The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Transformational leader Interpersonal

skills,
attributes: interpersonal skills, engagement,
and well-being
engagement, and well-being
Jennifer Mencl 635
Labovitz School of Business and Economics, Received 8 September 2014
University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota, USA Revised 26 November 2014
13 February 2015
Andrew J. Wefald 2 April 2015
Staley School of Leadership Studies, Kansas State University, 3 April 2015
Accepted 3 April 2015
Manhattan, Kansas, USA, and
Kyle W. van Ittersum
Department of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, Kansas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of interpersonal skills (emotional and
political skills) and work engagement on transformational leadership and leader well-being at work.
Design/methodology/approach – Emotional control, emotional sensitivity, political skills, work
engagement, transformational leadership behaviors, and job satisfaction were assessed in an empirical
study of 278 employees. The relationships between emotional skills, political skills, work engagement,
and transformational leadership were evaluated using participants in managerial positions (n ¼ 159).
The combined influence of interpersonal skills and work engagement on job satisfaction was examined
as a comparison between managers and non-managers (n ¼ 119).
Findings – In addition to the positive effects of work engagement on outcome measures, results
showed political skill is an important capability contributing to transformational leadership and
leaders’ job satisfaction. Findings also showed the interaction of emotional skill, political skill, and
work engagement contributed to job satisfaction among managers.
Practical implications – Organizations must provide managers with opportunities to develop
political skills or modify selection processes to identify candidates who possess political skills for
management positions. Organizations will also benefit from implementing ways to engage managers in
their work to facilitate transformational leader behaviors and promote their well-being. In addition,
organizations can work to identify and develop managers’ emotional control and sensitivity skills
specific to individual needs.
Originality/value – Research investigating personal attributes that influence transformational
leadership as an outcome is limited. This study contributes to the leadership literature and sheds light
on the literature on the microfoundations of management competencies by examining managers’ skills
and engagement on their leader behaviors and job satisfaction. Insights are discovered regarding the
combination of emotional skills, political skills, and work engagement that indicate interpersonal
skills and engagement have supplementary effects on transformational leader behaviors and leader
well-being.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Work engagement, Well-being, Interpersonal skills,
Emotional skills, Political skills
Paper type Research paper

Leadership & Organization

1. Introduction Development Journal
Management and human skills have long been recognized as important characteristics Vol. 37 No. 5, 2016
pp. 635-657
for leaders at every level of an organization, from front-line supervisors to top © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
management (Katz, 1955). More recently, managerial skills have been conceptualized as DOI 10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0178
LODJ a type of resource within the realm of microfoundations that contribute to
37,5 organizational capabilities (Felin et al., 2012; Molina-Azorín, 2014; Sprafke et al.,
2012). Organizational capabilities are particularly important from a strategic
management perspective as they can lead to distinct advantages and, in the case of
dynamic capabilities, provide mechanisms that stimulate firm creativity and
innovation (Winter, 2003). In this regard, managerial skills are essential resources, or
636 “human capital” (Castanias and Helfat, 2001, p. 662), that allow for the development
and improvement of competitive advantages at the organizational (macro) level.
These processes require leaders to be transformational in order to foster the types of
organizational changes necessary to survive and thrive in a fast-paced global business
context (Harvey and Novicevic, 2005). For example, research findings demonstrate a
positive effect of transformational leadership on the creation of organizational
knowledge (Song et al., 2012).
In essence, firm-level capabilities are driven in part by individual-level mechanisms
that include the managers and the skills they possess. A strategic human resource
management approach will be concerned with the unique resource combinations of
different types of skills employees should possess that create firm-level dynamic
capabilities to determine firm practices regarding selection, compensation, promotions,
and leadership development (Harvey and Novicevic, 2005). However, before ascending
to this strategic view, insight specific to micro-level components, such as the type and
level of managerial skills that contribute to transformational leadership, is warranted
(Felin et al., 2012). In the current research, we address this need by employing an
organizational behavior (micro) perspective to study the effects of managerial skills on
transformational leadership at the individual level.
Interpersonal skills are generic types of skills that are applicable to all levels of
management and are transferrable between organizations and across industries.
Interpersonal skills benefit managers and the firms that hire them because high quality
interpersonal skills will allow individuals to pick up and navigate the mores of a
specific organization and the industry when the other types of skills may be lacking.
In contrast, organizations can promote managers from within because of their high
quality firm-specific knowledge and invest in developing these managers’ interpersonal
skills. Before making such investments in hiring individuals from outside of the
organization who possess high levels of interpersonal skills or promoting employees
inside the organization and developing their interpersonal skills, research is needed to
examine the relationship between interpersonal skills and leadership as an outcome.
Effective leadership extends beyond traditional managerial authority, relying on
influence through personal interactions and positive relationships ( Judge and Piccolo,
2004; Rost, 1991; Yukl, 2013) and behaviors such as networking, reading social
situations, empathizing, and making others feel confident and comfortable (Ferris et al.,
2005). Successfully navigating social interactions in these ways are important aspects
of transformational leadership, which calls for socially competent managers possessing
interpersonal skills (Ferris et al., 2002). While several studies have examined
interpersonal skills related to specific behaviors and other researchers have proposed
skill-based leadership models, empirical research directly linking interpersonal skills to
leadership is scarce. The current research addresses this void in the literature by
empirically examining an individual-level leader capability framework, emphasizing
interpersonal skills in the context of transformational leadership.
Whereas much of the organizational leadership literature addresses
transformational leadership as a predictor variable on outcomes such as employee
attitudes and performance (e.g. Judge and Piccolo, 2004), the current research is Interpersonal
consistent with recent efforts to investigate leader characteristics that contribute to skills,
transformational leadership as the outcome (Rubin et al., 2005). The study contributes
to existing literature by investigating the combination of two widely
engagement,
discussed interpersonal skills that are typically addressed independently of one and well-being
another – emotional skills and political skills. In addition, the model is extended by the
inclusion of work engagement since engagement “promote[s] connections to work and 637
to others” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). Work engagement is indicative of a manager’s
motivation to be involved in leadership tasks, which has not been previously explored
in leader capability models. Since work engagement is a key aspect of performance in
the context of positive organizational change (Kim et al., 2012) and because work
engagement stems in part from various job-related resources (Bakker and Bal, 2010;
Bakker et al., 2008), work engagement may also be viewed as a microfoundational
variable that contributes to organizational capabilities through the mechanism of
transformational leadership.
The complete research model offers an integrative, individual-level framework of
what leaders can do (interpersonal skills) and what leaders want to do (work
engagement) to affect their transformational leadership behaviors. Lastly, job
satisfaction is examined as an outcome of the model, since the well-being of leaders
themselves is as important as the well-being of their followers.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1 Transformational leadership
Since the early 1990s employers have specified a strong preference to hire employees
possessing well-developed interpersonal skills (Hogan et al., 2013). In addition,
interpersonal skills become an increasingly important aspect of leader capabilities as
employees ascend into higher levels of management (Mumford et al., 2007). These
“human” skills strongly and positively relate to others’ perceptions of manager
effectiveness (Tonidandel et al., 2012) as well as perceptions of executive presence
(Dagley and Gaskin, 2014).
Because the nature of work is characterized by personal interactions and meeting
individualized needs/wants, transformational leadership is well aligned with
management in the modern knowledge economy (Carnevale and Smith, 2013;
Mumford et al., 2000). Transformational leadership is a form of leadership where
leaders are connected to and engaged with their followers (Rubin et al., 2005). Four
dimensions comprise this higher-order construct of leadership (Yukl, 2013): first,
idealized influence refers to arousing strong emotions from followers and generating
identification with the leader; second, individualized consideration is providing
support, encouragement, and coaching; second, inspirational motivation is
communicating an appealing vision and using symbols to focus effort, and modeling
appropriate behaviors; fourth, intellectual stimulation refers to increasing follower
awareness about problems and getting followers to solve those problems in new ways.
Meta-analytic findings demonstrate these components of transformational leadership
facilitate the development of interpersonal relationships with positive effects on
variables such as follower job satisfaction, follower satisfaction with the leader,
follower motivation, leader job performance, leader effectiveness, and group or
organization performance ( Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Researchers have proposed the foundation of leadership is based on leaders’
capabilities that relate to measures of effectiveness (Brown and Moshavi, 2005;
LODJ Mumford et al., 2000). Capability models include a variety of leader characteristics,
37,5 including abilities, personality traits, values, motives, knowledge, and skills (Zaccaro
et al., 2004). Examining skills in the context of leadership provides insight into personal
characteristics that have a more immediate and direct effect on outcomes compared to
leader abilities, personality, values, or motives (Mumford et al., 2000). Interpersonal
skills involve emotional and political capabilities that are manifested in what leaders do
638 and lend themselves to effective leadership. These emotional and political
skills, commonly referred to as social judgment skills (Mumford et al., 2000), social
capacities (Zaccaro, 2007), and social astuteness (Ferris et al., 2005), are described next
to develop hypotheses.

2.2 Interpersonal skills

2.2.1 Emotional skills. Emotional skills reflect the ways in which individuals
understand and control emotions in social contexts and are proposed to influence
leadership effectiveness (Riggio and Reichard, 2008). Although little research has
examined emotional skills in leadership contexts, we draw from considerable work that
has investigated effects of emotional intelligence on leadership. Emotional intelligence
is a latent ability that includes effectively identifying others’ emotions, understanding
emotions of one’s self and of others, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and
managing emotions to guide decisions (Caruso and Salovey, 2004). Empirical findings
consistently support the positive effect of emotional intelligence on leadership
outcomes, including leadership potential, leader emergence, and transformational
leadership style (Brackett et al., 2011; Daus and Ashkanasy, 2005; Leban and Zulauf,
2004). As predictors, emotional intelligence is a distal, trait-like variable that directly
influences emotional skills, which are more proximal, developmental capabilities
related to leadership (Zaccaro, 2007).
Emotional control, the first emotional skill included in the current research, involves
self-monitoring and acting (Riggio, 1986). Research findings have shown self-awareness,
which is characteristic of emotional control, was positively related to leadership potential
overall as well as leadership competencies of intellectual leadership and building
relationships (Higgs and Aitken, 2003). Since the basis of transformational leadership
involves leaders understanding their own feelings in order to arouse feelings in followers,
emotional regulation and control are important aspects of being transformational.
For example, when a leader displays positive emotions of feeling energized and excited,
group members are likely to feel similar emotions (George and Brief, 1992). In contrast,
leaders displaying negative emotions such as those related to stress may have a negative
influence on the emotions of their followers. Controlling one’s felt emotions and
displaying appropriate emotions that can positively influence and provide inspiration for
group members are essential to effective leadership (Rajah et al., 2011). Based on previous
research, we hypothesize:
H1. Emotional control will positively relate to transformational leadership.
Emotional sensitivity is also included as an emotional skill in the study since much has
been written about the importance of accurately recognizing emotions others are
feeling. For example, Kellett et al. (2002) reported that one path to being perceived as a
leader is through showing empathy. Understanding others’ perspectives has been
shown to positively influence the support and development of others in self-managed
teams (Wolff et al., 2002). Recognizing others’ emotions positively predicted
transformational leadership behavior among organizational leaders (Rubin et al., 2005). Interpersonal
Emotional sensitivity was also measured as a component of emotional intelligence in a skills,
study of physicians, and findings demonstrated positive effects of emotional sensitivity
on intellectual stimulation and individual consideration components of
engagement,
transformational leadership (Hoffman and Frost, 2006). We expect to replicate these and well-being
findings in the current study, and propose the second hypothesis:
H2. Emotional sensitivity will positively relate to transformational leadership.
639
In addition to the direct effect of emotional sensitivity on transformational leadership,
we expect to see a combined effect of emotional sensitivity and emotional control.
We propose that emotional control will strengthen the positive relationship between
emotional sensitivity and transformational leadership, because emotional control
enhances one’s leadership capabilities beyond understanding others’ emotions.
Possessing high levels of emotional control and sensitivity means that a leader
understands what followers are feeling and is capable of controlling his/her emotional
response and remaining rational. This form of emotion regulation is associated with
leader expertise (Lord and Hall, 2005). The hypothesis states:
H3. Emotional control will moderate the relationship between emotional sensitivity
and transformational leadership.
2.2.2 Political skills. Political skill requires understanding others to influence them in
ways that contribute to personal, group, or organizational success (Ferris et al., 2000).
For example, competing in a rapidly changing, global economy requires
organizational dynamic capabilities to identify, analyze, develop, and capitalize
upon new opportunities (Teece, 2007), which are relevant to political skills involved in
decision-making processes. Organizational tasks are often accomplished through
political tactics, such as informal negotiating and bargaining, making deals,
exchanging favors, and building alliances, which are facilitated by well-developed
political skills (Ferris et al., 2005). Political skill is comprised of four components
(Ferris et al., 2005): first, social astuteness means that one is an astute observer of
others and is sensitive to others; second, interpersonal influence refers to a subtle and
convincing personal style that is adaptable to the situation; third, networking ability
is the skill of developing and using networks and is associated with making deals;
fourth, apparent sincerity is reflected through one’s actions that are perceived as
authentic, sincere, and honest. Empirically, political skill has been linked to important
work outcomes such as team performance (Ahearn et al., 2004), individual
performance (Andrews et al., 2009; Ferris et al., 2005), and leader/manager
effectiveness (Douglas and Ammeter, 2004; Harris et al., 2007).
Social appraisal skills, which are similar to the apparent sincerity and social
astuteness aspects of political skill, are especially important for effective leadership
(Zaccaro, 2007). Furthermore, political skill is critical to leaders’ ability to solve complex
social problems and their adaptability in dynamic situations that are characterized by
ambiguous information, a short time frame, and where real people with real feelings
have to be considered (Carnevale and Smith, 2013; Mumford et al., 2000). Researchers
found persuading others positively related to leadership competencies including
intellectual leadership and building relationships (Higgs and Aitken, 2003). Empirical
findings also support the positive effect of leaders’ political skills on the relationship
quality between leaders and followers (Brouer et al., 2013; Laird et al., 2012).
LODJ Consistent with previous literature, we propose political skills will contribute to
37,5 transformational leadership and offer the following hypothesis:
H4. Political skill will positively relate to transformational leadership.
Furthermore, we expect that the presence of well-developed political and emotional
skills in combination will lead to high levels of transformational leadership. In contrast,
640 the combination of less developed political and emotional skills are likely to cause
relatively lower levels of transformational leadership. Therefore, political skill
strengthens the relationship between emotional skills and transformational leadership.
The hypothesis states:
H5. Political skill will moderate the relationships between emotional skills and
transformational leadership.

2.3 Work engagement

Work engagement is a state-like characteristic comprised of involvement, mental energy,
and pride (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Numerous research findings demonstrate positive
and unique effects of work engagement on performance (Christian et al., 2011; Kim et al.,
2012). The concept relates to interpersonal skills and transformational leadership because
highly engaged employees, including leaders themselves, behave in ways that foster
personal relationships (Kahn, 1990). In a leadership context, the implication is that highly
engaged managers are more likely to behave as transformational leaders compared to
managers who are not engaged at work. However, to our knowledge, no study within the
leadership literature has investigated this particular relationship. Rather, the leadership
literature has focussed on the motivation provided by leaders to engage their employees
(e.g. Breevaart et al., 2014; Yasin Ghadi et al., 2013). The current research study addresses
the neglected aspect within the leadership literature by incorporating engagement as an
aspect of leader motivation to gain insight in transformational leadership beyond the role
of skills. In doing so, we recognize that leaders’ must provide the effort to interact with
others in the workplace, since simply being skilled does not imply that the skills are used.
We draw from the extant leadership literature concerning motivation as a cause of
leadership behaviors to explain the role of managers’ work engagement on their leader
behaviors. To be a transformational leader, one must be engaged with followers to
exert influence, consider employee needs, coach, inspire, and stimulate (Rubin et al.,
2005). This assertion implies a motivation to lead others and suggests the extent of
involvement and energy managers expend in their work impacts their leadership.
A recent study of military cadets examined motivation to lead as a precursor to
leadership emergence, finding motivation to lead positively correlated with informal
and formal leadership emergence (Luria and Berson, 2013). The current research
expands upon leadership capability models by including the effect of work engagement
on the relationship between interpersonal skills and transformational leadership to
examine the extent to which individuals are involved and motivated in their work as
leaders. Specifically, we propose that interpersonal skills will have a greater influence
on transformational leadership when work engagement of the leader is high vs low,
and present the following hypothesis:
H6. Work engagement will moderate the relationships between interpersonal skills
and transformational leadership such that the inclusion of work engagement
will contribute to increased levels of transformational leadership.
2.4 Leader well-being at work: job satisfaction Interpersonal
The final contribution of the current study is extending the outcomes of leader skills,
capability models beyond traditional “leadership criteria” such as emergence and
effectiveness (Zaccaro, 2007) by including the effects of leader interpersonal skills and
engagement,
work engagement on their own psychological well-being. An accepted measure of and well-being
well-being in the workplace is job satisfaction (Danna and Griffin, 1999; Vansteenkiste
et al., 2007), defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state that results from an 641
appraisal of one’s job and job experiences or from the perception that a job fulfills a
person’s needs and the perception that the job fulfills important job values (Locke,
1976). Job satisfaction is appropriate to examine in the context of interpersonal skills
and leadership capabilities because a leader’s well-being involves their competence
(Danna and Griffin, 1999). According to self-determination theory, competence is an
individual need that contributes to one’s psychological well-being (Ryan and Deci,
2000) and contributes to the quality of personal interactions (Downie et al., 2008).
The control and expression of emotions has been linked to job satisfaction in
previous studies. For example, George (2000) presented a review of research finding
low emotional capabilities contribute to low levels of well-being. In contrast, sales
people’s emotional control was positively related to their job satisfaction
(Bande Vilela et al., 2010), and overall emotional intelligence positively contributed to
the job satisfaction of food service employees (Sy et al., 2006) as well as
various types of employees in Southeast Asia (Wong and Law, 2002). Research
findings have also shown political skills are positively related to job satisfaction within
a sample of employees and managers from a various jobs and organizations (Harris
et al., 2009). A study focussing on the public sector demonstrated that political skills have
a positive effect on leaders’ job satisfaction and helps employees overcome challenges
associated with government politics (Fu, 2013). Lastly, job satisfaction is an outcome of
work engagement; engaged employees tend to be more satisfied than those less engaged
(Kane-Frieder et al., 2014; Matthews et al., 2014; Wefald and Downey, 2009).
The nature of leadership work gives managers opportunities to regularly use and
develop the human skills necessary for interpersonal interactions. Therefore, managers
have an appropriate context for meeting their competence needs, which translates into
higher levels of well-being relative to employees who are not in leadership positions.
Based on previous research, we propose the combinations of emotional skills, political
skills, and work engagement will influence the job satisfaction of leaders differently
than non-leaders. The final hypothesis for the complete model (Figure 1) states:
H7. The combination of emotional skills, political skills, and engagement will be more
strongly related to job satisfaction among leaders compared to non-leaders.

3. Method
3.1 Procedure
The study data were collected using an online survey on SocialSci, a survey research
firm that drew from a pool of the organization’s registered survey participants.
The pool request was for 300 full-time employees in the USA, age 18 or older. SocialSci
compensates participants completing surveys with Amazon gift cards or charitable
donations on their behalf.
From the dataset of 300 participants, nine cases were deemed to be unusable
because respondents answered all items as neutral or as extremely positive or negative
without regard to reverse coded items. The remainder of the sample was then evaluated
LODJ with respect to survey completion time provided for each case in the dataset.
37,5 The minimum completion time was determined to be four minutes based on the
number of survey items in addition to the sample’s distribution of response times
(mode ¼ 6 minutes, M ¼ 9.59 minutes), which was consistent with findings of online
survey methodology that distributions tend to be positively skewed (Yan and
Tourangeau, 2008). The final sample used for analysis was 278 participants.
642
3.2 Participants
The final sample was comprised of 42 percent males, and the mean age was 31.19 years
(SD ¼ 10.76). The education level represented included 19 percent with a high school
diploma or equivalent, 13 percent with an associate’s degree, 45 percent with a
bachelor’s degree, and 23 percent with a master’s degree or more. The average length of
time participants were employed at their current organizations was 4.45 years
(SD ¼ 5.83).
Approximately 57 percent of the sample (n ¼ 159) responded to survey items
specific to being in “a managerial, supervisory, team lead, committee chair, or other
leadership position at work.” Within this subset, 45 percent were males, and the
average age was 33.31 years (SD ¼ 11.23). The average time spent in a leadership role
was 4.70 years (SD ¼ 5.94). Nearly half of those with formal leadership experience had a
bachelor’s degree (49 percent), and almost one-quarter of this subset reported having a
master’s degree or more (23 percent).

3.3 Measures
3.3.1 Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was evaluated using a
40-item transformational leadership scale designed for self-reporting (Reichard et al.,
2009). Sample items are “My followers would agree that I excel at getting the best out of
people,” “It is extremely important to me that my followers are creative,” “My follower
would say that I am a good mentor,” and “Above all else, leaders must serve as a
positive role model for those they lead.” All items were rated using a seven-point Likert
scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree), and were combined into one variable,
α ¼ 0.95.
3.3.2 Emotional skills. Emotional control and emotional sensitivity were measured
using Social Skills Inventory items (Riggio and Carney, 2003). Emotional control was
comprised of five items (α ¼ 0.79); sample item: “I am not very skilled in controlling my
emotions” (reverse coded). The emotional sensitivity scale consisted of four items

Transformational
Leadership
Emotional Characteristics
Figure 1. Skills
Proposed effects of
interpersonal skills
and work Political
engagement on Skills Leader Well-Being
transformational (Job Satisfaction)
leadership
characteristics and
leader well-being Work Engagement
(α ¼ 0.74); sample item: “I can easily tell what a person’s character is by watching his or Interpersonal
her interactions with others.” Items were rated using a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ not at skills,
all like me; 5 ¼ exactly like me).
3.3.3 Political skills. Political skills were measured using the 18-item Political Skill
engagement,
Inventory (PSI; Ferris et al., 2005). Sample items included “I spend a lot of time and and well-being
effort at work networking with others,” “It is important that people believe I am sincere
in what I say and do,” “I have good intuition or savvy about how to present myself to 643
others,” and “I am able to communicate easily and effectively with others.” Because the
aggregate of all items has been used in previous research (Brouer et al., 2013),
the complete PSI scale was used to form the political skills variable in the current study,
α ¼ 0.93. The items were rated using a seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree;
7 ¼ strongly agree).
3.3.4 Work engagement. Work engagement was evaluated using a previously
developed 18-item scale (Rich et al., 2010). Sample items included “I work with intensity
on my job,” “I am enthusiastic in my job,” and “At work, my mind is focused on my
job.” Items were measured using a five-point Likert scale, and all items were
aggregated into a single measure of work engagement to be consistent with prior use of
the work engagement measure (Rich et al., 2010). Reliability of the measure was
α ¼ 0.95.
3.3.5 Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with Brayfield and Rothe’s
(1951) five-item scale. The items were rated using a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree). Example items include “I feel fairly well satisfied with my
present job” and “I consider my job rather unpleasant” (reverse coded). The reliability
of the scale was α ¼ 0.90.
3.3.6 Control variables. The measures included as control variables in the current
research were social desirability and core self-evaluation. Social desirability, which is
used to control for potential response bias, was measured with Paulhus’s (1991) scale
consisting of self-deceptive enhancement (α ¼ 0.75) and impression management
(α ¼ 0.69). Core self-evaluation is a global measure of personality that includes self-
esteem, general self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control. It was measured with
the 12-item core self-evaluations scale ( Judge et al., 2003), α ¼ 0.87. All control variable
items were measured with five-point Likert rating scales.

4. Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables are presented
in Table I. The control variables measured were correlated with the outcome variables
in the study at statistically significant levels. Age was included as a control variable in
the analyses to account for the association of leadership expertise with time (Lord and
Hall, 2005). Hypotheses were tested using four-step hierarchical regression models in
order to identify direct effects and the effects of the interaction terms within the same
analyses after controlling for specific variables (Aiken and West, 1991). This approach
offers an appropriate examination of “interactions within […] components
(i.e. interaction effects)” comprising the microfoundations that contribute to
organizational capabilities (Felin et al., 2012, p. 1353), and is consistent with
individual-level research methodology in management contexts (Reynolds, 2006).
The analyses and results are presented as follows: Step 1 – control variables entered
in the model (age, self-deception enhancement, impression management, and core
self-evaluation); Step 2 – direct effects added to the model (H1, H2, and H4);
 37,5

644
LODJ

Table I.

correlations
deviations, and
Means, standard
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Age 31.19 10.76 –

2. Gender 0.58 0.49 −0.04 –
3. Organization tenure 4.45 4.83 0.57*** 0.07 –
a
4. Years in leader role 4.70 5.94 0.69*** 0.02 0.62*** –
5. Self-deception enhancement 3.31 0.59 0.11* 0.00 0.07 0.15 –
6. Impression management 3.62 0.78 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.24** 0.42** –
7. Core self-Evaluation 3.25 0.64 0.15** −0.01 0.08 0.27*** 0.65** 0.30** –
8. Emotional control 3.42 0.81 0.01 −0.17*** 0.03 −0.09 0.44*** 0.23*** 0.31*** –
9. Emotional sensitivity 3.52 0.71 −0.01 0.05 −0.01 −0.13 0.37** 0.10* 0.17*** 0.23*** –
10. Political skills 4.78 0.95 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.42*** 0.16*** 0.42*** 0.21*** 0.54** –
11. Work engagement 3.62 0.73 0.11* 0.07 0.13** 0.29*** 0.26*** 0.23*** 0.44*** 0.12** 0.18*** 0.38*** –
12. Job satisfaction 3.50 0.89 0.06 −0.04 0.05 0.29*** 0.12** 0.11* 0.38*** 0.10* 0.03 0.25*** 0.72*** –
13. Transformational
leadershipa 4.95 0.82 0.14* 0.02 0.12 0.18* 0.40*** 0.39*** 0.45*** 0.28*** 0.37*** 0.74*** 0.58*** 0.43***
Notes: N ¼ 278. an ¼ 159; *p⩽0.10; **p⩽0.05; ***p⩽0.01
Step 3 – two-way interaction terms added to the model (H3 and H5); Step 4 –three-way Interpersonal
interaction term added to the model (H6 and H7 ). For example, to examine the distinct skills,
and combined effects of the interpersonal skills, emotional control, emotional
sensitivity, and political skills were entered in Step 2 as individual variables, the
engagement,
two-way interaction terms were entered in Step 3 (i.e. emotional control × emotional and well-being
sensitivity, emotional control × political skills, and emotional sensitivity × political
skills), and the three-way interaction term was entered in Step 4 (emotional control × 645
emotional sensitivity × political control).

4.1 Transformational leadership

Table II displays the results of the analyses in which transformational leadership was
regressed on the predictor variables and interaction terms. The addition of the direct
effects from the three skills in Step 2 of the first model resulted in a statistically significant
increase in the variance of transformational leadership explained by the model,
ΔR2 ¼ 0.35, ΔF(3, 151) ¼ 45.66, po0.01. The direct effects were due solely to political
skills, β ¼ 0.67, t(151) ¼ 10.30, po0.01. The second and third models combining emotional
skills, political skills, and work engagement reveal a similar pattern for political skills. The
direct effect of political skills on transformational leadership was statistically significant
for the models with emotional control and emotional sensitivity, β ¼ 0.61, t(151) ¼ 11.61,
po0.01 and β ¼ 0.61, t(151) ¼ 10.39, po0.01, respectively. However, neither emotional
control nor emotional sensitivity independently predicted transformational leadership.
Thus, H1 and H2 were not supported, but H4 received full support.
The first regression model includes the moderating effect of emotional control on the
relationship between emotional sensitivity and transformational leadership. Step 3 of
the model shows the increase in the proportion of variance explained in
transformational leadership was not due to the interaction of emotional control and
emotional sensitivity. Therefore, H3 was not supported.
The three-way interaction between emotional control, emotional sensitivity, and
political skills in the first model was not statistically significant but the two-way
interaction effect from Step 3 explained a proportion of variance for transformational
leadership at a marginally significant level, ΔR2 ¼ 0.02, ΔF(3, 148) ¼ 2.26, p ¼ 0.08.
In this step, the two-way interaction effect on transformational leadership between
emotional control and political skills was statistically significant, β ¼ 0.14, t(148) ¼ 2.18,
p ¼ 0.03, and the two-way interaction of emotional sensitivity and political skills was
statistically significant, β ¼ −0.12, t(148) ¼ −2.01, p ¼ 0.05. The positive interaction
term of emotional control and political skills, which is graphically depicted in Figure 2,
shows that political skill strengthens the positive relationship between emotional
control and transformational leadership, providing partial support for H5.
The three-way interaction effect of emotional control, political skills, and work
engagement from Step 4 of the second model explained a statistically significant
amount of variance in transformational leadership, ΔR2 ¼ 0.01, ΔF(1, 147) ¼ 5.49,
p ¼ 0.02; β ¼ −0.13, t(147) ¼ −2.34, p ¼ 0.02; this effect is shown in Figure 3.
The interaction effect of emotional sensitivity, political skills, and work engagement in
Step 4 of the third model explained a proportion of the variance in transformational
leadership at marginally significant level, ΔR2 ¼ 0.01, ΔF(1, 147) ¼ 3.37, p ¼ 0.07;
β ¼ −0.11, t(147) ¼ −1.84, p ¼ 0.07, and the effect is displayed in Figure 4.
In both instances, the highest level of transformational leadership was present for
high political skills and high work engagement; emotional skills do not have much of an
effect. In addition, the relationships among the combinations of variables are relatively
LODJ β-values Model
37,5 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 R2 ΔR2

Step 1: control variables 0.26 0.26***

Step 2: predictor variables 0.61 0.35***
Step 3: interaction 0.63 0.02*
Step 4: 3-way interaction term 0.63 0.00
646 Age 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.04
SDE 0.10 −0.08 −0.09 −0.09
Impression management 0.21*** 0.20*** 0.19*** 0.19***
Core self-evaluation 0.28*** 0.11 0.14* 0.15**
Emotional control 0.07 0.06 0.05
Emotional sensitivity −0.01 −0.01 −0.01
Political skills 0.67*** 0.68*** 0.67***
Emotional control × Emotional sensitivity −0.06 −0.06
Emotional control × Political skills 0.14** 0.14**
Emotional sensitivity × Political skills −0.12** −0.11*
Emotional control × Emotional sensitivity ×
Political skills 0.04
Step 1: control variables 0.26 0.26***
Step 2: predictor variables 0.69 0.43***
Step 3: 2-way interaction terms 0.69 0.00
Step 4: 3-way interaction term 0.70 0.01**
Age 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00
SDE 0.10 −0.08 −0.09 −0.05
Impression management 0.21*** 0.12** 0.12** 0.11*
Core self-evaluation 0.28*** 0.03 0.04 0.04
Emotional control 0.06 0.07 0.08
Political skills 0.61*** 0.62*** 0.62***
Work engagement 0.33*** 0.32*** 0.37***
Emotional control × Political skills 0.06 0.08
Emotional control × Work engagement −0.04 −0.04
Political skills × Work engagement 0.00 −0.04
Emotional control × Political skills ×
Work Engagement −0.13**
Step 1: control variables 0.26 0.26***
Step 2: predictor variables 0.68 0.43***
Step 3: interaction 0.69 0.00
Step 4: 3-way interaction term 0.69 0.01*
Age 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01
SDE 0.10 −0.05 −0.04 −0.02
Impression management 0.21*** 0.12** 0.12* 0.11*
Core self-evaluation 0.28*** 0.03 0.03 0.03
Emotional sensitivity 0.00 0.00 0.02
Table II. Political skills 0.61*** 0.61*** 0.62***
Summary of Work engagement 0.33*** 0.32*** 0.34***
hierarchical Emotional sensitivity × Political skills −0.06 −0.07
regression analysis Emotional sensitivity × Work engagement 0.02 0.05
for variables Political skills × Work engagement −0.01 −0.03
predicting Emotional sensitivity × Political skills ×
transformational Work engagement −0.11*
leadership Notes: n ¼ 159. Any discrepancy between R2 and ΔR2 values from one step to the next step is due to
characteristics rounding. *p⩽0.10; **p⩽0.05; ***p⩽0.01
 7 Interpersonal
skills,
6 engagement,
Transformational Leadership

and well-being
5
647
4

3
Figure 2.
Moderating effect of
2
Low PS political skills on the
High PS relationship between
1 emotional control
Low Emotional Control High Emotional Control and transformational
leadership
Note: PS, Political Skills

6
Transformational Leadership

3 Figure 3.
Low WE/Low PS
Three-way
Low WE/High PS interaction of
2
High WE/Low PS emotional control,
political skills, and
High WE/High PS work engagement on
1
Low Emotional Control High Emotional Control transformational
leadership
Notes: WE, Work Engagement; PS, Political Skills

the same (i.e. weak) except for one in each graph. First, the relationship between
emotional control and transformational leadership (Figure 3) was positive in the
condition of high political skill and low work engagement. When comparing this graph
to Figure 2 without work engagement, the effect of political skill tends to be similar.
Therefore, the inclusion of high work engagement appears to increase transformational
leadership for individuals who have high political skills but have low emotional control,
and supports the inclusion of work engagement in the theoretical model. Second, the
relationship between emotional sensitivity and transformational leadership (Figure 4)
for low political skill is positive when work engagement is high whereas the
relationship is weak when work engagement is low (albeit the relationship is at higher
transformational leadership levels). As such, the results partially support H6.
LODJ 7
37,5
6

Transformational Leadership
5
648
4

3
Figure 4. Low WE/Low PS
Three-way
Low WE/High PS
interaction of 2
emotional sensitivity, High WE/Low PS
political skills, and High WE/High PS
work engagement on 1
transformational Low Emotional Sensitivity High Emotional Sensitivity
leadership
Notes: WE, Work Engagement; PS, Political Skills

4.2 Job satisfaction of leaders vs. non-leaders

Results of the regression analyses examining the effects on job satisfaction for leaders
and non-leaders are presented in Table III. A statistically significant amount of
variance in job satisfaction was explained by the three-way interaction of emotional
skills, political skills, and work engagement among leaders, emotional control model
β ¼ −0.17, t(147) ¼ −2.62, p ¼ 0.01 and emotional sensitivity model β ¼ −0.18,
t(147) ¼ −2.67, p o 0.01, but not among non-leaders. These effects are graphed in
Figures 5 and 6, respectively, and both graphs show that the level of job satisfaction is
highest and the relationships are strongest when work engagement is high. With
respect to emotional control and political skills, a substitution effect between the two
interpersonal skills appears to be present. The highest job satisfaction is present when
emotional control is low and political skill is high; and when emotional control is high
and political skill is low. A similar pattern is present for the combination of emotional
sensitivity and political skills when work engagement is high. Based on the statistical
findings and the related interpretation, H7 is supported.

5. Discussion
The purpose of this research was to examine transformational leadership attributes
using an individual-level, leader capability model that incorporated two emotional skills
(control and sensitivity) and political skills. The framework was expanded to include the
motivational aspect of work engagement. The complete theoretical model accounted for
what managers are capable of specific to personal interactions and the energy they bring
to their work in order to explain their transformational leadership and well-being. Of the
direct effects, political skill was the only one of the three interpersonal skills significantly
and consistently related to transformational leadership. This finding supports and
extends previous literature on the importance of political skills as a leadership capability
regardless of the level to which emotional skills are developed.
The inclusion of work engagement in the model illustrates the importance
of motivation beyond interpersonal skills for managers to be transformational.
 Leaders (n ¼ 159) Non-leaders (n ¼ 119)
Variable β Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3 β Step 4 R2 ΔR2 β Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3 β Step 4 R2 ΔR2
Step 1: control variables 0.16 0.16*** 0.20 0.20***
Step 2: predictor variables 0.18 0.02 0.24 0.04*
Step 3: interaction 0.19 0.01 0.29 0.05*
Step 4: 3-way interaction term 0.20 0.01 0.29 0.00
Age 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 −0.07 −0.04 −0.03 −0.03
SDE −0.24** −0.29** −0.25** −0.24* −0.28** −0.31*** −0.31** −0.30**
Impression management 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06
Core self-evaluation 0.49*** 0.46*** 0.45*** 0.44*** 0.56*** 0.48*** 0.49*** 0.49***
Emotional control 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.02 −0.03 0.02
Emotional sensitivity −0.04 −0.05 −0.04 −0.12 −0.14 −0.14
Political skills 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.27** 0.34*** 0.34***
Emotional control × Emotional
sensitivity −0.07 −0.08 0.31** 0.31*
Emotional control × Political skills −0.04 −0.03 −0.29** −0.29*
Emotional sensitivity × Political skills −0.05 −0.06 −0.02 −0.01
EC × ES × PS −0.11 −0.01
Step 1: control variables 0.16 0.16*** 0.20 0.20***
Step 2: predictor variables 0.55 0.39*** 0.56 0.37***
Step 3: 2-way interaction terms 0.57 0.02 0.57 0.01
Step 4: 3-way interaction term 0.59 0.02*** 0.57 0.00
Age 0.02 −0.03 −0.04 −0.05 0.07 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02
SDE −0.24*** −0.30*** −0.26*** −0.21** −0.28** −0.06 −0.05 −0.05
Impression management 0.07 −0.12* −0.13* −0.15** 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05
Core self-evaluation 0.49*** 0.27*** 0.25*** 0.25*** 0.56*** 0.13 0.12 0.12
Emotional control 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03
Political skills −0.02 −0.05 −0.05 −0.01 −0.03 −0.02
Work engagement 0.73*** 0.73*** 0.79*** 0.70*** 0.74*** 0.75***
Emotional control × Political skills −0.12** −0.10* 0.04 0.04
Emotional control × Work engagement 0.04 0.04 −0.06 −0.07
Political skills × Work engagement 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.10
EC × PS × WE −0.17*** −0.04

(continued )
engagement,
Interpersonal

and well-being

regression analysis
Table III.
skills,

comparison of
for variables
hierarchical
Summary of

leaders
leaders and non-
satisfaction –
predicting job
649
 37,5

650
LODJ

Table III.
Leaders (n ¼ 159) Non-leaders (n ¼ 119)
Variable β Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3 β Step 4 R2 ΔR2 β Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3 β Step 4 R2 ΔR2
Step 1: control variables 0.16 0.16*** 0.20 0.20***
Step 2: predictor variables 0.55 0.38*** 0.57 0.38***
Step 3: interaction 0.57 0.02 0.60 0.02*
Step 4: 3-way interaction term 0.59 0.02*** 0.60 0.00
Age 0.02 −0.05 −0.05 −0.04 −0.07 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02
SDE −0.24** −0.25*** −0.24** −0.20** −0.28** −0.03 −0.08 −0.07
Impression management 0.07 −0.11* −0.13 −0.15** 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04
Core self-evaluation 0.49*** 0.26*** 0.26*** 0.26*** 0.56*** 0.11 0.15 0.15
Emotional sensitivity −0.02 −0.02 0.01 −0.13 −0.11 −0.13
Political skills 0.01 −0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.07
Work engagement 0.73*** 0.74*** 0.79*** 0.70*** 0.69*** 0.67***
Emotional sensitivity × Political skills −0.08 −0.11* −0.06 −0.06
Emotional sensitivity × Work
engagement 0.14** 0.18*** 0.21** 0.26**
Political skills × Work engagement 0.01 −0.02 −0.05 −0.04
ES × PS × WE −0.18*** 0.10
Notes: EC, Emotional control; ES, Emotional sensitivity; PS, Political skill; WE, Work engagement. Any discrepancy between R2 and ΔR2 values from one step
to the next step is due to rounding. *p⩽0.10; **p⩽0.05; ***p⩽0.01
 7 Interpersonal
Low WE/Low PS
Low WE/High PS
skills,
6
High WE/Low PS
engagement,
High WE/High PS and well-being
5
Job Satisfaction

651
4

3 Figure 5.
Three-way
interaction of
2
emotional control,
political skills, and
1 work engagement
Low Emotional Control High Emotional Control on leader
job satisfaction
Notes: WE, Work Engagement; PS, Political Skills

7
Low WE/Low PS
Low WE/High PS
6
High WE/Low PS
High WE/High PS
5
Job Satisfaction

3
Figure 6.
Three-way
2 interaction of
emotional sensitivity,
political skills, and
1 work engagement
Low Emotional Sensitivity High Emotional Sensitivity on leader
job satisfaction
Notes: WE, Work Engagement; PS, Political Skills

Higher levels of work engagement increased the presence of transformational

leadership when one or more interpersonal skills were low. Political skills, however, had
a greater impact than work engagement on transformational leadership when
examining interactive effects with emotional skills. This finding provides additional
evidence that the development of political skills is necessary for managers to be
transformational. Furthermore, high levels of both political and emotional skills led to
high levels of transformational leadership when work engagement was low, indicating
both types of interpersonal skills are important when leaders lack personal energy in
their work. Overall, these findings suggest that the collection of skills (i.e. skill set) and
engagement – not the independent influence of each variable – should be accounted for
LODJ in mechanisms such as transformational leadership as well as strategic human
37,5 resource management practices related to a firm’s organizational capabilities.
Although emotional control and emotional sensitivity did not independently
influence transformational leadership, the findings suggest that these emotional skills,
with emotional control in particular, are especially important for the well-being of
leaders when their political skills are not well developed. With respect to leaders’ job
652 satisfaction, high levels of work engagement are the most influential of the variables
examined, whereas political and emotional skills substitute for one another. In effect,
possessing an interpersonal skill contributes to leader well-being, but having high
levels of both political skill and emotional skill may not be necessary to be satisfied
with one’s work.

5.1 Strengths and limitations

The current study has several strengths and limitations. One limitation is the cross-
sectional, self-report nature of the data collected. Although the survey was self-
reported, impression management and self-deception enhancement were used as
control variables to reduce the impact of personal biases. However, transformational
leadership ratings could be collected from a sampling of each leader’s employees to
reduce bias further. The nature of the sample as a pool of registered survey participants
provides a challenge of many unknowns for the data collection process (e.g. the length
of time to take the survey), and social science research in general could benefit from
additional work in this area.
Despite the limitations, this study has several strengths. The pool offered the
opportunity to sample a diverse, working adult population that adds to the external
validity of the results. The online survey process also provided information about the
time respondents used to take the survey, which was useful to assess the quality of
the responses. Lastly, the survey utilized variable measures that had been previously
validated, and reliabilities were consistent with existing research.

5.2 Management and research implications

In addition to items previously mentioned, the study results have further implications
for practitioners and researchers. First, the study results reinforce the importance of
work engagement for employees and frame ways that engagement is applicable for
leaders in particular. Leaders must have the motivation to manage in order to more
fully engage in the work of interacting with employees regardless of the interpersonal
skill level leaders possess. Therefore, organizations should identify specific ways to
enhance leaders’ engagement in their interpersonal relationships with employees, such
as providing leaders with adequate resources to lead effectively. For example, leaders
need sufficient time to interact with employees since regular communication is an
important aspect of coaching (Hunt and Weintraub, 2011). Researchers interested in
leader capabilities can broaden theoretical models of leadership to account for
managers’ motivation to lead in addition to knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Second, the research findings highlight the importance of political skill in leadership
situations for leader type and well-being. Organizations that desire transformational
leaders should seek managers from outside of the organization who possess a high level
of political skills and invest in developing political skills for those promoted from within
possessing a high level of firm-specific skills. Emotional skills can also be included as
selection criteria and developed as needed to enhance transformational leadership.
Because any type of development efforts targeting political or emotional skills should be Interpersonal
based upon individual manager needs in order to be most effective, human resource skills,
development professionals play a key role in leaders’ skill identification and development
efforts. In addition, future research regarding the inclusion of interpersonal skills as
engagement,
generic, transferrable skills as an aspect of managerial resources could seek to explore the and well-being
related return on investment. Such returns may include employee performance,
organizational performance, and cost savings realized by supporting the well-being of 653
leaders as evidenced by outcomes related to low turnover and internal succession planning.
Third, future research should pursue the exploration of the relationship between
political and emotional skills in order to more fully understand their substitution effects
and effective development methods. Researchers may also build upon recent work that
accounts for the context in evaluating the effects of engagement in the workplace
(Kane-Frieder et al., 2014) by examining the interpersonal skills leaders possess.
Lastly, the current research provides evidence to further substantiate the importance
that strategic human resource management can make toward enhancing the firm’s
organizational capabilities through a focus on microfoundations such as skill sets, work
engagement, and transformational leadership behaviors, e.g., a “skill-to-capital conversion
process” (Harvey and Novicevic, 2005). Future research opportunities that connect micro-
level causes to macro-level outcomes through multilevel studies will significantly add to
this emerging area within the study of organizational capabilities (Molina-Azorín, 2014).

References
Ahearn, K.K., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C. and Ammeter, A.A. (2004), “Leader
political skill and team performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 309-327.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Andrews, M.C., Kacmar, K.M. and Harris, K.J. (2009), “Got political skill? The impact of justice on
the importance of political skill for job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94
No. 6, pp. 1427-1437.
Bakker, A.B. and Bal, P.M. (2010), “Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among
starting teachers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 189-206.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), “Work engagement: an emerging
concept in occupational health psychology”, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
Bande Vilela, B., Varela González, J.A. and Fernández Ferrín, P. (2010), “Salespersons’ self‐
monitoring: direct, indirect, and moderating effects on salespersons’ organizational
citizenship behavior”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E. and Salovey, P. (2011), “Emotional intelligence: implications for
personal, social, academic, and workplace success”, Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 88-103.
Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951), “An index of job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 307-311.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O.K. and Espevik, R. (2014), “Daily
transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol 87 No. 1, pp. 138-157.
Brouer, R.L., Douglas, C., Treadway, D.C. and Ferris, G.R. (2013), “Leader political skill,
relationship quality, and leadership effectiveness: a two-study model test and constructive
replication”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 185-198.
LODJ Brown, F.W. and Moshavi, D. (2005), “Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: a
potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence”, Journal of
37,5 Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 867-871.
Carnevale, A.P. and Smith, N. (2013), “Workplace basics: the skills employees need and employers
want”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 491-501.
Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (2004), The Emotionally Intelligent Manager: How to Develop and Use
654 the Four Key Emotional Skills of Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Castanias, R.P. and Helfat, C.E. (2001), “The managerial rents model: theory and empirical
analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 661-678.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review
and test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 89-136.
Dagley, G.R. and Gaskin, C.J. (2014), “Understanding executive presence: perspectives of business
professionals”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 197-211.
Danna, K. and Griffin, R.W. (1999), “Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and
synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 357-384.
Daus, C.S. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2005), “The case for the ability‐based model of emotional
intelligence in organizational behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 453-466.
Douglas, C. and Ammeter, A.P. (2004), “An examination of leader political skill and its effect on
ratings of leader effectiveness”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 537-550.
Downie, M., Mageau, G.A. and Koestner, R. (2008), “What makes for a pleasant social interaction?
Motivational dynamics of interpersonal relations”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 148
No. 5, pp. 523-534.
Felin, T., Foss, N.J., Heimeriks and Madsen, T.L. (2012), “Microfoundations of routines and
capabilities: individuals, processes, and structure”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 79
No. 8, pp. 1351-1374.
Ferris, G.R., Davidson, S.L. and Perrewé, P.L. (2005), Political Skill at Work, Davies-Black,
Palo Alto, CA.
Ferris, G.R., Perrewé, P.L. and Douglas, C. (2002), “Social effectiveness in organizations: construct
validity and research directions”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Ferris, G.R., Perrewé, P.L., Anthony, W.P. and Gilmore, D.C. (2000), “Political skill at work”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 25-37.
Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C. and
Frink, D.D. (2005), “Development and validation of the political skill inventory”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 126-152.
Fu, K.J. (2013), “The interaction of politics and management in public leadership: measuring
public political skill and assessing its effects” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, FL.
George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-1055.
George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992), “Feeling good doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at
work-organizational spontaneity relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 310-329.
Harris, K.J., Harris, R.B. and Brower, R.L. (2009), “LMX and subordinate political skill: direct and
interactive effects on turnover intentions and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 2373-2395.
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M., Zivnuska, S. and Shaw, J.D. (2007), “The impact of political skill on Interpersonal
impression management effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 278-285.
skills,
Harvey, M.G. and Novicevic, M.M. (2005), “The challenges associated with the capitalization of
engagement,
managerial skills and competencies”, International Journal of Human Resource and well-being
Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 1374-1398.
Higgs, M. and Aitken, P. (2003), “An exploration of the relationship between emotional 655
intelligence and leadership potential”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 814-823.
Hoffman, B.J. and Frost, B.C. (2006), “Multiple intelligences of transformational leaders: an
empirical examination”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 37-51.
Hogan, R., Chamorro‐Premuzic, T. and Kaiser, R.B. (2013), “Employability and career success:
bridging the gap between theory and reality”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Hunt, J.M. and Weintraub, J.R. (2011), The Coaching Manager: Developing Top Talent in Business,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership:
a meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 5, pp. 755-768.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, C.J. (2003), “The core self‐evaluations scale:
development of a measure”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 303-331.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kane-Frieder, R.E., Hochwarter, W.A. and Ferris, G.R. (2014), “Terms of engagement: political
boundaries of work engagement-work outcomes relationships”, Human Relations, Vol. 67
No. 3, pp. 357-382.
Katz, R.L. (1955), “Skills of an effective administrator”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 33-42.
Kellett, J.B., Humphrey, R.H. and Sleeth, R.G. (2002), “Empathy and complex task performance:
two routes to leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 523-544.
Kim, W., Kolb, J.A. and Kim, T. (2012), “The relationship between work engagement and
performance: a review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 248-276.
Laird, M.D., Zboja, J.J. and Ferris, G.R. (2012), “Partial mediation of the political skill-reputation
relationship”, Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 557-582.
Leban, W. and Zulauf, C. (2004), “Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational
leadership styles”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7,
pp. 554-564.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1343.
Lord, R.G. and Hall, R.J. (2005), “Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 591-615.
Luria, G. and Berson, Y. (2013), “How do leadership motives affect informal and formal leadership
emergence”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 995-1015.
Matthews, R.A., Mills, M.J., Trout, R.C. and English, L. (2014), “Family-supportive supervisor
behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: a contextually dependent
mediated process”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 168-181.
LODJ Molina-Azorín, J.F. (2014), “Microfoundations of strategic management: toward micro-macro
research in the resource-based theory”, Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 102-114.
37,5
Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Connelly, M.S. and Marks, M.A. (2000), “Leadership
skills: conclusions and future directions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 155-170.
Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T.O. and Fleishman, E.A. (2000), “Leadership
656 skills for a changing world: solving complex social problems”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 11-35.
Mumford, T.V., Campion, M.A. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “The leadership skills strataplex:
leadership skill requirements across organizational levels”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 154-166.
Paulhus, D. (1991), “Measurement and control of response bias”, in Robinson, J., Shaver, P.R. and
Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes: Vol. 1,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 17-59.
Rajah, R., Song, Z. and Arvey, R.D. (2011), “Emotionality and leadership: taking stock of the past
decade of research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1107-1119.
Reichard, R.J., Riggio, R.E. and Smith, M. (2009), “Development of a new self-report measure of
transformational leadership”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Chicago, IL, August.
Reynolds, S.J. (2006), “Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: investigating the role of
individuals differences in the recognition of moral issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 233-243.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Riggio, R.E. (1986), “Assessment of basic social skills”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 649-660.
Riggio, R.E. and Carney, D.R. (2003), Social Skills Inventory Manual, 2nd ed., MindGarden,
Redwood City, CA.
Riggio, R.E. and Reichard, R.J. (2008), “The emotional and social intelligences of effective
leadership: an emotional and social skill approach”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 169-185.
Rost, J.C. (1991), Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, Praeger, New York, NY.
Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C. and Bommer, W.H. (2005), “Leading from within: the effects of emotion
recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 845-858.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55
No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Song, J.H., Kolb, J.A., Lee, U.H. and Kim, H.K. (2012), “Role of transformational leadership in
effective organizational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’
work engagement”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 65-101.
Sprafke, N., Externbrink, K. and Wilkens, U. (2012), “Exploring micro-foundations of dynamic
capabilities: insights from a case study in the engineering sector”, Research in Competence-
Based Management, Vol. 6, pp. 117-152.
Sy, T., Tram, S. and O’Hara, L.A. (2006), “Relation of employee and manager emotional
intelligence to job satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68
No. 3, pp. 461-473.
Teece, D.T. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of Interpersonal
(sustainable) enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13,
pp. 1319-1350.
skills,
Tonidandel, S., Braddy, P.W. and Fleenor, J.W. (2012), “Relative importance of managerial skills
engagement,
for predicting effectiveness”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 636-655. and well-being
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. and Lens, W. (2008), “Explaining the
relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: the role of basic 657
psychological need satisfaction”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 277-294.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C.P., Soenens, B., Witte, H. and Broeck, A. (2007),
“On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job
outcomes: a self‐determination theory approach”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 251-277.
Wefald, A.J. and Downey, R.G. (2009), “Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation
with satisfaction”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 91-112.
Winter, S.G. (2003), “Understanding dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24
No. 10, pp. 991-995.
Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. and Druskat, V.U. (2002), “Emotional intelligence as the basis of
leadership emergence in self-managing teams”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 505-522.
Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002), “The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: an exploratory study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 243-274.
Yan, T. and Tourangeau, R. (2008), “Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience
and question complexity on web survey response times”, Applied Cognitive Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Yasin Ghadi, M., Fernando, M. and Caputi, P. (2013), “Transformational leadership and work
engagement: the mediating effect of meaning in work”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 532-550.
Yukl, G. (2013), Leadership in Organizations, 8th ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2007), “Trait-based perspectives of leadership”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 6-16.
Zaccaro, S.J., Kemp, C. and Bader, P. (2004), “Leader traits and attributes”, in Antonakis, J.,
Cianciolo, A.T. and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 101-124.

About the authors

Jennifer Mencl is an Associate Professor in the Labovitz School of Business and Economics at the
University of Minnesota, Duluth. Her research interests include employee learning and
development, empathy, and ethical decision-making. Jennifer Mencl is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: jmencl@d.umn.edu
Andrew J. Wefald is an Associate Professor in the Staley School of Leadership Studies at the
Kansas State University. His research interests include leadership, leadership development,
political skill, and job attitudes.
Kyle W. van Ittersum is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology, Sociology,
and Social Work at Angelo State University. His research interests include employee engagement,
selection, and leadership.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com