How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st

century?
Malcolm Higgs
Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, Oxford, UK
Introduction
For centuries we have been obsessed with
leaders, and with identifying the
characteristics required for effective
leadership. In more recent times the area of
leadership has been studied more extensively
than almost any other aspect of human
behaviour (Kets de Vries, 1993; Goffee and
Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001). Many
have pointed out that, in spite of the plethora
of studies, we still seem to know little about
the defining characteristics of effective
leadership (e.g. Kets de Vries, 1994; Goffee
and Jones, 2000; Hogan and Hogan, 2001).
However, such observations do not appear
to have stemmed our appetite for continuing
the search. It has been estimated (Goffee and
Jones, 2000) that, in 1999 alone, over 2,000
books were published on the topic of
leadership. Last year a search on the Library
of Congress database revealed in excess of
8,000 books on the topic of leadership (Aitken,
2002). Further evidence of the current level of
fascination with the concept is provided by
the devotion of a special edition of the
Harvard Business Review to the topic in
December 2001. With this background in
mind, this paper sets out to explore the ``long
line'' of study and attempts to make sense of
what we have found in the context of today's
business environment. The paper sets out to
develop a framework for thinking about
leadership in terms of combining personality
and behaviours. Working from this
framework the possible linkages between the
concepts of emotional intelligence (Salovey
and Meyer, 1990; Goleman, 1996; Higgs and
Dulewicz, 1999) and leadership are explored
with empirical data supporting these being
presented.
The drivers of current interest
Exploring the drivers of interest in
leadership could be the subject of a paper in
its own right. Some suggest that it reflects a
basic human need to be led (Collingwood,
2001a,b). Indeed Freud (1927) maintained that
groups of individuals need leaders to provide
them with an identity and sense of purpose.
However, in order to attempt to make sense
of leadership in today's context, it is helpful
to consider some of the critical issues facing
organisations, which have leadership
implications. Reviewing the broader
business literature, a number of common
themes emerge:
.
Changes in societal values. Over the last
fifty years there have been dramatic
changes to society's values in the Western
world (e.g. Fineman, 1997; Goffee and
Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001).
These changes, combined with significant
economic and organisational
developments, have led to the emergence
of ``talent wars'' (Williams, 2000) and the
underlying need to engage employees in a
different way in order to secure effective
commitment (Higgs and Rowland, 2001).
.
Changes in investor focus. For many, the
indicators of a CEO's success are focused
on their delivering increases in
shareholder value (Collingwood, 2001a,b),
indeed this has become an almost
obsessive focus. In the USA, in the period
from 1960 to 1990, market capitalisation
was almost exclusively linked to current
earnings of a business. Between 75 and 90
per cent of the variance in market
capitalisation was explicable by earnings
performance (e.g. Ulrich, 1999). However,
since 1990 this relationship has changed
dramatically with earnings accounting for
only 45 to 50 per cent of the variation in
market value (Ulrich, 1999). In seeking to
understand this change, research with
investors has shown that their decisions
are increasingly influenced by
``intangibles'' (Ulrich, 1997), which include
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
[ 273]
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0143-7739]
[DOI 10.1108/01437730310485798]
Keywords
Leadership, Intelligence,
Behaviour, Organizational change
Abstract
Explores the development of
thinking on leadership and places
it in the context of the dominant
discourses of the period in which
studies were conducted. Argues
that if a ``sense making'' paradigm
is adopted. it becomes feasible to
identify a model of leadership,
which is relevant to the context of
complexity and change facing
organisations in the early twenty-
first century. The model emerges
when the measure of effectiveness
is changed from organisational
success to the impact of the
leader on followers and on building
of capability. The argument for
such a shift is underpinned by the
movement of dominant
organisational logic from a
Weberian rational/analytical one
to a logic which acknowledges
emotional considerations. Within
the leadership arena it has been
proposed that emotional
intelligence is a major factor
underpinning success. Presents
data from recent research, which
empirically demonstrates linkages
between emotional intelligence
and leadership. These findings are
examined in conjunction with the
``Emergent model''.
Received: August 2002
Revised: October 2002
Accepted: November 2002
the quality and depth of leadership in an
organisation.
.
Challenges in implementing organisation
change. As organisations operate in more
complex, competitive and volatile
environments their need to change
strategies, structures and processes in
order to respond to the business
challenges increases (Conner, 1999; Higgs
and Rowland, 2001). Many make the point
that the rate and complexity of change is
rapidly increasing and becoming an
integral aspect of organisational
effectiveness, rather than a periodic
necessity, (Weick, 1995; Conner, 1999;
Kotter, 1996; Higgs and Rowland, 2001).
However, the ability of organisations to
implement change effectively appears to
be limited. Indeed it has been estimated
that up to 70 per cent of change initiatives
fail to meet their aims (Kotter, 1996; Higgs
and Rowland, 2000, 2001). Therefore, there
is a driving need to identify leadership
behaviours, which will result in effective
change implementation and build
sustained change capability (Conner,
1999).
.
Awareness of the impact of stress on
employees. With the increasingly volatile,
competitive and complex business
environment have come increasing
pressures on individuals within
organisations to work harder and deliver
continuous improvements in performance
(Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Rousseau, 1989).
There is a dominant discourse, which
draws a clear relationship between work
pressure and increasing levels of stress.
However, others maintain that it is not the
effort and volume pressures which lead to
stress, but rather the behaviours of
leaders (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Hogan and
Hogan, 2001).
In reviewing the above points it is evident
that the drivers of interest in leadership are
clearly associated with change and
complexity in the business and
organisational environment (Kotter, 1996;
Goffee and Jones, 2000; Collingwood, 2001a,b;
Hogan and Hogan, 2001; Higgs and Rowland,
2001).
Approaches to understanding leadership
Given the current importance of leadership
there is a perceived imperative to develop a
framework which will enable organisations
to identify, select and develop leaders capable
of meeting the challenges outlined above.
However, many maintain that we have little
real knowledge of what is required for
effective leadership (Kets de Vries, 1994;
Higgs and Rowland, 2001; Hogan and Hogan,
2001). Indeed there is, within the vast
literature, little agreement on the paradigm
within which such research should be
framed. A core issue, for some time, has been
whether or not leadership should focus on
personality or behaviours (e.g. Hogan and
Hogan, 2001; McCall et al., 1988). This, in turn,
has implications in terms of strategies for
developing leadership capabilities. A
personality-based paradigm would argue for
selection as being the main focus, whereas a
behaviour-based one would argue for
development. In essence this is the debate
around whether leaders are born or made.
In addition to lack of consensus on the
focus of a paradigm for research there are
challenges in terms of terminology and
research methodology. In looking at the way
in which we have tried to make sense of our
understanding of this abstract and diffuse
construct it is relevant to reflect on how
research in the behavioural sciences appears
to be developing. In essence, certainly in
relation to business-related issues, the ideal
research framework should be one in which
there is a combination of methodological
rigour and practical relevance. Anderson
et al. (2001) have described such a paradigm
as being ``pragmatic science''. However, in
the leadership arena we appear to have
moved in two directions away from this
paradigm. One is to focus more on the
practical relevance than methodological
rigour. For example, through the biographies
of successful CEOs Anderson et al. (2001)
would label this as ``popular science''. Whilst
this move has been taking place others have
moved into the arena of greater focus on
methodological rigour than practical
relevance. This is seen as ``pedantic science''
(Anderson et al., 2001). Thus research into
leadership has polarised, with each category
of researcher denying and, effectively,
ignoring contributions from the other. In the
author's view this is not a useful position
from which to understand a complex
phenomenon. In order to develop a
framework, which may return the study of
leadership to a ``pragmatic science''
paradigm, it is useful to reflect on the history
of leadership studies and insights to look
back along a ``long line''.
Development of leadership understanding
It has been suggested that the study of
leadership has a history stretching back over
many centuries (Clemens and Mayer, 1999;
Collingwood, 2001a,b; McAlpine, 1998; Jay,
1967). Indeed an historical review of the
development of attempts to understand
leadership may be illuminating. Below is a
[ 274]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
brief review of trends and developments in
thinking on leadership from such a
perspective. However, in presenting
developments in this way, it is important to
be aware that the process is not linear and
early frameworks remain potential lenses for
viewing leadership today.
1 The long line in retrospect. In their book
The Classic Touch Clemens and Mayer
(1999) draw on literature to illustrate
periods of leadership. The use of literature
provides a means of identifying stories,
which help us to understand the dominant
discourse, which in turn enables us to
understand and make sense of a construct
within a context (Fineman, 1997; Weick,
1995; Hatch, 1999). An illustration of this
development is provided in Table I. The
importance of understanding perceptions
of leadership contextually is illustrated by
Plato's observation; ``Society values
whatever is honoured there''.
However, the key value of reviewing the
historical discourse lies, not in finding
selective evidence for today's views, but in
understanding the dynamic between
society and the dominant perspectives on
leadership. From the above overview of
leadership, it is evident that, until the late
twentieth century, the paradigm was
determined by the rational/analytical
perspective of Weber (1964). This led to the
emergence of ``Taylorism'' and ``Fordism''
which has dominated, and to an extent
continues to dominate, thinking on
business organisation and leadership
(Goffee and Jones, 2000; Fineman, 1997;
Higgs and Rowland, 2001). The impact of
the ``modern'' school, influenced by Freud,
Jung, Skinner, etc., provides the second
major leadership discourse in the latter
part of the twentieth century
(Collingwood, 2001).
2 Trait theories of leadership. The ``modern''
study of leadership is viewed as having
begun with Trait theory in the late 1920s
(e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Goffee and
Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001).
This was a personality-based approach,
and one which led to generally
inconclusive findings (Fiedler, 1964).
3 Behavioural and situational theories of
leadership. The limitations of Trait theory
were responded to by examining the
behaviours and style of leaders (Alimo-
Metcalfe, 1995). A classic example of this
approach is provided by the Blake and
Moulton model (1964). This approach was
underpinned by a point of view, or belief,
that there was a ``best'' style (Alimo-
Metcalfe, 1995). Reality, however,
provided numerous examples of success
employing ``less desirable'' styles (Higgs
and Rowland, 2001). The limitations of the
``style theories'' were the catalyst for the
application of contingency theory to
leadership. A classic example of the
contingency leadership model is that
developed by Hershey and Blanchard
(1969, 1993) who maintained that it was not
the leaders style per se which led to
effectiveness, but rather the ability of the
leader to adapt the style to the needs of the
followers. This approach drew on the
relatively under-explored work on
understanding leadership from the
follower perspective, originally developed
from research carried out by Fiedler
(1964).
While the Trait theory tended to imply
that effective leadership is a matter of
selection, the behavioural and situational
theories focused more on the development
of leadership capabilities. Once again
research, using both style and
contingency theories, failed to provide
consistent and compelling evidence for
their validity across a wide range of
contexts (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995).
4 Charismatic theories. In focusing on top-
level leadership performance, Shamir
(1992) returned to the qualities of the
leaders and identified, through studying
cases of successful leaders, the common
thread of ``charisma''. Shamir (1992)
described charisma as being the ability to
inspire others to act in a way, which is
required to realise the leader's vision.
This approach led to a period (which
continued into the 1990s Collingwood,
Table I
Leadership discourses: an historic perspective
Era Dominant discourse Examples of authors
Classical Dalogue Plato
Society Aristotle
Democracy Homer
Pericles
Sophocles
Renaissance Ambition Petrarch
Individual Chaucer
Great man not great event Castiglione
Machiavelli
Shakespeare
Industrial Survival of the fittest Weber
Control Darwin
Rationality Durkheim
Marx
Modern Psychological Freud
Behavioural Skinner
Jung
Source: Adopted from Clemens and Meyer (1999)
[ 275]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
2001a,b) in which the focus of much of the
leadership research was on the qualities
of the ``heroic CEO'' (Collingwood, 2001a,b;
Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995). This approach not
only failed to produce compelling results
it also tended to be very USA focused
(Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995).
5 Transformational and transactional
theories. In the late 1970s, the state of
leadership research was such that
methodological and terminological
debates were causing more confusion
than enlightenment. The rational
paradigm derived from a Weberian
perspective was in conflict with the
psychological paradigm. In 1977 Abraham
Zalesnik summarised the issue, and
indeed failures of leadership research as
follows:
Theoreticians of scientific management,
with their organisational diagrams and
time and motion studies were missing
half the picture the half filled with
inspiration, vision and the full spectrum
of human drives and desires (Zaleanik,
1977).
In many ways this statement captured the
key debate around the difference between
leadership and management (Kotter,
1990). In parallel with (and possibly
influenced by) this stream of thought Bass
(1985) developed a leadership model,
which identified different sets of
behaviours and characteristics required
in situations of organisational
transformation and situations of stability.
Bass (1985) labelled these as
transformational and transactional
leadership. Bass (1997) and Bass
and Avolio (1996) carried out further
work with this model in mind and
identified the main characteristics and
behaviours associated with each context
as being:
.
Transformational leadership
charismatic/inspirational (inspiring
and aligning others by providing a
common purpose allied with optimism
about the ``mission'' and its
attainability); intellectual stimulation
(encouraging individuals to challenge
the status quo, to consider problems
from new and unique perspectives and
to be innovative and creative); and
individualised consideration (a
genuine concern for individuals'
feelings, aspirations and development.
They pay special attention to each
individual's needs for achievement and
growth, they coach and mentor.
Followers are treated differently and
equitably).
.
Transactional leadership contingent
reward (encouraging specific
performance and behaviours by
making rewards (in the broadest sense)
contingent on delivery); and
management by exception (only
intervening actively when a delegated
task or function is failing to conform to
expectations).
Bass and Avolio (1996) operationalised this
model in the form of a questionnaire (the
MLQ) that has been used as the basis for
much empirical work in the field. While the
instrument has not been without its critics
(e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995) there
is little doubt that it has been influential
in building understanding of leadership in a
changing environment. Alimo-Metcalfe (1995)
has challenged much leadership research as
being too focused on the USA, and too
concerned with the examination of the
behaviours and performance of top leaders.
Her research in the UK looked
at leaders throughout the organisation, using
the distinction between ``near'' and ``distant''
leaders (Shamir, 1992). Furthermore, she
included the perspectives of followers in her
studies.
An emerging perspective on
leadership
The diverse, and often contradictory,
findings on the nature of effective
leadership share two common factors. These
are: focus on top-level leaders; and the
measure of success employed is the
financial performance of the business. This
criticism implies an alternative means of
assessing the effectiveness of leadership
behaviours, a route initiated by Fiedler
(1964) and further developed by Alimo-
Metcalfe (1995), in terms of the impact of
leader behaviours on the followers. In
addition it has been suggested that the
extensive literature on leadership, and
changing schools of thought and models,
contain much re-working of earlier concepts
(Higgs and Rowland, 2001). Perhaps the
frustration with the inability of leadership
research is rooted in a paradigm which
suggests that there is a fundamental truth
which is yet to be discovered. If the view of
sense making, proposed by Weick (1995) is
considered a new way forward may be
found. Weick proposes that:
Social and organisational sciences, as
opposed to physics or biology, do not discover
anything new, but let us comprehend what we
have known all along in a much better way,
opening up new, unforeseen, possibilities of
[ 276]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
reshaping, re-engineering and restructuring
our original social environment (Weick,
1995).
Shifting the lens through which leadership is
observed, in line with the above thought,
may bring new and useful insights. Perhaps
an alternative lens has already been
identified, although not made explicit.
Fineman (1997) and Goffee and Jones (2001)
identify that the influence of Weberian
rationality on organisation has begun to
wane and this decline is being accompanied
by a recognition of emotional realities.
Viewing leadership through this lens
suggests a potential change in the measure of
leadership effectiveness from hard business
results to the impact of leaders on their
followers. This view resonates with the view
that leadership, in a change context, requires
focus on building the capability of people
within the organisation to deal with
continuing change (Conner, 1999).
Although not explicitly acknowledging this
shift in paradigm, there is a body of literature
which is beginning to look at leadership
through a ``new lens'' in order to attempt to
make sense of this complex concept in today's
business environment. Within this
``emerging theory'' school of thought there
are two common strands which are:
1 the focus of study is on what leaders
actually do; and
2 the determinant of effectiveness includes
the leader's impact on followers and their
subsequent ability to perform.
It may have been Kotter's (1990) study, which
prompted a move from studying personality,
or testing theoretical models in the search for
understanding of the nature of leadership.
His study of the work of leaders is certainly
seen to influence many of the studies, which
may be placed in this ``emerging school''.
Typical of these studies is the work reported
by Kouzes and Posner (1998), which identified
the following elements of effective leadership
(with effectiveness judged from the followers'
perspective).
.
Challenging the process a constant
questioning of why things are being done
in a certain way combined with openness
to having their own actions challenged.
.
Inspiring shared vision engaging others
with a vision of how things can be and
how progress may be made.
.
Enabling others to act working on a
belief in the potential of people and
creating the conditions to enable people to
realise their potential.
.
Modeling the way acting as a role model
and demonstrating integrity in terms of
congruence of words and actions.
.
Encouraging the heart providing
recognition tailored to an understanding
of the needs and personalities of each
person.
In reviewing these findings clear overlaps
with elements of transformational leadership
(Bass and Avolio, 1996) become apparent.
Furthermore, the work of Alimo-Metcalfe
(1995) applies these transformational
concepts in a follower context. However, this
does not diminish the potential contribution
of Kouzes and Posner (1998) when seen in a
``sensemaking'' context. Examining
leadership though this new lens produces
insights not normally associated with the
``financial performance'' lens (e.g. Goffee and
Jones, 2000; Collins, 2001). Indeed Goffee and
Jones (2000) are quite explicit in their
acknowledgement that a number of
``effective'' leaders they studied would not
necessarily have been considered so in the
absence of the followers' perspective.
In line with this thinking, and within a
change perspective Higgs and Rowland (2001)
conducted a study to determine the
competencies of effective leaders of change
they included a measure of their ability to
build capability into their overall assessment
of effectiveness. The areas of competence,
which they identified, were:
.
creating the case for change effectively
engaging others in recognising the
business need for change;
.
creating structural change ensuring that
the change is based on depth of
understanding of the issues and supported
with a consistent set of tools and
processes;
.
engaging others in the whole change
process and building commitment;
.
implementing and sustaining changes
developing effective plans and ensuring
good monitoring and review practices are
developed; and
.
facilitating and developing capability
ensuring that people are challenged to
find their own answers and that they are
supported in doing this.
In reviewing studies, such as those outlined
above, it becomes evident that this ``emerging
school'' sees leadership as being a
combination of personal characteristics and
areas of competence. The re-emergence of
personality (implied in this school of
thought) as a component of effective
leadership is evident in some of the more
recent studies of leadership where the focus
in on building capability (Kets De Vries and
Florent-Treacy, 2002).
[ 277]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
A potential model of leadership
Having reviewed the development in
thinking about the nature of effective
leadership and, in particular, having looked
at the literature from a ``sensemaking'' rather
than discovery perspective (Weick, 1995), a
pattern is beginning to emerge. One part of
this pattern is that the personality of the
leader is a determinant of their effectiveness
(Hogan and Hogan, 2001; Collins, 2001). The
second element is that effective leaders are
differentiated from other leaders through the
exercise of a relatively small range of skill or
competence areas (Kouzes and Posner, 1998;
Goffee and Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland,
2001; Hogan and Hogan, 2001). The way in
which these skills and competencies are
exercised is not prescribed, but is the
function of the underlying personality of the
leader (Hogan, 2002; Hogan and Hogan, 2001).
Building on this view it is possible to suggest
a model which reflects the research and
thinking on leadership emerging from a
``sensemaking'' paradigm. This model is
shown in Figure 1.
The elements in this model are
summarised below:
1 Skill/competence areas:
.
Envision the ability to identify a clear
future picture, which will inform the
way in which people direct their efforts
and utilise their skills.
.
Engage finding the appropriate way
for each individual to understand the
vision and, hence, the way in which
they can contribute.
.
Enable acting on a belief in the talent
and potential of individuals, and
creating the environment in which
these can be released.
.
Inquire being open to real dialogue
with those involved in the organisation
and encouraging free and frank debate
of all issues.
.
Develop working with people to build
their capability and help them to make
the envisioned contribution.
2 Personal characteristics:
.
Authenticity being genuine and not
attempting to ``play a role''; not acting
in manipulative way.
.
Integrity being consistent in what
you say and do.
.
Will a drive to lead, and persistence
in working towards a goal.
.
Self-belief a realistic evaluation of
your capabilities and belief that you
can achieve required goals.
.
Self-awareness a realistic
understanding of ``who you are''; how
you feel and how others see you.
Emotional intelligence and
leadership
There is a growth of literature relating to
emotional aspects of organisational life
(Fineman, 1997) and the challenges to the
dominance of the analytical/rational
Weberian paradigm (Fineman, 1997; Goffee
and Jones, 2000, 2001; Higgs and Dulewicz,
1999, 2002). A significant component of this
literature is the rapid growth in research
into the concept of emotional intelligence.
While the concept of emotional intelligence
remains the subject of some controversy and
challenge there is an increasing stream
which provides clear support for its validity
(e.g. Higgs and Dulewicz, 1999, 2002;
Dulewicz et al., 2001; Dulewicz and Higgs,
2000). It is not within the scope of this paper
to explore the concept in detail. However, it
is necessary to provide some elucidation on
the nature of the concept. Whilst definitions
vary there appears to be consensus on two
elements which relate to self-awareness and
emotional management. In essence,
approaches to defining and researching into
emotional intelligence fall into three broad
areas e.g. the ability view (Salovey and
Meyer, 1990); the competence view
(Goleman, 1996, 1998); and the personal
factors view (Higgs and Dulewicz, 1999;
Bar-On, 2000). The elements of emotional
intelligence developed by Higgs and
Dulewicz (1999, 2002), which illustrate this
third viewpoint, are:
.
Self-awareness. The awareness of your
own feelings and the ability to recognise
and manage these.
Figure 1
An emerging model of effective leadership
[ 278]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
.
Emotional resilience. The ability to
perform well and consistently in a range
of situations and when under pressure.
.
Motivation. The drive and energy, which
you have to achieve results, balance short-
and long-term goals and pursue your goals
in the face of challenge and rejection.
.
Interpersonal sensitivity. The ability to be
aware of the needs and feelings of others
and to use this awareness effectively in
interacting with them and arriving at
decisions impacting on them.
.
Influence. The ability to persuade others to
change their viewpoint on a problem,
issue or decision.
.
Intuitiveness. The ability to use insight
and interaction to arrive at and
implement decisions when faced with
ambiguous or incomplete information.
.
Conscientiousness and integrity. The
ability to display commitment to a course
of action in the face of challenge, to act
consistently and in line with understood
ethical requirements.
A significant range of literature has provided
evidence for the reliability and validity of
this framework (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000;
2001; Dulewicz et al., 2001). In addition to
assertions, and empirical evidence, relating
emotional intelligence to individual
performance and success, further assertions
have been made that emotional intelligence
is strongly linked to effective leadership
(Goleman, 1998; Bennis, 1989). Goleman
(1998), in making the case for emotional
intelligence, asserts that while emotional
intelligence is more important than IQ and
technical skills for all jobs, it is significantly
more important for leadership roles. Indeed,
in an interview on BBC radio (1999), he went
further and asserted that the higher one
progresses in an organisation the more
important emotional intelligence becomes.
Some support for this view was provided by
Dulewicz (1999) who reported on an analysis
of the competencies seen as important by a
sample of UK company directors. Further
support was subsequently provided in a
study by Higgs and Dulewicz (2000), in which
the differences between the emotional
intelligence competencies of chairmen/
CEO's, executive directors and managers
were examined. The results of their study are
shown in Tables II and III. These results
show that higher levels of emotional
intelligence are associated with hierarchical
progression within an organisation.
However, as the preceding sections in this
paper have emphasised, leadership is not
exclusively (or even predominantly) related
to organisational level. In order to explore
the suggestion that emotional intelligence
might be related more broadly to leadership
Higgs and Rowland (2001) conducted a
content analysis of the transformational
leadership models and the work of authors
classified above as being in the ``emergent
theory'' area. Based on this work they
mapped the Higgs and Dulewicz (1999)
elements onto a range of leadership models.
An example of this mapping is shown in
Table IV. From this it is evident that there is
a theoretical case for a broader link between
emotional intelligence and leadership. In
order to test the relationships empirically
they conducted research using the change
leadership competency model (see above)
and a measure of emotional intelligence (the
EIQ-M; Dulewicz and Higgs, 1999) with a
sample of 74 managers. The results of this
research are summarised in Table V. These
show strong relationships between the
change leadership competencies and all but
one (intuitiveness) elements of emotional
intelligence.
To explore the relationship between
emotional intelligence and leadership in a
more general leadership context, and to
explore its possible application in identifying
leadership potential, the author conducted
exploratory work in the context of a
development centre. The centre was designed
for a public sector application and built
around the eight competencies shown in
Table VI.
Some 20 participants have been through
the centre to date and, as a part of the centre
have all completed the EIQ-M. The results of
the centre observer assessments of each
competency as well as the overall assessment
rating (OAR) were compared with the
particpant's EIQ-M scores. The results of this
analysis using significance testing are shown
in Table VII.
Regression analysis showed that around
29 per cent of the variance in the OAR was
accounted for by emotional intelligence
elements. Further review of the centre
competencies indicated that three (strategic
leadership, intellectual leadership and
political leadership) were more related to
Table II
Differences between chairman/CEO and other
directors
Measure Significance level
Overall EQ competencies Differences significant
Overall IQ competencies Differences significant
Overall MQ competencies Differences not significant
Note: Chairmen and CEOs achieved higher scores on
``EQ competencies'' than did the other directors
[ 279]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
cognitive abilities and knowledge. When
these three competencies were removed from
the analysis some 37 per cent of the variance
in the OAR was accounted for by the EI
elements. The relatively small numbers
available limit the ability to generalise from
these exploratory findings. However, from
this study, together with the others reported
above, evidence is beginning to emerge to
support the assertion that emotional
intelligence and leadership are related.
Furthermore, the findings of Higgs and
Rowland (2001) provide evidence of a
relatively high degree of relationship
between emotional intelligence and the
``Emerging model'' of leadership outlined in
Figure 1.
The concept of ``being yourself with skill''
implies a mix of intra- and inter-personal
competence. Indeed these two areas are seen
as the base of leadership in the model of
leadership proposed by Hogan (2002). The
concept of intra- and inter-personal
attributes also appears in the emotional
intelligence literature. Bar-On (2000) includes
these as two factors within his overall model
of emotional intelligence. In a recent study
Dulewicz et al. (2001) established high
Table III
Differences between directors and managers (from 7-year follow-up study)
Measure Significance level
Overall EQ competencies Highly significant
Sensitivity and resilience competencies
(two elements of overall EQ) Highly significant
Overall IQ competencies Differences not significant
Overall MQ competencies Differences not significant
Note: Directors achieved higher scores on ``EQ competencies'' than did managers
Table IV
Relationships between leadership ``models'' and emotional intelligence
Leadership models and frameworks
Elements of emotional
intelligence (from
Higgs and Dulewicz,
2000)
Bass (1985)
Transitional/
transformational
Alimo-Metcalfe
(1995) Leadership
constructs
Goffee and Jones
(2000) Four
factors
Kouzes and Posner
(1998)
Kotter (1990)
What leaders do Bennis (1989)
Self-awareness Self-awareness Reveal differences Develop self-
knowledge
Selectively show
weakness
Develop
feedback sources
Emotional resilience Tough empathy Challenges
processes
Balance change
and transition
Enable others Learn from
adversity
Motivation Charismatic
leadership
Achieving,
determined
Tough empathy Challenge processes Motivating and
inspiring
Role model
Model the way Setting
directions
Interpersonal
sensitivity
Individual
consideration
Consideration for
the individual
Tough empathy Challenge processes Aligning people Open style
Charismatic
leadership
Sensitive change
management
Selectively show
weaknesses
Inspire shared vision
Intellectual
stimulation
Enable others
Model the way
Encourage the heart
Influence Charismatic
leadership
Networking Reveal differences Inspire shared vision Aligning people
Motivating and
inspiring
Open style
Individual
consideration
Tough empathy Enable others Setting direction
Intuitiveness Intellectual
stimulation
Decisive, achieving Intuition Inspire shared vision Capacity to
concentrate
Encourage the heart Curious about
innovation
Conscientiousness and
integrity
Individual
consideration
Integrity and
openness
Tough empathy Model the way Aligning people Role model
Reveal differences Encourage the heart
[ 280]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
correlational relationships between the
EIQ-M and Bar-On's (2000) measure of
emotional intelligence (the EQ-I). As well as
high overall correlations there were clear
relationships between the EIQ-M scales and
Bar-On's (2000) intra- and inter-personal
scales. Figure 2 summarises the EIQ-M in
terms of elements related to inter- and intra-
personal behaviours.
In reflecting on Figure 2 and the EIQ-M
leadership research described there is
evidently a link to the model proposed in
Figure 1 which attempted to capture the
components of the ``Emerging leadership''
model. An expanded model, which captures
this relationship, is shown in Figure 3.
Conclusions
Whilst the research on leadership is vast and
diverse it has, to date, been inconclusive and
often contradictory (Kets de Vries, 1995;
Clemens and Mayer, 1999). The shift from an
obsessive focus on business results and
willingness to accept a re-working of earlier
theories as a part of sensemaking (Weick,
1995), helps to establish an emerging
framework, which appears to facilitate the
learning process and to stimulate new
research.
Research, to date, has shown some
interesting developments when combining
an ``emerging leadership'' perspective with
emotional intelligence. If the thoughts and
research in this paper are borne out, both in
practice and through further research, then
we are potentially facing new challenges in
selecting and developing our new leaders.
However, before dramatic steps are taken it
is important to recognise that the direct
research undertaken to explore and support
the emerging ideas expressed in this paper is
somewhat limited and, potentially, context
specific. Further research is required in
order to explore and test the proposed model
in a rigorous manner.
Implications of a new model
If personality is a significant determinant of
effective leadership then a purely
developmental focus will not contribute
sufficiently to building an organisation's
leadership capability (Hogan and Hogan,
2001). This implies that any approach to
building leadership capability needs to be
underpinned by rigorous and effective
selection procedures.
The skills encompassed within the model
outlined in Figure 1 do not lend themselves to
``traditional'' training interventions. They
require a longer-term developmental
approach combining workshops, coaching
and monitored implementation through work-
based projects. Higgs and Rowland (2000)
reported a study, which demonstrated the
effectiveness of such an approach in the
context of developing change leadership
capability. In the same study they highlighted
Table V
Results of analysis of EIQ versus change leadership competencies emotional intelligence
Change leadership
competencies EI total Self-aware
Emotional
resilience Motivation
Interpersonal
sensitivity Influence Intuitiveness Conscientiousness
Creating the case 0.333 0.388 0.249 0.340 0.298 0.332 0.113 0.306
0.025 0.008 0.100 0.022 0.047 0.026 0.461 0.041
Structural change 0.269 0.461 0.189 0.290 0.362 0.225 0.131 0.208
0.074 0.001 0.214 0.054 0.015 0.138 0.391 0.170
Engagement 0.287 0.326 0.176 0.268 0.346 0.368 0.144 0.317
0.056 0.029 0.246 0.075 0.020 0.013 0.344 0.034
Implementation 0.418 0.455 0.311 0.391 0.381 0.371 0.043 0.279
0.004 0.002 0.038 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.780 0.063
Facilitation 0.333 0.483 0.325 0.308 0.384 0.241 0.162 0.286
0.025 0.001 0.029 0.040 0.009 0.111 0.287 0.056
Overall change 0.377 0.486 0.284 0.367 0.411 0.354 0.134 0.317
competency 0.011 0.001 0.059 0.013 0.005 0.017 0.381 0.034
Note: Bold = statistically significant
Table VI
Development centre competencies
1 Strategic leadership
2 Leading capability building
3 Leading political/stakeholder interface
4 Leading change
5 Intellectual leadership
6 Leading culture building
7 Building relationships and reputation
8 Building personal learning
[ 281]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
the importance of appropriate performance
measures, which go beyond the ``traditional''
financial, or short-termgoal related measures.
Indeed, this is a point, which is reinforced by
Conner (1999). Thus, in addition to selection
and development, the ``emerging'' model of
leadership has implications for organisations
in terms of metrics to track the performance
of leaders. Such metrics may well include
climate studies/employee feedback and
measures of capability development. Without
appropriate metrics the required behaviours
will be unlikely to be reinforced and
developed (Eccles, 1991).
References
Aitken, P. (2002), ``Introduction to leadership'',
presentation for MDC, New Zealand.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995), ``An investigation of
female and male constructs of leadership and
empowerment'', Women in Management
Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 3-8.
Anderson, N., Heriot, P. and Hodgkinson, G.P.
(2001), ``The practitioner researcher divide
in industrial work and organizational (IWO)
psychology: where are we now and where do
we go from here?'', Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4,
pp. 391-412.
Bar-On, R. (2000), ``Emotional and social
intelligence'', in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J.D.A.
(Eds), The Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance
Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York,
NY.
Bass, B.M. (1997), ``Does the transactional-
transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organisational and national
boundaries?'', American Psychologist, Vol. 52,
pp. 130-9.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1996), Postscripts:
Recent Developments for Improving
Organisational Effectiveness, Sage, London.
Bennis, W. (1989), On Becoming a Leader,
Hutchinson, London.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The
Managerial Grid, Gulf, Houston, TX.
Clemens, J.K. and Mayer, D.F. (1999), The Classic
Touch: Lessons in Leadership from Homer to
Hemingway, Contemporary Books, Chicago,
IL.
Collingwood, H. (2001a), ``Leadership's first
commandment: know thyself'', Harvard
Business Review, December, p. 8.
Collingwood, H. (2001b), ``Personal histories'',
Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 27-38.
Collins, J. (2001), ``Level 5 leadership. The
triumph of humility and fierce resolve'',
Figure 3
Revised emerging model of effective leadership
Table VII
Emotional intelligence compared to development centre OAR paired samples test (n = 20)
Paired differences
Paris Mean Standard deviation t Degrees of freedom 2-Tail significance
Self-awareness: OAR 50.72 13.22 21.7 19 0.000
Emotional resilience:
OAR
51.56 13.24 22.03 19 0.000
Motivation: OAR 51.66 13.13 22.25 19 0.000
Sensitivity: OAR 51.72 13.27 22.04 19 0.000
Influence: OAR 51.41 13.34 21.81 19 0.000
Intuitiveness: OAR 52.03 13.40 21.97 19 0.000
Conscientiousness:
OAR
50.99 13.34 21.60 19 0.000
Total EI: OAR 51.44 13.26 21.95 19 0.000
Intra-personal: OAR 51.38 13.21 22.01 19 0.000
Inter-personal: OAR 51.56 13.28 21.97 19 0.000
Figure 2
EIQ-M: inter- and intra-personal components
[ 282]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
Harvard Business Review, January-February,
pp. 67-76.
Conner, D. (1999), Leading at the Edge of Chaos,
John Wiley, New York, NY.
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M.J. and Slaski, M. (2001),
``Emotional intelligence: construct and
concurrent validity'', Henley Working Paper,
01/21.
Dulewicz, S.V.D. and Higgs, M.J. (1999), ``Can
emotional intelligence be measured and
developed?'', Leadership & Organisation
Development, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 242-52.
Dulewicz, S.V.D. and Higgs, M.J. (2000),
``Emotional intelligence: a review an
evaluation study'', Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 341-68.
Dulewicz, V. (1999), ``Emotional intelligence and
corporate leadership'', Inaugural Lecture,
Henley Management College, Henley-on-
Thames, Oxford.
Eccles, R.G. (1991), ``The performance
measurement manifesto'', Harvard Business
Review, January-February, pp. 131-7.
Fiedler, F. (1964), ``A contingency model of
leadership effectiveness'', in Berkowicz, L.
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental and Social
Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Fineman, S. (1997), ``Emotion and management
learning'', Management Learning, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Freud, S. (1927), Civilisation and Its Discontents,
Hogarth Press, London.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2000), ``Why should
anyone be led by you?'', Harvard Business
Review, September-October, pp. 63-70.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2001), ``Followership: it's
personal too'', Harvard Business Review,
December, p. 148.
Goleman, D. (1996), Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury, London.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working With Emotional
Intelligence, Bloomsbury, London.
Goleman, D. (1999), Interview on BBC Radio.
Hatch, M.J. (1999), ``Exploring the empty spaces of
organising: How improvisational jazz helps
re-describe organisational structure'',
Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 75-100.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969), ``Life cycle
theory of leadership'', Training and
Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 26-34.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1993),
Management of Organizational Behavior;
Utilising Human Resources, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Higgs, M.J. and Dulewicz, S.V. (1999), Making
Sense of Emotional Intelligence, NFER-Nelson,
Windsor.
Higgs, M.J. and Dulewicz, S.V. (2000), ``Emotional
intelligence, leadership and culture'', paper
presented at Emotional Intelligence
Conference, London.
Higgs, M.J. and Dulewicz, S.V. (2002), Making
Sense of Emotional Intelligence, 2nd ed.,
NFER-Nelson, Windsor.
Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2000), ``Building
change leadership capability: `The quest for
change competence''', Journal of Change
Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 116-31.
Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2001), ``Developing
change leadership capability. The impact of a
development intervention'', Henley Working
Paper Series, HWP 2001/004.
Hogan, R. (2002), ``Leadership: what do we
know?'', presentation for MDC, Wellington.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Hogan, J. (2002),
``What we know about leadership:
effectiveness and personality'', American
Psychologist, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 493-504.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001), ``Assessing
leadership: a view from the dark side'',
International Journal of Selection and
Development, Vol. 9 No. 1/2, pp. 40-51.
Jay, A. (1967), Management and Machiavelli,
Penguin Books, London.
Kets de Vries, M. (1995), Life and Death in the
Executive Fast Lane, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Kets De Vries, M.R. (1993), Leaders, Fools,
Imposters, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1994), ``The leadership
mystique'', Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 73-5.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. and Florent-Treacy, E.
(2002), ``Global leadership from A to Z:
creating high commitment organsiations'',
Organisation Dynamics, Spring, pp. 295-309
Kotter, J.P. (1990), ``What leaders really do'',
Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 37-60.
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kouzes and Posner (1998), Encouraging the Heart,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
McAlpine, A. (1998), The New Machiavelli, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
McCall, M.W., Lombardo, M.M. and
Morrison, A.M. (1988), Lessons of Experience,
Lexington Press, Lexington, M.A.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), ``Psychological and
implied contracts in organizations'', Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 121-39.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), ``Emotional
intelligence'', Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Shamir, B. (1992), ``Attribution of influence and
charisma to the leader'', Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 386-407.
Slaski, A.M. (2001), ``An investigation into
emotional intelligence'', ``Managerial stress
and performance in a UK supermarket
chain'', unpublished PhD thesis, UMIST,
Manchester.
Slaski, M. (2002), ``Emotional intelligence and the
bottom line'', Competency and Emotional
Intelligence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 18-20.
Ulrich, D. (1997), ``HR of the future: conclusions
and observations'', HR Management, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 175-9.
[ 283]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284
Ulrich, D. (1999), ``HR and the bottom line'', paper
at the CIMD Conference, Blackpool.
Weber, M. (1964), The Theory of Social and
Economic Organisation, Collier-MacMillan,
London.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organisations,
Sage, London.
Williams, M. (2000), The War for Talent, IPD,
London.
Woodruffe, C. (2001), ``Promotional intelligence'',
People Management, Vol. 11 January, pp. 26-29
Zaleanik, A. (1977), ``Managers and leaders: are
they different?'', Harvard Business Review,
March/April, pp. 126-35.
Further reading
Adair, J. (1976), Effective Leadership, Pan Books,
London.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, A. (2001),
``The development of a new transformational
leadership questionnaire'', Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology,
Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Bass, M.B.(1990), Bass and Stodghill Handbook of
Leadership: Theory, Research and
Applications, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bennis, W. (2000), Managing the Dream, Perseus
Publishing, New York, NY.
Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in
Organisations, Sage, Santa Monica, CA.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leaders' Work, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Conger, J.A., and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds) (1988),
Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in
Organisational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
De Pree, M. (1989), Leadership is an Art, Bantam
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Duelwicz, V. and Higgs, M. (1998), ``Emotional
intelligence: soul searching'', People
Management, October.
Fiedler. F. (1967), Theory of Leadership
Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fletcher, C. (1997), ``Self-awareness a neglected
attribute in selection and assessment?'',
International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 183-7.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2001),
``Primal leadership'', Harvard Business
Review, December, pp. 43-51.
Goleman, D. (2000), ``Leadership that gets results'',
Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 78-91.
Heifetz, R.A. and Laurie, D.L. (1997), ``The work of
leadership'', Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 71-97.
Heifetz, R.A. and Laurie, D.L. (2001), ``The work of
leadership'', Harvard Business Review,
pp. 131-40.
Heriot, P. (Ed.) (1989), Assessment and Selection in
Organizations, Wiley, London.
Heriot, P., Manning, W.E.G. and Kidd, J.M. (1997),
``The content of the psychological contract'',
British Journal of Management, Vol. 8,
pp. 151-62.
House, J. (1995), ``Leadership in the twenty-first
century: a speculative inquiry'', in Howard, A.
(Ed.), The Changing Nature of work, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 411-50.
House, R.J. (1976), ``A theory of charismatic
leadership'', In Hunt, J.G. and Larsons, L.L.
(Eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern
Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL,
pp. 189-207.
Kellerman, B. (2001), ``Required reading'', Harvard
Business Review, December, pp. 15-24.
Kotter, J.P. (1994), ``Leading change: why
transformation efforts fail'', Harvard Business
Review, May-June, pp. 11-16.
Levinson, H. (1996), ``The leader as analyser'',
Harvard Business Review, January/
February, pp. 63-70.
Machiavelli, N. (1999), The Prince, (Trans. G. Bull
(1999 ed.)) Penguin Books, London.
McGehee, T. (2001), Whoosh: Business in the Fast
Lane, Perseus Publishing, New York, NY.
Owen, H. (2000), In Search of Leaders, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Skipper, F. and Wilson, C. L. (1991), ``The impact
of managerial behaviours on group
performance, stress and commitment'', paper
presented at the Impact of Leadership
Conference, Centre for Creative Leadership,
Colorado Springs, CO.
Stodghill, R. M. (1948), ``Personal factors
associated with leadership, A survey of
literature'', Journal of Personality, Vol. 25,
pp. 35-71.
Tedlow, R.S. (2001), ``What titans can teach us'',
Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 70-9.
Woodruffe, C. (1990), Assessment Centres, IPD,
London.
Zander, R.S. and Zander, B. (2000)., The Art of
Possibility, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
[ 284]
Malcolm Higgs
How can we make sense of
leadership in the 21st
century?
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/5 [2003] 273-284