The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-8779.htm

Empirical study
Leader effectiveness in emerging of the managers
markets: an empirical study in India
of the managers in India
105
Ajay K. Jain
Department of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, Received 19 June 2013
School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Revised 19 June 2013
Accepted 19 June 2013
Shalini Srivastava
Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, India, and
Sherry E. Sullivan
Department of Management, College of Business,
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to respond to call for the greater study of emotional
intelligence (EI) and leader effectiveness as well as the potential role of EI as a moderating variable in
non-Western countries.
Design/methodology/approach The paper surveyed 352 managers in India in order to examine
the relationship between EI and tolerance of ambiguity (TOA), respectively, and leader effectiveness as
well as the potential moderating effects of EI on the relationship between TOA and leader effectiveness.
Findings The paper found that both EI and TOA were significantly related to leader effectiveness.
Additionally, EI significantly and positively moderated the relationship between TOA and leader
effectiveness.
Research limitations/implications This study was composed of a single survey of a relatively
small number of managers in one region of India. Also, while the paper controlled for some
demographic variables, other factors, such as cognitive ability, which may have influenced the
relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, were not measured.
Originality/value Despite the relative lack of empirical research on EI, it remains a highly popular
topic. This study contributes to research on EI, has implications for the generalizability of EI in Asian
countries, and contributes to an increased understanding of leadership in emerging markets.
Keywords Emerging markets, Leader effectiveness, Emotional intelligence, Tolerance of ambiguity,
Asia
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Practitioners and scholars alike are interested in the potential influence of emotional
intelligence (EI) on leader effectiveness. EI became popular with practitioners after
the publication of Daniel Goldmans, 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence, which was on
The New York Times bestseller list for 18 months and has sold over 5,000,000 copies.
Many Fortune 500 companies have incorporated EI as a key element in their Journal of Technology Management
leadership development programs (Boyatzis et al., 2013; Dries and Pepermans, 2012; in China
Vol. 8 No. 2, 2013
pp. 105-119
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors thank Monica Forret for the insights comments she made on an earlier version of 1746-8779
this paper. DOI 10.1108/JTMC-06-2013-0026
JTMC Kets de Vries, 2012), with some believing that EI accounts for 90 percent of the
8,2 differences between average and star leaders (Walter et al., 2011).
Likewise, academics are increasingly drawn to examining EI, with studies
suggesting that high EI is positively associated with performance, resiliency, health
(Allam, 2011 for a review), psychological well-being (Carmeli et al., 2009; Jain and Sinha,
2005), ability to recruit employees (Boyatzis et al., 2012), positive attitudes toward
106 change (Vakola et al., 2004), work success (Carmeli, 2003), leadership potential (Higgs
and Aitken, 2003), transformational leadership (Sur and Prasad, 2011) and managerial
effectiveness ( Jae, 1997; Shipper et al., 2003). Luthans (2002) and others scholars
(Antonakis et al., 2009; Riggo and Reichard, 2008; Webb, 2009) have underscored the
important role that emotions may play in understanding organizational processes,
emphasizing the need for greater research on emotions in the workplace.
Although EI has been found to be related to a number of positive organizational
outcomes (BarOn, 2004; Jain, 2010; Jordan et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 2008; Sinha and Jain,
2004), studies of EI have produced inconsistent findings (Antonakis et al., 2009;
Cavazotte et al., 2012; Schulte et al., 2004). Despite EIs almost 20 year history and the
important part it may play in workplace issues such as leader effectiveness, relatively
little empirical research has examined EI and only recently has the potential
moderating role of EI been explored. Moreover, EI has been tested almost exclusively
in the USA and other Western countries (for exceptions see Cavazotte et al., 2012;
Hsu et al., 2010), with many raising concerns about its generalizability to non-Western
countries (Harms and Crede, 2010; Ilangovan et al., 2007; Reilly and Karounos, 2009;
Walter et al., 2011), including such emerging markets as India, China, Russia and Brazil
(Ille and Chailan, 2011).
In light of the importance EI may play in the study of leader effectiveness, the
purpose of this study is twofold. First, this study answers calls for increased research
on emotions in the workplace (Antonakis et al., 2009; Luthans, 2002) as well as calls to
examine whether EI moderates the relationship between critical organizational
variables, such as between personality and leadership effectiveness (Douglas et al.,
2004; Prati et al., 2009; Yin, 2010). Specially, this study examines whether EI moderates
the relationship between the personality trait of tolerance for ambiguity and leader
effectiveness. Second, most of the research on EI has been conducted in the USA and
other Western countries. Numerous scholars have called for greater research on the
cross-country generalizability of EI (Reilly and Karounos, 2009; Walter et al., 2011).
Given the increased contributions of emerging markets, beyond those contributions in
pure manufacturing and as a source for labor but also in innovation and development
(Ille and Chailan, 2011), we examine the relationship between EI and the leader
effectiveness of managers in the growing and changing Indian economy (Kumar, 2008).
In terms of power distance, individualism and other cultural factors, India has been
characterized as the archetypical Eastern country as compared to the USA which has
been characterized as the archetypical Western country (Ilangouan et al., 2007). This
study fills a gap in the literature by examining the relationship between EI and leader
effectiveness in India and should contribute to better understanding of whether the
construct is meaningful in India and other Eastern countries, such as China.
Additionally, this study offers an opportunity to further explore the role of leadership
behavior in a non-Western context.
2. Hypotheses development Empirical study
Individuals with high EI are those who: of the managers
.
are aware of and can understand their own emotions; in India
.
are aware and can interpret the emotions of others;
.
can regulate their own emotions; and
.
can use how they experience emotions to react in an effective manner (Mayer and 107
Salovey, 1997; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Wong and Law, 2002).

Scholars have argued that the study of EI is valuable because leadership is embedded in
the social context and thus a leaders EI has important implications for both the leaders
effectiveness as well as the attitudes of his/her subordinates (Wong and Law, 2002).
Drawing from the literatures on social intelligence (Wong and Law, 2002) and
emotions (George, 2000), it is suggested that leaders high in EI are more effective because
they are better able to reduce social conflicts among diverse workers and can gain the
trust and respect of their subordinates (Khalili, 2012). According to George (2000), leaders
with high EI are better able to accomplish the following five major managerial activities:
(1) develop and accomplish shared goals;
(2) encourage followers to recognize the importance of work;
(3) create and maintain subordinates feelings of cooperation, trust, enthusiasm,
optimism, and confidence;
(4) inspire flexibility in decision-making and adaptivity; and
(5) establish and maintain the organizations culture and identity.

A leader high in EI can more successfully navigate the emotional work landscape by
effectively managing him/herself, his/her relationships with others, and the
relationships among his/her subordinates in order to achieve organizational objectives.
Although much of the literature on EI is composed of anecdotal evidence or case studies
(Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000; Rajah et al., 2011), a number of empirical studies have found a
positive relationship between EI and leader effectiveness (Anand and Udaya Suriyan,
2010; Carmeli, 2003; Shipper et al., 2003). For example, Wong and Law (2002) found that the
EI of managers impacts their subordinates job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Similarly Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) found that EI explained 36 percent of
the variance in advancement levels of general managers while Langhorn (2004) reported
that a managers EI was positively related to employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction,
and profit performance. Based upon their review of the literature, Walter et al. (2011)
concluded that individuals with high EI were more likely to emerge as leaders, engage in
transformational leadership behaviors, and be effective leaders. Of the 16 studies
Walter et al. reviewed, 11 studies supported the relationship between EI and a leaders
effectiveness, three provided partial support and two provided no support.
The literature on EI has tended to conceptualize it (Wong and Law, 2002) and
measure it (BarOn, 1997; Goleman, 1998; Mayer and Salovey, 1997) using four
dimensions. Wong and Law propose that the following four aspects of EI: self-emotion
appraisal (SEA), regulation of emotion (ROE), others emotional appraisal (OEA) and
use of emotion (UOE). Following from previous research, in this study we measured EI
as a single construct and also by its four dimensions. Therefore, we propose:
JTMC H1a. EI will have positive relationship with leader effectiveness.
8,2 H1b. The four aspects of EI will have positive relationship with leader
effectiveness.
Relatively few studies have examined the relationship between personality and EI.
For example, Vakola et al. (2004)) reported strong relationships between EI and the
108 Big Five personality variables, especially extraversion and emotional stability. They
also found that EI predicted academic and social success beyond what was predicted
by the Big Five. Higgs (2001) studied the relationship between EI and Myers-Briggs
personality traits, finding that while EI was positively correlated with extraversion
and intuition, surprisingly, it was not correlated with feeling.
Although some studies have examined the relationship between EI and the Big
Five personality variables, we could find no studies of EI and its relationship to the
personality trait of tolerance of ambiguity (TOA). TOA is defined as how an individual
perceives, interprets and reacts to uncertain, complex or unfamiliar situations (Budner,
1962). We would expect that leaders with a high tolerance for ambiguity would be able
to face situations and react with less anxiety, especially in working environments
which are highly complex (Katsaros and Nicolaidis, 2012; Lane and Klenke, 2004;
Lewin and Stephens, 1994; McCormick, 2001; Mitton, 1989) and changing (Judge et al.,
1999). TOA has been positively associated with performance and relationship skills
(Morton et al., 2000), objective and subjective supervisory ratings of job candidates
(Bauer and Truxillo, 2000), a positive attitude towards risk ( Johansson, 2000; Lauriola
and Levin, 2001), creativity (Tegano, 1988), management potential (Sherrill, 2011), and
entrepreneurship (Teoh and Foo, 1997).
Individuals with high TOA should be more effective leaders than those low in TOA
because they should be more comfortable managing in unfamiliar and changing
circumstances. While leaders low in TOA may withdraw from situations that are
unfamiliar or uncertain, when leaders with high TOA encounter uncertainty, they are
likely to face it head on, viewing it as a challenge to be overcome. Following from
previous research, we suggest that:
H2. Tolerance of ambiguity will have a positive relationship with EI.
H3. Tolerance of ambiguity will have a positive relationship with leader
effectiveness.
Although scholars have theorized that EI may be an important moderating variable
that can perhaps explain inconsistent research findings (Jordan et al., 2002), there have
been relatively few studies on the moderating impact of EI on work behaviors (Davis
and Humphrey, 2012; Jain, 2003). EI has been found to moderate the relationship
between variables including surface acting and strain (Prati et al., 2009), negative
emotions and counterproductive work behaviors (Yin, 2010), and work-family conflict
and career commitment (Carmeli, 2003). Douglas et al. (2004) studied the moderating
effect of EI on the conscientiousness-performance relationship. They found that among
workers high in conscientious, those who also had high EI had higher performance
scores than those with low EI. They suggested that EI activates personality traits so
that the traits can in turn influence behavoir. Following from previous research on EI
as a moderating variable, we suggest the following hypotheses:
 H4. EI will positively moderate the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity Empirical study
and leader effectiveness. of the managers
in India
3. Method
3.1 Sample
400 managers were from 30 randomly selected private sector organizations in the 109
New Delhi area of India were asked to complete the survey. The organizations included
banks, firms in the IT sector, and business processing outsourcing organizations. With the
consent of the organizations, one of the authors administered the surveys to managers; the
managers were randomly selected. Several follow-up visits were made to encourage
participation. 352 usable surveys were obtained for a response rate of 88 percent.
53 percent of the sample was men and 55 percent were married. 68 percent of the
respondents was between the ages of 31 and 50, with the remaining respondents being
between 20 and 30 years old. Most of the respondents (56 percent) had between six and
ten years of work experience and most (56 percent) had six or more years of job tenure.
All of the respondents had at least a bachelors degree. 80 percent of the respondents
were in middle management and 20 percent were senior managers.

3.2 Measures
Emotional intelligence. EI was measured using Wong and Law (2002) 16 item scale.
Individuals indicated their responses on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) to respond to items including: I have a good
sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time and I am a good observer of others
emotions. The scale measures the four aspects of EI: SEA self-emotion appraisal
(a 0.92), ROE regulation of emotion (a 0.91); OEA Others emotional appraisal
(a 0.84); UOE use of emotion (a 0.93). The overall EI scale a is 0.82.
Tolerance for ambiguity. TOA was measured using Budner (1962) 16 item scale.
Using a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7),
individuals responded to items such as: Many of our most important decisions are
based upon insufficient information (reversed scored) and Teachers or supervisors
who hand out vague assignments give a chance for one to show initiative and
originality (reversed scored). Individuals with lower scores are more tolerant of and
even enjoy ambiguous situations whereas those with higher score are intolerant of
ambiguity. The scale a is 0.96.
Leader effectiveness. Leader effectiveness was measured using the 45 item scale
developed by Gupta (1996). The scale describes leader behaviors incorporating 16 factors
of effectiveness. Individuals indicate how frequently they engage in a variety of
behaviors using a five-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). Scale items
include: I successfully resolve interpersonal conflicts between subordinates and My
subordinates trust me and depend upon me for support. The scale a is 0.87.
Control variables. Following from previous research (Cooper et al., 1991; Rashed,
2001; Roberts et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1998) we controlled for demographic variables.
Variables controlled for include: gender (coded 0 male, 1 female), age (coded 0
20-30 years, 1 31-40 years, 2 41-50 years), marital status (coded 0 married, 1
unmarried), job tenure (0 1-5 years, 1 6-10 years, 2 11-15 years), and work
experience (coded 0 1-5 years, 1 6-10 years, 2 11-15 years).
JTMC 4. Results
8,2 Before examining the hypotheses, we completed a confirmatory factor analyses for
tolerance for ambiguity, leader effectiveness, and the four dimensions of EI (SEA, ROE,
OEA, UOE) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). The six factor model
appears to fit the data well. The x 2 (X 2 782.32, degrees of freedom (df) 178, p , 0.01.
The adjusted goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.91, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.94,
110 and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) 0.07. The average variance
extracted (AVE) estimates of all the dimensions were above 0.5, indicating adequate
convergent validity. The average variance (AV) for each construct was greater than the
squared factor structural coefficient, indicating discriminant validity. Additionally,
because a single survey was used, we followed common practice (Prati et al., 2009) and
conducted the Harmans one-factor test. The test indicated that no one factor accounted for
most of the variance, suggesting that common method bias was not a problem.
Table I presents the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the study
variables. Supporting H1a and H1b, the relationship between EI and leadership
effectiveness (r 0.42, p , 0.01) and each of the relationships between the four
aspects of EI and leadership effectiveness (SEA: r 0.46, p , 0.01; ROE: r 0.24,
p , 0.01; OEA: r 0.42, p , 0.01; UOE: r 0.36, p , 0.01) were significant and in the
predicted direction. Likewise, the relationship proposed between TOA and EI in H2
was supported (r 0.26, p , 0.01) and the relationship proposed in H3 between TOA
and leadership effectiveness (r 0.38, p , 0.01) was also supported.
H1a, H1b, H3 and H4 were tested using a four step hierarchical regression (Cohen
and Cohen, 1975) where the control variables (i.e. demographics) were entered in the
first step, followed by the main effects of TOA on leader effectiveness in the second
step. Next, EI and its dimensions (SEA, ROE, OEA and UOE) were added in the
equation in the third step. The interaction term was then added in as the final step.
Table II shows the results for the regression analysis. In the first step, we entered
the demographic variables. As expected, none of the demographic variables were
significantly related to leader effectiveness. In step 2, TOA was entered. In support of
H3, TOA was positively and significantly related to leader effectiveness, F 2.26
(2,349), p , 0.01, R 2 0.12. In the third step, EI was entered. In support of H1a, EI
was positively and significantly related to leader effectiveness, F 3.22 (2,349),
p , 0.01, R 2 0.53. In support of H1b, all four aspects of EI were positively and
significantly related to leader effectiveness. In the final step, the interaction effect
between TOA and EI was entered. Supporting H4, the interaction of TOA and EI was
significant, F 3.27 (3,348), p , 0.01, R 2 0.90, indicating that EI moderated the
relationship between TOA and leadership effectiveness.

5. Discussion
In this study, we found that TOA was significantly related to leader effectiveness.
Individuals who have a high TOA are less likely to shy away from an uncertain or
complex situation. Instead, individual with high TOA may see uncertain situations as
an opportunity for exploration and experimentation; they are able to effectively
manage despite the vague or unknown environmental factors. Our findings are in line
with previous studies which suggest that TOA may be a critical skill for making
high-quality organizational decisions in complex environments (Lewin and Stephens,
1994; McCormick, 2001; Mitton, 1989).
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Leader effectiveness 42.16 4.36 0.87

2. Tolerance of ambiguity 62.44 1.26 0.38 * * 0.96
3. Emotional intelligence 3.92 0.48 0.42 * * 0.26 * * 0.82
4. Self-emotion appraisal 3.86 0.58 0.46 * * 0.63 * * 0.44 * * 0.92
5. Regulation of emotion 3.69 0.64 0.24 * * 0.56 * * 0.48 * 0.36 * * 0.91
6. Other emotion appraisal 3.67 0.62 0.42 * * 0.39 * * 0.28 * * 0.32 * * 0.32 * * 0.84
7. Use of emotion 3.58 0.67 0.36 * * 0.19 * 0.35 * * 0.28 * * 0.32 * * 0.42 * * 0.93
Notes: Significant at: *p , 05 and * *p , 01; n 352

and intercorrelations
Empirical study

in India
of the managers

of the variables
Means, SD,
111

Table I.
JTMC
Variables b DR 2 DF
8,2
Step 1
Control variables 0.02 0.52
Gender 0.01
Marital status 0.06
112 Age 0.07
Work experience 0.12
Job tenure 0.18
Step 2
Tolerance for ambiguity (TOA) 0.49 * 0.11 * 2.26
Step 3
Self-emotion appraisal (SEA) 0.46 * 0.23 * 3.14
Regulation of emotions (ROE) 0.24 * 0.08 * 2.16
Others emotional appraisal (OEA) 0.42 * 0.06 * 2.04
Use of emotion (UOE) 0.36 * 0.04 * 3.08
Overall EI 0.52 * 0.12 * 3.22
Step 4
SEA*TOA 1.44 * 0.31 * 3.14
ROE*TOA 0.96 * 0.10 * 1.32
OEA*TOA 1.24 * 0.11 * 2.36
Table II. OUE*TOA 0.84 * 0.08 * 1.34
Hierarchical regression Overall EI*TOA 2.12 * 0.30 * 3.72
analysis for leadership
effectiveness Note: Significant at: *p , 0.01

Likewise, we found EI was significantly related to leader effectiveness. Individuals

high in EI, who are more aware of their own emotions and the emotions of others while
also being able to successfully interpret and use this information, should be better able
to have quality relationships with coworkers and subordinates. Individuals with high
EI may make better decisions because they are more self-aware and are more aware of
the environment and the people in the work environment. Our finding supports
previous research which suggests that EI contributes to leader success (Carmeli, 2003;
Goleman, 1998; Sosik and Megerian, 1999).
This study also found that EI moderates the relationship between TOA and leader
effectiveness. It appears that EI enhances the leadership effectiveness of those high in
TOA. Leaders who are high in TOA are already comfortable making decisions and
managing in work environments which are complex, changing or uncertain. These high
TOA leaders are even more effective if they can also successfully interpret and use the
information derived from being aware of their own emotions and the emotions of others.
The findings of this study have several practical implications for improving leader
effectiveness. First, organizations may consider placing individuals in job positions
based upon their TOA. For instance, managers with high TOA may be more successful
in complex situations, such as expatriate assignments or in dealing with rapidly
changing markets, whereas managers with low TOA may be better placed in more
routine and stable work environments. Likewise, individuals who are high in EI could be
placed in situations which call for managing conflicting personalities and emotions,
such as union negotiations or helping with outplacements (this phrase, helping with
outplacements, is unclear), or dealing with diverse customers or subordinates. Second,
organizations can also test managers levels of TOA and EI and use this information for
training purposes. For those managers with low TOA, training can be used to help these Empirical study
individuals develop tactics for effectively managing in the face of uncertainty. Similarly, of the managers
organizations can implement training programs to develop the EI of its leaders.
in India
6. Study limitations and directions for future research
Like much of the research in our field, this study has several limitations and its results
should be considered in light of these limitations. First, this study is based upon a 113
single survey and may suffer from common method variance. In an effort to determine
whether common method variance was a problem, we did complete a Harman test. The
results of the Harman test suggested that common method variance was not a problem
in this study. Moreover, recent examinations of common method variance suggest that
concerns about the its presence and effects have been overstated (Conway and Lance,
2010; Meade et al., 2007, for discussions). In conducting future studies, scholars should
gather data from multiple sources in order to reduce the possibility of common method
variance. Second, while we controlled for some demographic variables in our analysis,
we did not control for other variables which may have been relevant. For instance,
some (Harms and Crede, 2010) have argued that it is especially important to control for
the impact of cognitive intelligence when studying EI. While a recent meta-analysis by
OBoyle et al. (2011) found that EI explained variance in performance which was above
that explained by cognitive ability, scholars still need to make careful use of relevant
control variables when studying EI. Third, this study examined a relative small sample
of managers working in the New Delhi region of India. In the future, scholars should
survey a larger number of managers and should survey individuals across the different
regions of India in order to account for potential regional differences.
In addition to the future research directions suggested by the limitations of this
study, we offer three major recommendations for future research based upon this
studys findings. First, unlike much of the EI literature which is based upon anecdotal
evidence or case studies (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000; Rajah et al., 2011), this study
provides empirical support for the relationship between EI and leader effectiveness.
Also, this study joins the small number of studies that have examined the potential
moderating role of EI. Future empirical research should be conducted on EI and on EIs
potential role as a moderating variable.
Second, while studies have been conducted on the importance of personality factors
in predicting leadership among nascent entrepreneurs in Chinese and American
context (Singer and Millage, 2013), there is relatively little research on leadership
effectiveness in Asia. In emerging countries, however, it is especially important to
understand what factors may influence leader outcomes. In one of the few studies on
leadership in India, Jain (2012) examined CEOs leadership behavior in Indian private
and public sector organizations. He found that successful CEOs possesses four
behavioral qualities namely, strategic vision (looking into the future), people and
culture development (aligning the resources), an evolved self (confidence and courage)
and focus on performance excellence (ambitious goals). The findings of this study and
Jains previous research underscore the importance of examining the critical role of
psychological qualities, like EI and tolerance of ambiguity, on leader effectiveness and
emphasize the need for further research on this topic.
Third, more research on the cross-cultural generalizability of EI is needed, especially
in emerging markets. Because of differences in cultural factors, such as power distance,
JTMC time orientation and individualism, it has been suggested that findings from Western
8,2 studies may not be transferable to India (Ilangouan, et al., 2007 for a discussion) and
other Asian countries (Hsu et al., 2010). The findings of our study of EI and leadership
effectiveness in India, however, are in line with previous research conducted in the USA.
Further research is needed which measures cultural factors to determine the extent of
these potential differences between India and the Western countries. Additionally,
114 country-specific factors such as guanxi in China (kinship ties and connections which
promote ones willingness to help another), which may also influence the relationship
between EI and leadership effectiveness, should be studied.

7. Conclusions
This study examined the relationship between TOA, EI and leader effectiveness. Using a
sample of managers in India, we found that TOA and EI, respectively, were significantly
related to leader effectiveness. We also found that EI moderated the relationship between
TOA and EI. The findings of this study make two contributions to the research on EI and
leadership effectiveness. First, this study answers calls for more research on EI,
specifically on EI as a moderating variable (Prati et al., 2009; Yin, 2010). This study
suggests EI moderates the relationship between the personality factor of TOA and leader
effectiveness. Thus, a manager who has high TOA should be a more effective leader if
he/she also has high EI. Second, this study contributes to a better understanding of the
cross-cultural generalizability of the EI construct. While previous research on EI has been
completely almost exclusively in Western countries, our study examines EI in India. This
study suggests that EI may be a valuable construct to study in India as well as other
Asian countries. We hope this study encourages greater research on the generalizability
of Western theories, such as EI and leader effectiveness, in other countries.

References
Allam, Z. (2011), Emotional intelligence at workplace: a psychological review, Global
Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 71-80.
Anand, R. and Udaya Suriyan, G. (2010), Emotional intelligence and its relationship with
leadership practices, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 65-76.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Dasborough, M.T. (2009), Does leadership need emotional
intelligence?, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 247-261.
BarOn, R. (1997), The Emotional Quotient Inventory EQ-i: Technical Manual, Multi Health
Systems, Toronto.
BarOn, R. (2004), Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the emotional quotient
inventory (EQ-I), in BarOn, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (Eds), Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bauer, T.N. and Truxillo, D.M. (2000), Temp-to-permanent employees: a longitudinal study
stress and selection success, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 337-346.
Boyatzis, R.E., Good, D. and Massa, R. (2012), Emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence and
personality as predictors of sales leadership performance, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 191-201.
Boyatzis, R.E., Smith, M.L., Van Oosten, E. and Woolford, L. (2013), Developing resonant leaders
through emotional intelligence, vision and coaching, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 42,
pp. 17-24.
Budner, S. (1962), Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable, Journal of Personality, Empirical study
Vol. 30, pp. 29-50.
Carmeli, A. (2003), The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
of the managers
behavior and outcomes: an examination among senior managers, Journal of Managerial in India
Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 788-813.
Carmeli, A., Yitzhak-Halevy, M. and Weisberg, J. (2009), The relationship between emotional
intelligence and psychological well-being, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, 115
pp. 66-78.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V. and Hickmann, M. (2012), Effects of leader intelligence, personality
and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 443-455.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1975), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 25,
pp. 325-334.
Cooper, C.L., Kirkaldy, B.D. and Brown, J. (1991), A model of job stress and physical health:
the role of individual differences, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 653-655.
Davis, S.K. and Humphrey, N. (2012), Emotional intelligence as a moderator of stressor mental
health relations in adolescence: evidence for specificity, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 100-105.
Douglas, C., Frink, D.D. and Ferris, G.R. (2004), Emotional intelligence as a moderator of the
relationship between conscientiousness and performance, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 2-13.
Dries, N. and Pepermans, R. (2012), How to identify leadership potential: development and
testing of a consensus model, Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 361-385.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2000), Emotional intelligence a review and evaluation study,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 341-372.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2003), Leadership at the top: the need for emotional intelligence in
organizations, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 193-210.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25, pp. 186-192.
Goleman, D. (1998), What makes a leader, Harvard Business Review, November/December,
pp. 93-102.
Gupta, S. (1996), Managerial effectiveness: conceptual framework and scale development,
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 392-409.
Harms, P.D. and Crede, M. (2010), Emotional intelligence and transformational and
transactional leadership: a meta-analysis, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Higgs, J. and Aitken, P. (2003), An exploration of the relationship between emotional intelligence
and leadership potential, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 814-823.
Higgs, M. (2001), Is there a relationship between the Myers-Briggs type indicator and emotional
intelligence?, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
JTMC Hsu, B.F., Chen, W.Y., Wang, M.L. and Lin, Y.Y. (2010), Explaining supervisory support to
work-family conflict: the perspectives of guanxi LMX, and emotional intelligence, Journal
8,2 of Technology Management in China, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 40-54.
Ilangovan, A., Scroggins, W.A. and Rozell, E.J. (2007), Managerial perspectives on emotional
intelligence differences between India and the United States: the development of research
propositions, International Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 541-549.
116 Ille, F.R. and Chailan, C. (2011), Improving global competitiveness with branding strategy: cases
of Chinese and emerging countries firms, Journal of Technology Management in China,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 84-96.
Jae, J.H. (1997), Emotional intelligence and cognitive ability as predictors of job performance
in the banking sector, unpublished Masters thesis, Abstract, available at: www.
emotionalintelligencemhs.Com/EI (accessed February 4, 2005).
Jain, A.K. (2003), Essence and consequences of organizational citizenship behaviour: the role
self-management, emotional intelligence and impression management, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur, available at: www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol13/no2/jain_
article_1.pdf
Jain, A.K. (2010), The impact of emotional intelligence on self-rated performance and
self-efficacy perception, in Pandey, J., Sinha, T.N. and Sinha, A.K.s (Eds), Dialogue for
Development, Concept Publications, Redmond, WA, pp. 167-180.
Jain, A.K. (2012), Leadership for performance excellence: an Indian experience, paper was
presented at the 30th International Congress of Psychology Conference, Capetown,
South Africa, July 22-27.
Jain, A.K. and Sinha, A.K. (2005), General health in organizations: relative relevance of
emotional intelligence, trust and organizational support, International Journal of Stress
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 257-273.
Johansson, E. (2000), Self-employment and liquidity constraints-evidence from Finland,
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 102, pp. 123-134.
Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Ascough, K.W. (2007), Emotional intelligence in
organizational behaviour and industrial-organizational psychology, in Matthews, G.,
Zeinder, M. and Roberts, R.D. (Eds), The Science of Emotional Intelligence: Knowns and
Unknowns, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 356-375.
Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Hartel, C.E.J. (2002), Emotional intelligence as a moderator of
emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 361-372.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T.M. (1999), Managerial coping with
organizational change: a dispositional perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84
No. 1, pp. 107-122.
Katsaros, K. and Nicolaidis, C.S. (2012), Personal traits, emotions, and attitudes in the
workplace: their effect on managers tolerance of ambiguity, The Psychologist-Manager
Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 37-55.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2012), Star performers, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 41, pp. 173-182.
Khalili, A. (2012), The role of emotional intelligence in the workplace: a literature review,
International Journal of Management, Vol. 29, pp. 355-370.
Kumar, N. (2008), Internationalization of Indian enterprises: patterns, strategies,
ownership advantages, and implications, Asian Economic Policy Review, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 242-261.
Lane, M.S. and Klenke, K. (2004), The ambiguity tolerance interface: a modified social cognitive Empirical study
model for leading under uncertainty, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 69-81. of the managers
Langhorn, S. (2004), How emotional intelligence can improve management performance, in India
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 Nos 4/5, pp. 220-230.
Lauriola, M. and Levin, I.P. (2001), Relating individual differences in attitude toward ambiguity
to risky choices, Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, Vol. 14, pp. 107-122. 117
Lewin, A. and Stephens, C.U. (1994), CEO attitudes as determinants of organization design:
an integrated model, Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 183-212.
Luthans, F. (2002), Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological
strengths, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16, pp. 57-72.
McCormick, M.J. (2001), Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: applying social cognitive
theory to leadership, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 22-33.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), What is emotional intelligence?, in Salovey, P. and
Sluyter, D. (Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implication for
Educators, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-31.
Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D. and Barsade, S.G. (2008), Human abilities: emotional intelligence,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 507-536.
Meade, A.W., Watson, A. and Kroustalis, C.M. (2007), Assessing common methods bias in
organizational research, paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY, April.
Mitton, D.G. (1989), The complete entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 13,
pp. 9-19.
Morton, K.R., Worthley, J.S., Nitch, S.R., Lamberton, H.H., Loo, L.K. and Testerman, J.K. (2000),
Integration of cognition and emotion: a postformal operations model of physician-patient
interaction, Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 7, pp. 151-160.
OBoyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M., Hawver, T.H. and Story, P.A. (2011), The relation
between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 788-818.
Prati, L.M., McMillan-Capehart, A. and Karriker, J.H. (2009), Affecting organizational identity,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 404-415.
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.
Rashed, A.A. (2001), The effect of personal characteristics on job satisfaction: a study among
male managers in the Kuwait oil industry, International Journal of Commerce and
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 91-111.
Reilly, A.H. and Karounos, T.J. (2009), Exploring the link between emotional intelligence and
cross-cultural leadership effectiveness, Journal of International Business and Cultural
Studies, available at: www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08134.pdf
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.
Roberts, J.A., Lapidus, R.A. and Chonko, L.B. (1997), Salesperson and stress: the moderating role
of locus of control on work stressors and felt stress, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 53, pp. 93-108.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), Emotional intelligence imagination, Cognition and
Personality, Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
JTMC Schulte, M.J., Ree, M.J. and Carretta, T.R. (2004), Emotional intelligence: not much more than g
and personality, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1059-1068.
8,2
Sherrill, W.W. (2011), Tolerance of ambiguity among MD/MBA students: implications for
management potential, The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Profession,
Vol. 21, pp. 117-122.
Shipper, F., Joel, K., Rotondo, D.M. and Hoffman, R.C. (2003), A cross-cultural exploratory study
118 of the linkage between emotional intelligence and managerial effectiveness, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 171-191.
Singer, L. and Millage, P. (2013), The interaction of leadership and personality among Chinese
and American nascent entrepreneurs, Journal of Technology and Management in China,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 44-54.
Sinha, A.K. and Jain, A.K. (2004), Emotional intelligence: imperatives for organizationally
relevant outcome variables, Psychological Studies, Vol. 49 Nos 2/3, pp. 81-96.
Smith, P.L., Stanley, S.J. and Frank, H. (1998), Employee work attitudes: the subtle influence of
gender, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 649-667.
Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L. (1999), Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-390.
Sur, V. and Prasad, V.M. (2011), Relationship between self-awareness and transformational
leadership: a study in IT industry, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 7-17.
Tegano, D.W. (1988), Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 66, pp. 1047-1056.
Teoh, H.Y. and Foo, S.L. (1997), Moderating effects of tolerance for ambiguity and risk taking
propensity on the role conflict-perceived performance relationship: evidence from
Singaporean entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 67-81.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I. and Nikolaou, I. (2004), The role of emotional intelligence and
personality variables on attitudes toward change, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 88-110.
Walter, F., Cole, M.S. and Humphrey, R.H. (2011), Emotional intelligence: sine qua non of
leadership or folderol?, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Webb, K.S. (2009), Why emotional intelligence should matter to management: a survey of the
literature, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 74, pp. 32-41.
Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002), The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: an exploratory study, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 243-274.
Yin, L.C. (2010), Emotional intelligence as a moderator in the relationship between negative
emotions and counterproductive work behaviours, A Project Submitted to the School of
Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, available at: http://libproject.hkbu.
edu.hk/trsimage/hp/07016379.pdf

Further reading
Newsome, S., Day, A.L. and Catano, V.M. (2000), Assessing the predictive validity of emotional
intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 29, pp. 1005-1016.
Van Der Zee, K., Thijs, M. and Schakel, L. (2002), The relationship of emotional intelligence with
academic intelligence and the big five, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 16,
pp. 103-125.
Wright, D. and Thomas, J. (1982), Role strain among school psychologists in the midwest,
Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 24-33.
About the authors Empirical study
Ajay K. Jain is working in School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark. Prior
to this, he has worked in Management Development Institute Gurgaon, India as Associate Professor of the managers
in the area of organizational behaviour. He earned a PhD in organizational behaviour from Indian in India
Institute of Technology Kanpur and was a post-doctoral fellow at Indian School of Business,
Hyderabad. His area of research interests are emotional intelligence, distributed leadership,
volunteerism, organizational citizenship behaviour and employees well-being and teaching interests
include leadership and organization design. He has published 30 research articles on various such 119
themes in peer-reviewed journals. He is widely travelled across all major continents and presented 17
articles in top international conferences. He is a recipient of Best Paper Award of National Academy
of Psychology, India and Emeralds award of excellence for a paper published in Facilities.
Shalini Srivastava, PhD, is working as an Associate Professor (OB&HR) in Jaipuria Institute
of Management, Noida. Her research papers are published in reputed refereed Indian journals
like Paradigm, Vision, Metamorphosis, Management and Labor Studies, Management & Change.
She is also the reviewer of various referred journals, Vikalpa, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People Republic
of China, International Journal of Business Research and Management, Malaysia, Asia Pacific
Business Review. Her research interests include emotional intelligence, managerial effectiveness,
personality and role stress.
Sherry E. Sullivan, PhD, The Ohio State University, is co-creator of the Kaleidoscope Career
Model and co-editor of the edited book, Winning Reviews, which is a guide to writing effective
reviews. Her research interests include career theory as well as global career and human resource
management topics including international mentoring. She has published in the Journal of
International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Career
Development International, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. Sherry E. Sullivan is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: ssulliv@bgsu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints