compares participants’ answers with the agreement of 21 international
emotion experts. These scientific experts generally have advanced information because of their
knowledge of how emotion manifests itself in certain situations. General consensus and expert
consensus generally reflect the same ability level, but there may be some discrepancies. There is
no conclusion as to which scoring consensus is better.

Roberts et al. (2001) presented data that raised serious questions about this measurement
of emotional intelligence. They showed that the general and expert scoring methods of the MEIS
(Mayer et al., 1999) yield conflicting results. For illustration, general scoring may be influenced
by cultural beliefs. There are also concerns about the validity of consensus judgments that cross
gender and cultural boundaries. Whereas Roberts and colleagues (Roberts et al., 2001) reported a
number of predicted and meaningful correlates of the various components of emotional
intelligence, they noted that its supporters have not yet clearly demonstrated, predictive validity
after statistically controlling for intellectual aptitude and personality (Izard, 2001).

Roberts et al. (2001) criticism was based solely on the MEIS that only had two experts as
part of the expert scoring method (Mayer et al., 2001). The MSCEIT™ (Mayer et al., 1999)
attempts to improve on the psychometric qualities of the MEIS. Findings from this new scale
include two large-sample psychometric studies. As with the MEIS, expert scoring is also used for
the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2001). However, rather than use two authors as experts, 21 members
of the International Society of Research in Emotion (ISRE) were asked to answer the MSCEIT
questions. The MSCEIT was then scored according to an expert-consensus criterion on the basis
of the proportion of experts from International Society of Research in Emotion who answered
each item in a particular way. When over 2,000 participants’ scores on the MSCEIT were
calculated by the general and expert scoring methods, the inter-correlation between the two sets
of scores was r = .98.

Mayer et al. (2001) admit there are a few questions posed by Roberts and colleagues
(Roberts et al., 2001) that are yet resolved. These include whether the general and expert
consensus are uniform or cultural-bound in Western and non-Westem societies. Another item of
chiefly psychometric interest concerns whether the average interrelation among emotional
intelligence tasks is lower than that for general cognitive Intelligence Quotient and, if so, why?
Sternberg, Lautrey and Lubart (2003) believed the findings so far are promising, but not yet
definitive.

Ability Branches:

The MSCEIT report provides various levels of analysis as indicated in Table 5. There are
15 scores: a Total Emotional Intelligence (EIQ) score, two Area scores, four Branch scores, and
eight Task scores (Mayer et al., 2002). The EIQ score provides an overall index of one’s
emotional intelligence. The EIQ is divided into two Area scores, Experiential Emotional
Intelligence and Strategic Emotional Intelligence, which measure the ability to obtain and use
emotional information. Each Area score is further divided into 2 Branch scores, for a total of 4.

Table 2. 7: Scoring Structure on the MSCEIT™ v2.0

OVERALL SCALE TWO AREAS FOUR TASK LEVEL

BRANCHES
Experiential Perceiving Faces
Emotions (PE) Pictures
Emotional Emotional Facilitating Facilitation
Intelligence Thought Sensations
(FT)
 Intelligence Strategic Understanding Changes
(EIQ) Emotions (UE) Blends

Emotional Managing Emotional Management

Intelligence Emotions (ME) Emotional Relations

Source: Adapted from Mayer et al. (2002)

Branch scores provide information on one’s specific emotional abilities. For the purpose of this
research, the focus will be on the branch scores. The following describes the four MSCEIT™ Branch
scores—Perceiving Emotion, Facilitating Thought, Understanding Emotion, and Managing Emotion.

Branch One: Perceiving Emotions

Perceiving Emotions is the first branch of the Mayer-Salovey model, and is the most basic skill of
emotional intelligence. It refers to “the ability to recognize how an individual and those around the
individual are feeling” (Mayer et al., 2002, p.19) through perceiving and evaluating emotion in one’s self,
others, and the environment. Two Task scores, Faces and Pictures, comprise this Perceiving Emotion.

The Face Task measures one’s ability to accurately identify how people feel based upon facial
expression alone. For example, there are different facial expresses between sadness and fear, anger and
disgust. Interpersonal communications requires accurate perception of content through tone of voice and
non-verbal signals such as posture and facial expression. This theory is based in studies of basic facial
emotion expression across human beings and related species (Darwin, 1985; Ekman, 1973), as well as
studies of artificial intelligence indicating the computer understanding of emotions (Dyer, 1983). Research
also suggests that the ability to perceive emotions within oneself accurately is related to the ability to assess
them in others (Zuckerman et al., 1975, 1976).

Another part of accurately perceiving and expressing emotion is to be able to generalize emotional
experience to objects and inanimate situations. The Pictures Task is the ability to identify emotions
expressed in objects such as music, art, and the environment. Different textures, colors, and designs
influence emotions in different ways. These objects do not have emotions, but they can communicate
emotion according to aesthetics. The philosophical science of aesthetics attempts to understand and evaluate
objects and to make structured decisions and judgments about these objects.

Emotions contain valuable information about relationships and the world. Identifying emotions is
important because the better the emotional read one has on a situation, the more appropriately he or she can
respond. This Branch, however, does not account for the differences between cultures on emotional
expression beyond the universal norms described by Ekman (1973, 1980, 1992, 2003).

Branch Two: Facilitating Thought

The second set of skills, Facilitating Thought, focuses on the ability to integrate basic emotional
experience into one’s thought processes and to access, generate and use emotions to facilitate problem-
solving, reasoning, decision-making, and creativity (Caruso & Wolfe, 2001). The Facilitating Thoughts
Branch is comprised of the Sensations and Facilitating Task scores. The Sensations task involves the ability
to compare different emotions to different sensations. The Facilitation task involves how moods interact and
support thinking and reasoning.

Emotions are used to prioritize thinking in productive ways, to recall memories, to shift
perspectives and to make appropriate judgments (Mayer et al., 2000c). They are also used to assist
intellectual processing Mayer and Salovey (1997). Cognition can be disrupted by emotions, but emotions
can also prioritize the cognitive system to attend to what is important (Easterbrook, 1959; Mandler, 1975;
Simon, 1982).

Emotions also change the way people think, creating positive thoughts when a person is happy and
negative thoughts when the person is sad (Forgas, 1995; Mayer, Gaschke, Braverman, & Evans, 1992;
Salovey & Birnbaum, 1989; Singer & Salovey, 1988). These changes can actually help people see things
from different perspectives, and may foster creative thinking (Mayer, 1986; Mayer & Hanson, 1995). Mood
swings can also foster greater creativity (Goodwin & Jamison, 1990), and can be a good tactic in situations
of uncertainty (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 12-13). Different moods facilitate different kinds of work
and different types of reasoning. For example, one may listen to certain types of music after work to help
relax from a hard day. Research has been conducted on how emotions influence perception and judgment.
Forgas (2001) offered evidence that negative moods may help individuals to avoid certain judgment errors
by focusing on details and searching for errors. Positive moods assist in generating new ideas and novel
solutions to problems. Happy people seemed more influenced by superficial details such as the
attractiveness or status of the communicator, while those in a negative mood scrutinized the content more
carefully and responded more in terms of message quality. Knowing which moods are best for which
situations, and “getting in the right mood” is an ability.

Emotions offer individuals information that can be pertinent. They influence both what one thinks,
and how he or she thinks.
Branch Three: Understanding Emotions.

The third branch is the most cognitive and has the highest correlation to abstract reasoning and
general intelligence (Mayer et al., 2000b). Understanding Emotions has to do with the ability to comprehend
how emotions transition from one stage to another, the ability to recognize the causes of emotions, the
ability to associate situations with certain emotions, and the ability to understand the relationship amongst
emotions (Caruso & Wolfe, 2001). It means thinking accurately about emotions.

This Branch is comprised of the Blends and Changes Task scores. The Blends task assesses the
ability to analyze blends of emotions into their parts, and assemble simple emotions together into complex
feelings. Contradictory emotions can be felt towards the same object, such as experiencing both love and
hate for a person. They begin to acknowledge that some emotions are blends or combinations of others, such
as hope being a combination of faith and optimism, and that decisions and actions are the result of what he
or she is feeling.

The Changes task measures one’s knowledge of emotions and how they change and develop.
Imagine a boss who invites two direct reports into her office at separate times. One of them, she is going to
make “happier”; and the other, she is going to make “sadder.” All emotional states being equal, one can
imagine which feeling is associated with the one the boss tells is getting a surprise bonus, and the other is
being fired. Now imagine that the one who is going to be fired is already angry before receiving the news.
This anger may turn to rage. Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is important in
one’s dealings with other people and in enhancing one’s self understanding.

“Patterned chains,” according to Mayer and Salovey (1997) are events where in a person
continued to reason about the sequences of emotion. Mayer stated, “[Reasoning about the progression of
feelings in interpersonal relationships is central to emotional intelligence” (p. 14). “[A]nger may intensify to
rage, be expressed, and then transform to satisfaction or guilt, depending on the circumstances.”
Understanding Emotions does not mean passive reasoning. Instead, it means using emotion to assess the
situation internally and externally, making a decision, and acting upon it, which then leads to new feelings
and a new situation to assess.

Understanding what leads to various emotions is a critical component of emotional intelligence. It is

being smart about emotions.

Branch Four: Managing Emotions

 The last branch of the model is Managing Emotions. Managing Emotions is the ability to figure out
effective strategies that use emotions to help achieve a goal, rather than being used by emotions (Mayer et
al., 2002). It means feeling the feelings, and then using them in a judicious way, rather than acting on them
without thinking. It is the ability to feel emotion, no matter what the emotion may be, and then combine
thinking with this emotion in order to make the best possible decisions and take the most effective actions.

The Managing Emotions branch is influenced by the previous branches (Mayer et al., 2000b,
2000c). For example, if a person is open to his or her emotions, mood instability, and understands his or her
emotions, then the last branch concerns how one copes with, regulates and manages emotions and cognition
in association with these abilities. An individual has to be able to monitor and regulate emotions reflectively
to promote emotional and intellectual growth in themselves and others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). For
example, this individual would be able to calm down after feeling angry, or would be able to help another
person to feel less anxious.

The ability to manage emotions successfully often entails the awareness, acceptance, and use of
emotions in problem-solving. It is not about the repression or rationalization of emotions. Rather, managing
emotions involves the participation of emotions in thought, and allowing thought to include emotions.
Optimal levels of emotional regulation likely will neither minimize nor eliminate emotion completely.

The branch is comprised of the intrapersonal Emotional Management Task score and the
interpersonal Emotional Relations Task score. The Emotion Management task measures the ability to
incorporate one’s own emotions into decision-making. This is based on research pertaining to emotion
management and regulation. The Emotion Relations task measures the ability to incorporate emotions into
decision-making in interpersonal situations.

Since emotions contain data or information, staying open to this information can be useful to help
make good decisions. Ignoring emotional information can lead to poor decisions. There are times, however,
it may be better to disengage from an emotion and revisit it later in order to be effective. This is part of
regulating one’s emotions.

2.4.15 Summary of Emotional Intelligence Review

There has been much controversy in human psychology on intelligence. After a century
of vigorous debate, there is still little consensus about whether intelligence is largely heritable or
whether it can be altered by experience; whether there is a single intelligence or multiple forms;
and whether intelligence is best thought of as a pure, unchangeable essence or an emergent
whose variable forms can reflect different contexts. These are the arguments of the purists and
plurists of intelligence theories. This debate has led other scholars to explore theories regarding
different types of intelligence, such as multiple or non-cognitive intelligence. Proponents
explored in this area, known as pluralists, include Edward L. Thorndike, Howard Gardner, and
Robert Sternberg. These have led to the theories of emotional intelligence, which are expanding
the notion of what it means to be intelligent (Davies et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 2000b) with
promising but mixed results.

From intelligence to emotions, this section discusses some of the theories behind the
separation and bridging of these two constructs. For centuries, emotions and intellect were
viewed as separate and competing for primacy through history. The complexity of emotions have
baffled the various fields of research in defining this notion. Darwin is most noted for his
biological emphasis on the how emotions were universal expressions of internal feelings about
relationships, and needed for the survival of the species throughout evolution. In an attempt to
define this “new” field of research, science made its mark in the field of this study by analyzing
the brain. Paul MacLean, Joseph LeDoux, Antonio Damasio, Robert Zajonc, and Candace Pert
analyzed neurocircuitry. Through an interactionalist approach, Albert Ellis and Richard Lazarus
explored the realms of cognition and affect—how emotions are aroused, expressed, and
regulated. Although not conclusive, the topic of emotion theories is concluded with a view on
social construction with Brian Parkinson and Paul Ekman’s work.

The history of intelligence and emotion laid the foundation for the development of the
theory of emotional intelligence since the mid-1980s. Three groups of theorists were discussed
because they are widely known in the field of emotional intelligence, and most include both
formulation of definition, research, and measurement assessment. Goleman (1995) is noted as
introducing the construct into public knowledge. Bar-On (1988) is most notable for helping to
coin and create a theoretical foundation of understanding how emotions interact with
intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) were instrumental in bringing this body of knowledge
into the realm of research, and they continue to help define and assess this concept within the
theoretical confines of assessment, research, and psychology.
2.5 Organizational performance

The concept of organizational performance is related to the survival and success of an

organization. The measurement of the organizational performance is critical in service
organizations as well as in manufacturing organizations (Brynjolfsson, 1993; Atkinson &
Brander Brown, 2001). Grönroos (1994) stressed that service firms must concentrate more on
building customer relationships rather than on short-term transactions (cited in Paulin et al.,
1999). Furthermore, in service organizations such as Retail Broking firms, this is even more
critical because of the nature of their business which is more focused on human skills and
intangible assets (Bharadwaj et al., 1993).

There are two ways of measuring performance, i.e. using objective and subjective
measures. The objective measure uses real figures from organizations while the subjective
measure uses perception of respondents (Johannessen et al., 1999; Pizam & Ellis, 1999). In this
study, we decided to use a Objective measure to assess organizational performance (Ackelsberg
& Arlow, 1985), because:

(1) it is a more consistent measure of performance and it does not vary broadly from the
subjective measures in terms of accuracy; and (2) asking respondents for feedback on their
managers and specific financial measures may generate anxiety in them over the confidentiality
of the information they provide.

Also, the objective measures may offer better perspective of organizational performance
in the longer terms (Pizam & Ellis, 1999). Thus, we define performance as “the level of increase
or decrease in sales, revenue”. A recent study by Ozcelik, Langton, and Aldrich (2008) also
assessed firms’ performance in terms of increase in revenue and or sales.

2.6 Summary of Literature Review

The literature review helped to identify gaps in the existing literature. The summary of
literature review has been shown in the Table 2.7 below. Lot of literature is available on
Independent variables but not together. The literature is also very thin on the Indian context and
furthermore for the BFSI sector was scarce.
 Table 2. 8: The summary of literature review
Leadership Styles
Hart and Quinn (1993),
Nohria et al. (2003), Ulrich
et al. (1999)
Performance
Bass and Avolio (1993a)
Block (2003), Berrio (2003)
Parry (2002), Hart and
Quinn (1993)
Culture
Groves (2006),
Humphery(2008), Coetzee
and Schaap (2005),
Intelligence
Leadership Styles Emotional
Mandell and Pherwani
(2003)
Geyer and Steyrer (1998) ,
Bass and Avolio (1993a),
Bass et al. (2003)
Geyer and Steyrer (1998),
Lowe et al. (1996),
Contrary
MacKenzie et al. (2001)
views
and Parry (2003).
No Research done with Constructs involving Leadership Styles, Emotional
Intelligence of Managers and Organizational Culture
No Study Similar study in The Banking, Financial , Stocks and Insurance
Sector in India
Emotional Intelligence Culture
Boyatzis et al. (1999). Kotter and Heskett (1992),
Rosete and Ciarrochi Druckman et al. (1997), Schein
(2005), Deeter-Schmelz (1992), Huselid et al. (2005),
and Sojka (2003), Mishra Meehan et al. (2006),
and Mohapatra (2010) Balthazard et al. (2006) and
Skerlavaj et al. (2007)
Cote and Miners, (2006), Schein (1992), Druckman et al.
Barling et al. (2000), (1997), Kaplan and Norton
Kane-Urrabazo (2006), (2006), Kotter and Heskett
Kaliprasad (2006) and (1992) and Robbins (2003)
Momeni (2009)
Thorndike (1920) , Cote and Miners (2006),
Gardner (1983), Caruso et Kaliprasad (2006), Momeni
al. (2002), Feyerherm and (2009) and Cote and Miners
Rice (2002) and Goleman (2006)
(1995)
Deeter-Schmelz and Sojka Bass and Avolio (1993a),
(2003) and Mishra and Waldman and Yammarino
Mohapatra (2010) (1999), Ogbonna and Harris
(2000), Lim (1995) , Newman
and Nollen (1996)
Harris (2009)
Table 2. 9: Summary of related and empirical research for the study

Authors Year Sample size Results

Leadership Elenkov 2002 253 leaders, 498 Strong correlation (0.80
Styles followers to 0.61) with
performance
Zhu, Chew, and 2005 170 CEO positive relationship
Spangler (0.59)

Roi , Moores 2006, 118 positive relationship

2007 (0.508)

Lowe, Kroeck, and 1996 Meta Analysis Level of leader was not
Sivasubramaniam of 33 studies moderating as per
Hierarchy
Emotional Goleman 1998 200 companies 90% difference attributed
Intelligence to EI. Antonakis,
Zeidner, Matthews, and
Roberts (2004) Argued
against the validity

Groves 2006 108 Leaders 33 leaders highest on

Organizational change
Cherniss 1999 92 sales people $70k more in revenue
from L’Oreal
Verbeke 2008 171 sales people High Positive
correlations
Higgs 1999 289 managers Strong relationship
Lopes et al. 2006 44 Analyst Higher pay increase
Culture Momeni 2009 30 managers 55% of organizational
climate is influenced by
EI
Susita Asree 2010 88 managers positive relationship (.50)
Projogo 2011 194 managers positive relationship,
SEM RMSEA below
(0,80)

2.7 Research Gap

While reviewing the literature currently available, several gaps were identified. A study
of theories, models and frameworks within strategic management provided insights into research
pertaining to Performance. There was enough evidence of Leadership having an impact on
performance, Leadership having an impact on unit Culture. The researcher also found evidence
of Impact of leadership styles and Culture as combine on organizational and unit Performance.
 Furthermore the contribution of Emotional intelligence is well documented and
researched with respect to Leadership and culture.

Literature shows that relations between the independent variables and performance but
the researcher did not come across any literature with all three variables together. The researcher
has considered the BFSI sector as the context for the study in India and there are few to no study
that has been conducted within this contextual frame of reference.

Furthermore as Independent variables researcher identified that Research on emotional

intelligence has focused on emotional intelligence’s relationship to individual and group
performance, leadership, and organizational culture. Existing studies are two-dimensional,
focusing on emotional intelligence’s relationship to another variable. Expanding emotional
intelligence research to a third or fourth variable with more focus on multiple dimensions could
add a new layer to the emotional intelligence construct. Similar would be the value creation in
the study of Leadership Styles and Unit cultures. New studies need to address the shift in
organizational systems from rational to natural or open (Seal et al., 2006). The concern over a
specific rather than a broad application requires new research. Studies indicate an overlapping of
emotional intelligence attributes with other psychometric models creates more controversies that
need exploration such as in this study (Zeidner et al., 2008).

Till date, very limited study has been commissioned to unearth hard evidence about the
existence of a correlation or relationship between emotional intelligence, organizational culture,
and leadership styles and its effect on organizational performance. This prompted the researcher
to endeavor and determine if any relationship exists between emotional intelligence and
organizational culture. Hence, this substantiates the fact that there had been a study gap.

Companies seeking to achieve and maintain a high performance level must look to
employees, managers leadership styles, and the organizational culture to support change
(McShane & Glinow, 2008) and promote creativity to meet numerous challenges (Scott & Davis,
2007). A supportive culture is more than a means to achieve business objectives. Supportive
cultures tolerate differences in attitudes and behavior while assimilating employees into a
harmonious social situation (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006). A supporting organization fosters personal
relationships, removing inhibitions to allow employees to reach one’s full potential (Kane-
Urrabazo, 2006).

A high-performance company reflects the totalities of attributes needed to stay sucessful

from all facets of organization, people, and culture (Jones, 2007). The role emotional
intelligence, organizational culture, Leadership styles and performance has beyond traditional
approaches to sustain an advantage in the global marketplace is unclear (Samad, 2009).

Leadership style effectiveness continues to be one of the most important subject in the
field of organizational behavior and so is the case of culture. This is what researchers and
practitioners have had significantly given notice to these two decisive aspects that put
considerable effect on organizational performance. Leadership and culture aspects are considered
to be decisive factors of organizational performance and competitiveness. However, not much
studies have been conducted investigating the relationship between leadership styles, culture and
performance. The studies are particularly scarce when it comes to the case of Indian
organizational practice, and particularly in the context of banking and financial sector which is
distinguished from the perspective of leadership and organizational culture issues. There are a
few studies obtainable in the current literature but present differing results and in several cases
contradictory results.

If this study establishes a relationship between emotional intelligence of Manager and

their leadership styles and organizational culture and performance, the body of knowledge
associated with the disciplines will expand. This study may provide a deeper understanding of
the effect of emotional intelligence on performance and or Leadership in an organization
regardless of which employee manifests this ability. The purpose of this mixed method
exploratory research study was to examine the degree to which a relationship exists between
emotional intelligence, Leadership styles and organizational culture and performance within the
Branch units of a stock broking firm within the BFSI sector. The resulting information may
allow for a better perspective on the composite effect emotional intelligence and Leadership
styles has on organizational culture and performance. Chapter 3 contains a description of the
research method and design of the study.