The Moderating Role of Time on the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership

Abstract

IntroductionA great deal of empirical research has been completed in the area of transformational leadership, providing evidence that this leadership style has a positive impact on performance and leader effectiveness (e.g., Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Lowe & Galen Kroeck, 1996; Sosik & Megerian, 1999). However, some questions remain unanswered. What traits make transformational leaders great? What are the antecedents of transformational leadership? What other variables may come into play? Since transformational leadership is considered a behavioral theory, where leadership behaviors can be learned (Judge & Bono, 2000; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), additional investigation to determine the dispositional sources of leadership is warranted (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). The purposes of this paper are to explore the antecedent relationship of emotional intelligence (EI) to transformational leadership and the role time plays in this process. The authors believe further research in this area is warranted as both transformational leadership and emotional intelligence are continually evolving constructs. An overview of the extant literature on transformational leadership and emotional intelligence is presented followed by an exploration of the relationship between these two constructs. Eight propositions are offered along with a conceptual model depicting the proposed linkages.Transformational LeadershipA transformational leader attempts to mold and shape the environment (Avolio & Bass, 1988). The transformational leader construct was introduced by Downton (1973) and was more fully developed by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). Burns defined a transformational leader as an individual who engages his/her follower in such a way that each person raises each other to a higher level of motivation. Bernard Bass defined this leadership construct in terms of the effect this style of leadership has on the followers. In essence, transformational leadership is one end of the leadership spectrum, with laissez-faire representing the most passive leadership behavior and truly transformational representing the most active leadership behavior. It distinguishes itself from other leadership theories (i.e. charismatic, transactional, or laissez-faire) by having the leader focus on the higher order intrinsic needs of followers while their follower identifies with the needs of their leader (Burns, 1978).Transformational leadership is generally described using the following four interrelated dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991). Using this four dimension conceptualization in their meta-analysis, with 87 sources and 626 correlations, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found transformational leadership to have a higher validity than contingent reward (transactional) and laissez-faire leadership. With regard to the dimensionality of the construct, the most recent measure of transformational leadership (MLQ-5x) shows empirical support for the four dimension structure (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). Thus, transformational leadership is empirically shown to be a significant predictor of aspects related to effective leadership. The following discussion elaborates on the four dimensions.Idealized InfluenceTransformational leaders build commitment and transform the organization by infusing their followers with ideological values and moral purpose (House & Podsakoff, 1994; Lowe & Galen Kroeck, 1996). This dimension is the one most closely linked to charisma and is sometimes referred to as charisma. These leaders demonstrate high moral and ethical behavior (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Howell & Avolio, 1998), and they are admired, respected, and trusted (Bass et al. …