No abstract

No abstract

In this article, we present a model of emotions and attributions of intentionality within the leader-member relationship. The model is predicated on two central ideas. The first is that leadership is intrinsically an emotional process, where leaders display emotion, and attempt to evoke emotion in their members. The second is that leadership is a process of social interaction and is therefore is appropriately defined in terms of social psychological theories such as attribution theory. Our focus is on the perspective of members, not the leaders. Specifically, members' attributions about their leader's intentions influence how the members evaluate, interpret, and eventually label the leader's influence attempts as either 'true' or 'pseudo' transformational leadership. These attributions are determined by and themselves influence the members' emotions. We describe each of the elements of the model, and conclude with discussion of the implications of the model for theory, research, and practice. Emotion and Attribution of Intentionality in Leader-Member RelationshipsPage 3 EMOTION AND ATTRIBUTION OF INTENTIONALITY IN LEADER-MEMBER RELATIONSHIPSLeadership is a process of social interaction where leaders attempt to influence the behavior of their followers (Yukl, 2002). As such, and as Calder (1977) and Martinko and Gardner (1987) suggest, leadership is appropriately defined in terms of basic social psychology theories such as attribution theory. In this paper, we present a model of emotion and attribution of intentionality within the leader-member relationship, where emotional intelligence plays a central role and the focus is on the leader-member interaction. Our model is based initially on Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, and Judge (1995), who discuss more general interactions between actors and observers in organizations. Here, we adapt their model to focus on transformational leader behaviors, how the behaviors are perceived by members observing the behaviors, and the role of emotions in the formation of member perceptions of the interaction.Researchers such as Gerstner and Day (1997) and Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) have noted that members observe leader behaviors as part of the leader-member relationship. Green and Mitchell (1979) were the first to identify the link between attributions and leadermember exchange relationships (see also Ashkanasy, 1989). Later, Dienesch and Liden (1986) stressed that attributions and categorizations serve as critical inputs to the development of the relationship between leaders and those who follow them. The question arises, however, as to members' ability to perceive and to interpret their leader's intentions accurately. Specifically, when a leader attempts to influence his or her members, can the members discern if she or he is acting sincerely for the benefit of the organization and its employees? Or is the leader acting Emotion and Attribution of Intentionality in Leader-Member Relationships Page 4 manipulatively to achieve egocentric personal goals? In this paper, we propo...

In the first of two articles presenting the case for emotional intelligence in a pointcounterpoint exchange, we present a brief summary of research in the field, and rebut arguments against the construct presented in this issue. We identify three streams of research: (1) a four-branch abilities test based on the model of emotional intelligence defined in Mayer and Salovey (1997); (2) self-report instruments based on the MayerSalovey model; and (3) commercially available tests that go beyond the Mayer-Salovey definition. In response to the criticisms of the construct, we argue that the protagonists have not distinguished adequately between the streams, and have inappropriately characterized emotional intelligence as a variant of social intelligence. More significantly, two of the critical authors assert incorrectly that emotional intelligence research is driven by a utopian political agenda, rather than scientific interest. We argue, on the contrary, that emotional intelligence research is grounded in recent scientific advances in the study of emotion; specifically regarding the role emotion plays in organizational behavior. We conclude that emotional intelligence is attracting deserved continuing research interest as an individual difference variable in organizational behavior related to the way members perceive, understand, and manage their emotions.The case for emotional intelligence, Paper 1 Page 3 Rumors of the Death of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Behavior are Vastly ExaggeratedThe case for emotional intelligence is presented in two articles. In this, the first of these, we deal specifically with the points raised by Landy, Locke, and Conte in the preceding three articles critical of the conceptualization and measurement of emotional intelligence. Indeed, if one were to read the three critical articles, especially Landy's and Locke's, one could be excused for concluding that emotional intelligence is not viable as a scientific construct, and that organizational researchers ought to stop wasting their time in researching the construct. In other words, emotional intelligence is dead. We argue in this article that, far from being moribund, emotional intelligence is an exciting and developing area of research in organizational behavior, and a key component of the current burgeoning interest in emotions in organizational settings , Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Daus, 2002. At the same time, we also warn that emotional intelligence researchers need to be careful that they fully understand the construct, and also show appropriate levels of circumspection in their research endeavors. In the second of the two articles in defense of emotional intelligence (Daus & Ashkanasy, this issue), we take our arguments a step further, and provide an up-to-date and cogent summary of current research in work settings based on the four-branch model of emotional intelligence (as defined in Salovey & Mayer, 1997). Our hope is that this article will serve to guide future research in a blossoming new field in organizational...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tInterest in emotional intelligence has bloomed over the last few years. That it has become a standard concept in general and applied psychology, as well as in applied business settings, is indubitable. Is this popularity warranted? Casting a shadow over the concept of emotional intelligence are concerns about its meaningfulness and the construct and predictive validity of its various measures. The following series of letters explores various issues surrounding emotional intelligence and leadership including: whether emotional intelligence is theoretically needed for leadership, the types of emotional intelligence tests that may hold the most promise, methodological standards for testing whether emotional intelligence matters, evidence from the neuroscience literature on emotions and intelligence, and evidence regarding the links between leader emotional intelligence and follower outcomes.