Leadership Effectiveness: A Case Study

Leadership Intelligence: Unlocking the potential for leadership effectiveness

Introduction

For much of the twentieth century, the potential for intelligence to positively predict a leader’s effectiveness has been dominated by research in cognitive and emotional intelligence. This study aims to further explore emerging research in this field and whether a more holistic understanding of intelligence can in fact yield better results. The discussion is initially categorised into three main sections: cognitive, emotional and spiritual intelligence. In doing so, I highlight the complex nature of human intelligence; the need for leaders to use multiple intelligences and propose the view that a transformational leadership style is best suited to current

The use of multiple intelligences is in agreement with Hoffman and Frost (2006, p. 39) who also recognise social intelligence as a factor contributing to leadership success. Perhaps this observation explains why research shows that traditional intelligence does not always contribute to leadership positively (Riggio, 2010, p.1; Shabnam et. al., 2011, p. 318). Also Ronthy argues that the personality tests of the 1960s were not ‘fit for purpose’ since they were primarily intended to diagnose psychological disorders and were not intended to be a predictor of a high IQ (Ronthy, 2014, p. 52). In some cases, intelligence may actually inhibit leadership effectiveness, as highlighted in Fiedler’s cognitive resources theory (as cited in Riggio, 2010, p. 1), when a leader is less likely to perform in a time of crisis due to their focus on problem solving rather than the task at hand. But ultimately, it is Goleman who sums up the leadership-intelligence relationship by

153). In 1990, Salovey and Mayer’s early definition of EQ, recognised the importance of using information from one’s own and other’s emotions to inform one’s actions and thoughts (as cited in Javadi, Mehrabi, Jankhaneh & Samangooei, 2012, p. 379). Likewise the popular work of Covey in the 1990’s, explored the relationship between human performance and emotional intelligence, providing a handbook for personal effectiveness and success for all (Labby, et. al., 2012, p. 4). His work highlights self-awareness, a key feature of emotional intelligence. Additionally, Bar-On’s definition in 1997, is in agreement with Salovey and Mayer’s definition, stating that EQ is the ability to manage one’s own emotions and manage relationships with others successfully (as cited in Labby, et. al., 2012; p. 3). This definition highlights two key elements of EQ - self-management and relationship management. Interestingly, Zohar and Marshall (2000, p. 49-50) state that if IQ is our serial thinking- accurate, precise and reliable; then EQ is our associative thinking – the kind of thinking that, forms links between emotions and other emotions, bodily feelings and the environment, consequently introducing the role of bodily feelings to the debate. Although these definitions vary, none is more inclusive than that of Daniel Goleman’s theory, whose approach has been widely accepted by researchers and includes the