STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP - Essay Example

? STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP by 18 March Strategic Leadership Introduction The latter half of the 20th century witnessed the rapid surge in interest toward the effects of gender and emotional intelligence on leadership styles. With the broad movement towards gender equity in organizations and the growing role of multiple intelligences in the analysis of organizational transformations, leadership style became one of the most important and interesting objects of gender and EI analysis. At the beginning of the 20th century, IQ tests had been considered as the most valid measure of individual intelligence and potential to achieve success in life (Mandell & Pherwani 2003). However, IQ could not reflect the emotional and situational factors of leadership success (Mandell & Pherwani 2003). Today, research of how emotional intelligence and gender affect leadership styles is gaining momentum in organization studies and industrial psychology. More often than not, emotionally intelligent leaders are believed to possess an inherent capacity to perform better and transform the organization. Gender is claimed to predetermine the choice of particular leadership style. However, both assumptions have their strengths and limitations. Emotional intelligence and leadership styles That emotional intelligence (EI) and leadership style create a cohesive relationship has been widely documented. The body of empirical and theoretical literature examining the effects of EI on leadership style constantly expands. Emotionally intelligent leaders are generally considered to be happier than their non-emotional colleagues (Gardner & Stough 2002). Emotionally intelligent leaders are associated with greater workplace and organizational commitments and are believed to have emotions needed to improve the quality of decision making in organizations (Gardner & Stough 2002). Emotions have the potential to boost enthusiasm in followers and contribute to the development of sustained interpersonal relationships (Gardner & Stough 2002). These are the most popular claims highlighting the relationship between leaders and their emotions; but is everything as good as it seems? Generally, researchers recognize that EI does affect leadership styles. Of particular importance is the relationship between EI and transformational leadership (Mandell & Pherwani 2003). Really, transformational leaders usually display a greater extent of emotions than non-transformational leaders, and this fact has far-reaching implications for the effectiveness of their leadership decisions. EI enables transformational leaders to develop and articulate enthusiasm for the vision and mission (Mandell & Pherwani 2003). Emotions contribute to the development of charisma in leaders (Mandell & Pherwani 2003). Emotional leaders have better opportunities to develop trust and commitment among their followers. It is no wonder that EI is mainly associated with transformations and transformational leadership styles. Leaders who score high on emotional intelligence scale usually display better emotional recognition and expression that non-emotional leaders (Gardner & Stough 2002). They can easily identify their feelings and express these feelings to others. EI leaders have a capacity to incorporate their emotions in decision making and use these emotions for the benefit of their organization. In other words, emotionally intelligent leaders can use their emotions to direct and guide their cognition (Gardner & Stough 2002). Emotional intelligence greatly influences leadership style, because emotionally intelligent leaders can read other people’s emotions, identify and interpret them; more often than not, it is transformational leaders that accomplish this emotional job (Gardner & Stough 2002). Emotionally intelligent leaders also possess good emotional control and can manage their own and others’ positive and negative emotions (Gardner & Stough 2002). The main question is in whether the EI-leadership relationship is strong and what theoretical models (if any) can explain this relationship. Objectively, the amount of information on the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership style is rather scarce. Nevertheless, the EI-leadership relationship is claimed to be strong (Judge, Colbert & Ilies 2004). Theoretically, there are several important reasons why intelligence (and EI, in particular) could be related to leadership. First, intelligence is directly related to the quality of job performance: the higher the intelligence, the better workplace performance is (Judge, Colbert & Ilies 2004). Second, effective leaders need solid intelligence, including emotional intelligence, to manage their complex tasks (Judge, Colbert & Ilies 2004). Third, EI predisposes leaders’ capacity to obtain, process and store large volumes of information. Fourth, leaders fulfill numerous functions and have numerous obligations, and EI is one of the main criteria by which leaders choose the best way to cope with these functions and obligations. EI predetermines the choice of leadership styles, and transformational leadership is the most frequent product of EI leaders. Transformational leaders usually motivate their followers to act beyond their capacity, which is virtually impossible without emotions and enthusiasm (Gardner & Stough 2002). Emotions inspire, and it is through emotions that transformational leaders motivate their followers to work towards common organizational goals. EI is related to transformational leadership, because transformational leaders are expected to raise organizational and individual awareness of change against rationality and narrow self-interests (Gardner & Stough 2002). Again, the success of all these processes largely depends on how well leaders can invoke, manage and control their emotions. The more emotional leaders the more likely they are to choose transformational leadership styles (Gardner & Stough 2002). Transformational leaders use emotional knowledge and capacities to take organizational decisions and manage others’ negative and positive reactions (Gardner & Stough 2002). By contrast, laissez-faire leadership styles and EI are poorly related: laissez-faire leaders are characterized by high levels of avoidance and, for this reason, do not express their own and do not care about others’ emotions. The deficits in emotional intelligence are closely related to laissez-faire leadership styles (Gardner & Stough 2002). Unemotional leaders do not seek dramatic transformations and do not inspire their followers. They keep to the if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it philosophy and do not deal with organizational problems, until they become truly serious. However, it is at least incorrect to say that EI and leadership styles are perfectly related. Organizations are never perfect, and various factors can potentially mediate the effects of EI on leadership styles. For example, Judge, Colbert and Ilies (2004) suggest that the level of stress in leaders changes the nature of the EI-leadership relationship. Under the influence of high stress levels and leaders’ directive behaviors, the relationship between EI and leadership styles weakens (Judge, Colbert & Ilies 2004). Leader experience and followers’ support may also change the quality of the EI-leadership relationship. For example, a leader may score high on emotional intelligence but choose a laissez-faire style of leadership, as long as it is approved by the followers. Looking at the construction industry, the relationship between EI and leadership is determined not by the quality and scope of EI in leaders but by the organizational conditions in which most construction businesses currently operate (Butler & Chinowski 2006). Historically, leaders in the construction industry did not have to possess empathy, as long as the construction industry was an industry of “low bidder wins”, and leaders simply did not need to address the issue of emotions in the workplace (Butler & Chinowski 2006). Again, in the construction industry, interpersonal relationships never played a role: what mattered was the price offered or requested by subcontractors (Butler & Chinowski 2006). As a result, even the most emotional leaders had to conceal their EI and adjust to the tough conditions of construction industry performance. Eventually, the current state of research raises the question of whether at all emotional intelligence can serve a reliable measure of leadership styles, choices and decisions. It is possible to assume that leaders represent a unique cohort of talented people, whose emotional intelligence, and intelligence in general, is higher than that among their followers (Judge, Colbert & Ilies 2004). Furthermore, high levels of EI in leaders automatically imply that such leaders are high on emotions. The latter, however, can hardly be good for leaders. Not that leaders should totally ignore their own and others’ emotional states, but they commonly do not need special emotional capabilities to detect the good from the bad (Antonakis 2004). Some researchers claim that increased emotional intelligence in leaders has negative consequences for the quality of teams’ performance (Antonakis 2004). Others believe that great leaders, transformational and charismatic, do not need to be high on EI in order to generate and sustain affective links with followers (Antonakis 2004). To a large extent, there is no reason why leaders should be extremely emotional about their mission, vision and goals. There is no reason why leaders should be extremely emotional about their followers. Yet, even if EI is taken as a serious factor of leadership choices in organizations, numerous environmental and contextual influences have to be considered. What looks good in one culture may not look good in another culture (Antonakis 2004). In other words, the quality of the EI-leadership relationship may vary across cultures. It is no secret that some cultures favor emotional attitudes and charisma, whereas others emphasize modesty and emotional control. On the other side of this dilemma is how followers perceive the presence of absence of EI in their leaders. Weinberger (2003) did not find any changes in subordinates’ perceptions of the EI-leadership relationship. Most probably, emotions are the last thing followers care about in their relations with leaders. Therefore, it is at least incorrect to say that EI matters everywhere and always. Although emotions do have the potential to predetermine the effectiveness of particular leadership styles, individual differences should be also considered. Gender and leadership styles While EI and leadership styles require further analysis, the relationship between gender and leadership styles has been explored in abundance. Despite the growing body of literature, this relationship is not without controversy. To begin with, gender does affect the choice of leadership styles, and the relationship between leadership styles and gender looks stronger than that between emotional intelligence and leadership. In recent years, many researchers have addressed the topic of gender and leadership styles, and it has been concluded that women tend to adopt a more democratic and participative leadership style than men (Eagly & Johnson 1990). This is the strongest evidence ever obtained in empirical studies (Eagly & Johnson 1990). Unlike women, men are more likely to be autocratic and authoritative in their leadership decisions (Eagly & Johnson 1990). Men are usually more directive than women (Eagly & Johnson 1990). Possible reason why gender predetermines differences in leadership styles is because men and women taking leadership positions within the organizations are not equivalent in their behavioral and personality characteristics. Differences in men and women’s social skills ensure the existence of considerable differences in how men and women cope with their leadership obligations (Eagly & Johnson 1990). Since women tend to rely on interpersonal relationships and behaviors, they also prefer participative leadership styles that engage their subordinates and empower their followers to participate in decision making processes. Women are open to and welcome the interpersonal complexity inherent in democratic and participative leadership styles – this complexity is unachievable in autocracy (Eagly & Johnson 1990). Women have an inherent capacity to decode emotions and nonverbal cues and, in this sense, they also suggest the existence of a complex link between gender, leadership styles, and emotional intelligence. Implied in the current research is the assumption that sex differences predispose the choices women and men make in terms of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. According to Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and Engen (2003), “the overall male-female comparisons on transformational leadership and its subscales and on the Contingent reward subscale of transactional leadership show significantly higher scores among women than men” (p.583). Simply put, women prefer transformational leadership styles, whereas men are mostly transactional. Men tend to be high on Management by Exception scores (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & Engen 2003). All these explanations have a number of theoretical explanations. The theoretical landscape characterizing gender differences in leadership styles is vast and abundant. The most popular theoretical explanations of gender differences in leadership can be generally divided into the four different categories. First, the growing body of research suggests that gender affects leadership styles because men and women are biologically different (Appelbaum, Audet & Miller 2003). This body of research treats the leadership construct as biologically determined (Appelbaum, Audet & Miller 2003). In this context, male leaders are often considered to be more effective leaders than women. However, these assumptions lack empirical support, as it is virtually impossible to reinterpret the meaning of leadership in biological terms. This is probably why the proponents of biological theories change the direction of their thoughts and switch to assert that men and women are similar, both in terms of leadership and in terms of biology (Appelbaum, Audet & Miller 2003). Again, evidence supporting this hypothesis is extremely scarce. Moreover, the broad movement towards gender equity reduces the validity of biological assumptions, due to their prejudice and bias. Most biological theories treat women as incapable of being good leaders and, for this reason, cannot serve a relevant explanation to gender differences in leadership styles. Bearing in mind the overall weakness of the biological explanation, researchers are trying to explain gender differences in leadership by means of gender roles. Gender roles are typically male and typically female behaviors which, eventually, give or not give rise to leadership styles and abilities. Again, the gender role explanation stereotypically treats men as more capable of being good leaders than women (Appelbaum, Audet & Miller 2003). From the perspective of women, androgyny is a preferable element of effective leadership, although the emergence of various leadership styles does not deny the presence and possession of feminine characteristics (Appelbaum, Audet & Miller 2003). However, women, too, can be androgynous, and it is at least incorrect to say that women cannot be good leaders simply because they are women. However, here, the assumption that androgynous women have better chances to become effective leaders comes in conflict with everything that has been said about emotional intelligence and leadership. The presence of androgyny automatically excludes the possibility of scoring high on emotional intelligence among women. Women can be either emotional or androgynous. The presence of two mutually exclusive characteristics in women is problematic (although not quite impossible). Most probably, it is the gender role explanation of leadership styles and not the emotional intelligence explanation that is misleading. Environmental factors and socialization patterns may play a role in how women and men choose leadership styles and develop their leadership capacities. Even in the age of gender equity, women are still taught to play minor, subordinate social and professional roles (Appelbaum, Audet & Miller 2003). As a result, women tend to internalize the so-called second class attitudes and beliefs, coupled with poor self-confidence and the lack of power to become good leaders (Appelbaum, Audet & Miller 2003). Again, the growing number of women-leaders, especially transformational women-leaders, suggests that socialization patterns offer a weak explanation to gender differences in leadership. Even if women are more likely to choose democratic and transformational leadership styles than men, these differences are empirically too small to be significant (Eagly & Johnson 1990; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & Engen 2003). The relationship between gender and leadership styles is as problematic as that between emotional intelligence and leadership. Moreover, the results of recent empirical studies suggest that the relationship between gender and leadership is much more complex than previously established (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001). Most studies and their results are gender-stereotypic (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001). Gender roles produce only moderate influences on leadership styles and choices (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001). Again, as in case with emotional intelligence, culture plays a significant role in how gender and leadership styles interact. Societies differ in their cultural and gender practices, and they also differ in their attitudes and practices in leadership. For example, Norwegians and Swedes exhibit high levels of cultural femininity and foster collective models of leadership, whereas cultures in the United States and Australia emphasize individuality and self-care (Gibson 1995). For this reason, leadership features of men and women in Sweden and Norway are quite similar, whereas in the U.S. and Australia gender differences in leaders are much more pronounced (Gibson 1995). Therefore, the quality of the gender-leadership relationship is highly dependent on the culture in which this relationship occurs. Another aspect of the gender-leadership relationship is emotion or, more specifically, emotional intelligence. Surprising as it may seem, emotional intelligence, leadership and gender create a triangle of interrelationships which produce complex influences on the quality of organizational performance. In different cultures, women experience different pressures to achieve the desired level of authentic leadership (Eagly 2005). The amount of emotional labor placed on women as they are moving towards their leadership goals varies considerably across organizational contexts and environments (Eagly 2005). Again, leadership capacities and characteristics are too unique to be systematized and categorized. Gender and emotional intelligence produce minor influences on leadership styles, although their importance should not be disregarded. Objectively, every person, regardless of emotional intelligence or gender, can develop and improve their leadership capabilities, and neither the lack of emotional intelligence nor female/ male gender can become a solid barrier against the development of relevant leadership frameworks. Conclusion The relationship between gender, emotional intelligence and leadership styles is one of the most interesting and controversial in strategic leadership studies. Much has been written and said about the implications of gender and emotional intelligence for leadership development and leadership styles. Leaders who score high on emotional intelligence are commonly believed to prefer transformational leadership styles, whereas those who lack emotional expressivity are claimed to choose transactional and laissez-faire leadership models. In a similar vein, women are often associated with more democratic and participative leadership styles, while men are more authoritative and directive leaders. In reality, the relationship between gender, emotional intelligence and leadership styles is extremely complex. Gender and EI differences in leadership are extremely small. There is still no relevant theoretical explanation to either possible differences in gender or EI distinctions in leadership behaviors. Many empirical findings are prejudiced, stereotypical and biased. To a large extent, neither gender nor emotional intelligence or the lack thereof can become a solid barrier to developing strong leadership capacities in men and women. The quality of the gender-EI-leadership relationship varies across cultures and organizational contexts. Neither gender nor emotional intelligence can predict the choice of a particular leadership style, although their potential influences on leadership deserve professional attention. References Antonakis, J 2004, ‘On why ‘emotional intelligence’ will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the ‘Big Five’: An extension and rejoinder’, Organizational Analysis, vol.12, no.2, pp.171-182. Appelbaum, SH, Audet, L & Miller, JC 2003, ‘Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol.24, no.1/2, pp.43-51. Butler, CJ & Chinowsky, PS 2006, ‘Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in construction executives’, Journal of Management in Engineering, July, pp.119-125. Eagly, AH 2005, ‘Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol.16, pp.459-474. Eagly, AH & Johnson, BT 1990, ‘Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, vol.108, no.2, pp.233-256. Eagly, AH & Johannesen-Schmidt, MC 2001, ‘The leadership styles of women and men’, Journal of Social Issues, June, pp.1-31. Eagly, AH, Johannesen-Schmidt, MC & Engen, ML 2003, ‘Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women’, Psychological Bulletin, vol.129, no.4, pp.569-591. Gardner, L & Stough, C 2002, ‘Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers’, Leadership & Organization, vol.23, no.2, pp.68-78. Gibson, CB 1995, ‘An investigation of gender differences in leadership across four countries’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol.26, no.2, pp.255-279. Judge, TA, Colbert, AE & Ilies, R 2004, ‘Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.89, no.3, pp.542-552. Mandell, B & Pherwani, S 2003, ‘Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison’, Journal of Business and Psychology, vol.17, no.3, pp.387-404. Weinberger, LA 2003, An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence, leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness, Human Resource Development Research Center. Read More