How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century?

Malcolm Higgs Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, Oxford, UK

Keywords

Leadership, Intelligence, Behaviour, Organizational change

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.

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 twentyfirst 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 drivers of current interest

Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284 # MCB UP Limited [ISSN 0143-7739] [DOI 10.1108/01437730310485798]

Exploring the drivers of interest in leadership could be the subject of a paper in

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

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 current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

[ 273 ]

Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284

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

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''.

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;

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

Table I Leadership discourses: an historic perspective Era Classical Dominant discourse Dalogue Society Democracy Ambition Individual Great man not great event Survival of the fittest Control Rationality Psychological Behavioural Examples of authors Plato Aristotle Homer Pericles Sophocles Petrarch Chaucer Castiglione Machiavelli Shakespeare Weber Darwin Durkheim Marx Freud Skinner Jung

Renaissance

Industrial

Modern

Source: Adopted from Clemens and Meyer (1999)

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 (AlimoMetcalfe, 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 (AlimoMetcalfe, 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 toplevel 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,

[ 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).

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).

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).

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 AlimoMetcalfe (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 shortand 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.

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
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

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

[ 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

Table III Differences between directors and managers (from 7-year follow-up study) Measure Overall EQ competencies Sensitivity and resilience competencies (two elements of overall EQ) Overall IQ competencies Overall MQ competencies Significance level Highly significant Highly significant Differences not significant Differences not significant

Note: Directors achieved higher scores on ``EQ competencies'' than did managers Table IV Relationships between leadership ``models'' and emotional intelligence Elements of emotional intelligence (from Higgs and Dulewicz, 2000) Self-awareness

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

Leadership models and frameworks Bass (1985) Transitional/ transformational Goffee and Jones Alimo-Metcalfe (1995) Leadership (2000) Four factors constructs Self-awareness Reveal differences Selectively show weakness Tough empathy Kouzes and Posner (1998) Kotter (1990) What leaders do

Bennis (1989) Develop selfknowledge Develop feedback sources Balance change and transition Learn from adversity Role model

Emotional resilience

Challenges processes Enable others Challenge processes Motivating and inspiring Model the way Setting directions Challenge processes Aligning people Inspire shared vision Enable others

Motivation

Charismatic leadership Individual consideration Charismatic leadership Intellectual stimulation Charismatic leadership Individual consideration Intellectual stimulation

Achieving, determined Consideration for the individual Sensitive change management

Tough empathy

Interpersonal sensitivity

Tough empathy Selectively show weaknesses

Open style

Influence

Networking

Model the way Encourage the heart Reveal differences Inspire shared vision Aligning people Open style Motivating and inspiring Tough empathy Enable others Setting direction Intuition Inspire shared vision Encourage the heart Capacity to concentrate Curious about innovation Role model

Intuitiveness

Decisive, achieving

Conscientiousness and Individual integrity consideration [ 280 ]

Integrity and openness

Tough empathy

Model the way

Aligning people

Reveal differences Encourage the heart

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 intrapersonal 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.

Table VI Development centre competencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strategic leadership Leading capability building Leading political/stakeholder interface Leading change Intellectual leadership Leading culture building Building relationships and reputation Building personal learning

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 workbased 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 Creating the case Structural change Engagement Implementation Facilitation Overall change competency EI total 0.333 0.025 0.269 0.074 0.287 0.056 0.418 0.004 0.333 0.025 0.377 0.011 Self-aware 0.388 0.008 0.461 0.001 0.326 0.029 0.455 0.002 0.483 0.001 0.486 0.001 Emotional resilience 0.249 0.100 0.189 0.214 0.176 0.246 0.311 0.038 0.325 0.029 0.284 0.059 Motivation 0.340 0.022 0.290 0.054 0.268 0.075 0.391 0.008 0.308 0.040 0.367 0.013 Interpersonal sensitivity 0.298 0.047 0.362 0.015 0.346 0.020 0.381 0.010 0.384 0.009 0.411 0.005 Influence 0.332 0.026 0.225 0.138 0.368 0.013 0.371 0.012 0.241 0.111 0.354 0.017 Intuitiveness Conscientiousness 0.113 0.461 0.131 0.391 0.144 0.344 0.043 0.780 0.162 0.287 0.134 0.381 0.306 0.041 0.208 0.170 0.317 0.034 0.279 0.063 0.286 0.056 0.317 0.034

Note: Bold = statistically significant [ 281 ]

Malcolm Higgs How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/5 [2003] 273-284

Table VII Emotional intelligence compared to development centre OAR paired samples test (n = 20) Paris Self-awareness: OAR Emotional resilience: OAR Motivation: OAR Sensitivity: OAR Influence: OAR Intuitiveness: OAR Conscientiousness: OAR Total EI: OAR Intra-personal: OAR Inter-personal: OAR Paired differences Mean Standard deviation 50.72 51.56 51.66 51.72 51.41 52.03 50.99 51.44 51.38 51.56 13.22 13.24 13.13 13.27 13.34 13.40 13.34 13.26 13.21 13.28 t 21.7 22.03 22.25 22.04 21.81 21.97 21.60 21.95 22.01 21.97 Degrees of freedom 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 2-Tail significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Figure 2 EIQ-M: inter- and intra-personal components

Figure 3 Revised emerging model of effective leadership

the importance of appropriate performance measures, which go beyond the ``traditional'' financial, or short-term goal 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).

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 transactionaltransformational 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'',

References

[ 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-onThames, 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.

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.

Further reading

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, JosseyBass, 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 ]