THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN

TEAM LEADERSHIP:
REPLY TO THE CRITIQUE BY ANTONAKIS
L. Melita Prati, Ceasar Douglas, Gerald R. Ferris
Florida State University

Anthony P. Ammeter
University of Mississippi

M. Ronald Buckley
University of Oklahoma

Pratt, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley (2003) have proposed that emotional
intelligence is a critical component in effective team leadership and team outcomes.
John Antonakis (2003) questioned whether the first claim in this article, that emotional
intelligence is critical for effective team leadership, is justified. He presents six questions that illuminate his reservations. In response, the present authors attempt to
answer his reservations by clarifying and explicating the reasoning behind this claim.
Recently, Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley (2003) published "Emotional intelligence,
leadership, and team outcomes" in The International Journal of Organizational Analysis. In that article, we proposed a model of leader-team effectiveness that concentrated on the idea that emotional
intelligence has a great deal of influence in team relationships (e.g., leader-member relations and
member-member relations). We developed this model based on previously published research and
theory in literatures including emotion, emotional intelligence, group and team relations, and leadership. It is the leadership part of the model on which Antonakis' (2003) six question commentary
is based.
Antonakis (2(X)3) begins his commentary in earnest by discussing the necessity of explaining
the boundaries of the theory being presented. We agree with the author on this point. According to
Caruso, Mayer, and Salovey (2002) it is necessary to address the role emotional intelligence plays
when discussing leadership. They suggested that the leadership role should be specifically defined,

Direct all coiTe,spondence to:L, Melita Prati. Department of Management, College of Business. Florida State University,
Tallahassee. FL 32306-1110, E-mail: Imr4910@cob,fsu,edu
The Inlernalional Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol 11. No, 4. 2003. pp, 363-369
ISSN 1055-3185
Copyright 2003 Information Age Publishing. Inc,
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

364

REPLY TO THE CRITIQUE BY ANTONAKIS

the model of emotional intelligence should be specified, and relevant leadership skills for the
defined leadership role should be specified and demonstrated. We feel these guidelines were met to
a fair degree in our article.
The nature of the leader role is analyzed with regard to the team environment. We used
Salovey and Mayer's (1990) conceptualization of the emotional intelligence construct, as well as,
referencing other interpretations based on this model, such as Goleman's (1995) model. The reason
for using the broader model was to relate the current idea of emotional intelligence to a comprehensive collection from theory including some contributions, which existed before the formal establishment of emotional intelligence as a construct (see the Additional Comments section for a more
thorough explanation). We also list and demonstrate certain specific skills that are necessary and relevant to effective team leadership. In adhering to these guidelines set forth by Caruso, Mayer, and
Salovey (2002), we attempted to establish the boundaries at each level addressed in our arguments
(i.e., individual and team levels) as well as establishing the boundaries contextually within the team
environment as opposed to the overarching organizational environment. That said, we will address
each of Antonakis' (2003) six questions in the order in which he presented them.
Is there robust empirical data indicating that emotional intelligence predicts variance in leadership effectiveness beyond that which is predicted by personality and general intelligence factors?
Antonakis (2003) cited several meta-analytic results of various constructs that have been associated
to some degree with leadership, leader emergence, or leader outcomes (curiously "leader effectiveness" was not specifically addressed in his list of citations). Most of the constructs mentioned have
been well established for some time. Thus, there are fairly established conceptualizations and measures for these constructs.
We must also state at this point that the term "nemesis" is quite stretched with regard to the
emotional intelligence construct and its association with general intelligence. The opinion of many
scientists, who see the potential of the emotional intelligence construct, is that general intelligence
has a tremendous impact in most contexts, but, like emotional intelligence, its importance is relevant
to situational context. Our intent is not to diminish the importance of general intelligence as a predictor of leader effectiveness, but to highlight the influence of emotional intelligence on effectiveness.
Because emotional intelligence is such a relatively new field of investigation, there are unfortunately a small number of studies related to leadership effectiveness that are published in scholarly
journals, and none effectively control for personality and general intelligence while using a definitive measure of emotional intelligence. Even fewer studies use those qualifiers and specifically deal
with team leadership. The recent dissertations cited by Antonakis (2003) that were used to document
the lack of empirical evidence could not even meet these rigorous standards as they used self-report
measures based on Goleman's mixed model theory in their evaluation of leader effectiveness.
A major problem with most studies to date is the pervasive use of self-report measures based
on mixed models of the construct to estimate the individual's emotional intelligence ability. There
have been arguments made that self-report measures, especially those based on mixed models,
should be characterized as measures of dispositional tendency or of a trait as opposed to measures
of ability (Petrides & Fumham, 2000; Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003). Petrides and Furnham
(2000) suggested that trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional intelligence are psychometrically different. Brackett and Mayer (2003) found this to be the case when they compared two
self-report measures, the EQ-i and the SREIT, and found them to be weakly related to the MSCEIT,
which is an ability measure of emotional intelligence. They concluded the self-report measures and
The IntemationalJoumal of Organizational Analysis. Vol. 11, No. 4. 2003

L, M, PRATI, C, DOUGLAS, G, R, FERRIS, A, P, AMMETER, & M, R, BUCKLEY

365

the ability measure appeared to be measuring different dimensions of the same individual, Mayer,
Salovey, and Caruso (2000) suggested that some self-report measures based on mixed models of
emotional intelligence are more related to personality constructs than intelligence. For these reasons, it would seem that studies using such measures would be doomed from the start because it is
not emotional intelligence that is explained as a relevant factor, but some dimension of personality,
Salovey, Mayer, and their colleagues argued that performance-based scales of emotional
intelligence better predict actual ability (Mayer & Geher 1996; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000;
Geher, Warner, & Brown, 2001; Salovey, Woolery, & Mayer, 2001), Although we argued some
points based on mixed model references in order to integrate the broad body of associated research
within the context of teams, we advocate the use of a performance-based scale derived from the ability model of Mayer and Salovey (1997) when measuring emotional intelligence for empirical investigation,
Antonakis (2003) stated in this first question some extremely important specifications to
which future empirical studies should adhere. Based on current theory and updated ability measures
it would seem that an investigation using a measure such as the MSCEIT and controlling for the
other factors mentioned would provide for more valid conclusions about the relationship between
emotional intelligence and team leadership effectiveness. We look forward to these published
results.
Are high levels of emotional appraising ability necessary or detrimental for leadership effectiveness? Antonakis' (2003) argument that negative emotions when appraised incorrectly could
result in problems, is an argument for the abilities comprised under emotional intelligence. One with
a higher level of emotional intelligence is able to make more accurate assessments of emotions in
others. Such an individual is also more likely to gear their reaction to a more productive end.
He also argued that higher levels of emotional appraisal might be destructive in that such skill
might detract leaders from their mission or defined goals if they considered the emotional states of
others during their leadership activities. In addition, he specifies top-level leaders as needing this
"immunity" to the emotional states of others. Before answering the above argument we must again
clarify that the leaders to which we referred are team leaders and as such are involved in a much narrower realm of context. That said, team leaders must have some understanding of the emotional
nuances in play within the team. Because they have such a narrow span of control, they must be able
to curtail the expression of destructive emotions and prevent the subjection of team members to
emotional states that could be detrimental to positive and constructive interactions of team members. Not only is the relational balance of the team at risk if the leader is not sensitive to the team's
emotional climate, but very valuable information pertaining to the leader's effectiveness at the
member level is lost as well.
Is the ability to gauge emotions part of normal psychological functioning, culturally transmitted, and simply reflect tacit knowledge? In his explanation of this question, Antonakis (2003)
appeared to address emotional intelligence as the more broadly encompassing term "social skill,"
Indeed, in his definition of this skill, regarded as common to "every normal, well-adjusted individual" (p, 355), he made several statements that could fit with some of the most current ideas about
emotional intelligence,
Antonakis (2003) described social skill as "sensitivity to external social stimuli and a developed rich cognitive schemata reflecting appropriate scripts for particular situations" (p,355, sic).
Unfortunately, we were not able to review, in context, this statement he cited from the work by
Cianciolo, Antonakis, and Sternberg (in press). We look forward to reading this perspective on
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Vol, 11, No, 4, 2003

366

REPLY TO THE CRITIQUE BY ANTONAKIS

social skill. Indeed, Antonakis used several "in press" papers (i.e., not published and unavailable to
us) to substantiate some of the points he raised in his critique. We will certainly incorporate those
"in press" works into our thinking when they are more readily available to researchers. However, we
can only respond to this comment based on the published literature currently available to researchers
in this area.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) described emotional intelligence as a set of abilities that can be
classified as mental or cognitive abilities used to distinguish and evaluate emotions. Were
Antonakis (2003) to replace the term "social" skill with "emotional" skill, the skills he described
would fall under those delineated by Mayer and Salovey (1997) in their revised description of emotional intelligence abilities. They stated, "Emotional intelligence involves the ability to perceive
accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they
facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth" (p. 10). Because this interpretation
likens these emotional abilities to the cognitive function of problem solving using emotional symbolism, emotional intelligence is considered an intelligence rather than a trait of one's personality or
the simple acquisition of information.
The scripts Antonakis (2003) mentioned regarding social situations accurately describe the
standard actions one is expected to take when faced with certain emotional events. Indeed, we
argued that scripts are necessary for one to self-regulate, however, one's adeptness at performing
according to these established scripts can be influenced by the abilities one possesses within their
level of emotional intelligence. One's ability to perform within the expectation of scripts can be
influenced by the ability to perceive and express oneself, analyze emotional information, and then
understand and employ emotional knowledge.
We agree that emotional intelligence and the skills that fall therein are culturally dened. Matthews and Zeidner (2000) cited articles indicating emotionally intelligent behaviors are judged as
effective based on the social and cultural environment in which they are performed. Offermann and
Phan (2002) reasoned that skills describing one's intelligence are particular to one's culture. Mayer
and Geher (1996) and Mayer et al. (2000) also describe emotional intelligence abilities as deflned
by culture, an aggregately defined social environment. Mayer et al. (2000) reasoned emotions can
be characterized as a system of symbols that are available to cognitive evaluation and function, just
as the numerical and verbal systems are. Therefore, one can use these symbols (emotions) in abstract
thought and problem solving.
Can the effects of emotional intelligence be manifested at the group level of analysis?
Antonakis (2003) relates this question specifically to leader-member interactions. We fear he may
have misread our article with regard to the interpretation that "leaders will affect team members
homogenously" (p. 356). Because of space limitations, we will use only two excerpts to illustrate
this conclusion. In our discussion of the transformational influence of team leaders, we cited Channer and Hope (2001) who "described team leaders as dedicated to developing nurturing relationships with those whom they lead" (Prati et al., 2003, p. 28). This is hardly the approach of one who
is aloof and socially separated from his followers. In addition, we surmise that "the transformational
leader allows a certain amount of individualized focus for each team member, so that each feels
important and necessary to the team overall" (Prati et al., 2003, p. 28). Such actions correspond to
the "well-established finding in the transformational-charismatic literature that the effects of leadership operate on the individual level of analysis" (Antonakis, 2003, p. 356).
The International Journal of Organizational Aimlysis. Vol. 1 1. No. 4. 2003

L. M. PRATI. C. DOUGLAS, G. R. FERRIS, A. P. AMMETER, & M. R. BUCKLEY

367

Is emotional intelligence a necessary antecedent of charismatic leadership? Antonakis'

(2003) comments with regard to our use of statements by certain authors is addressed in the Additional Comments section to follow. At this point, we only address the question at hand. Perhaps the
wording we used was poorly phrased with regard to Wasielewski's (1985) conclusions about charismatic ability. We interpreted the skills she described as falling within the realm of emotional intelligence abilities, and therefore predicted what she might say had she written the description of
charismatic leadership after emotional intelligence was introduced as a construct. Antonakis (2003)
paraphrases the relationship she described between a leader and follower as based on "emotional
interactions" and "identification of the follower with the leader" (Antonakis, 2003, p. 356). These
types of relational characteristics may be established by the leader when the skills delineated by
Mayer and Salovey (1997) are enacted in the leader-follower relationship.
We must question why Antonakis (2003) insisted that the emphasis should be on the vision as
the force behind follower transformation and alignment, when he described the transmission of the
leader's vision as "emotional and morally-charged" (p. 356). It is only reasonable to surmise from
this description that the transmission of one's vision must be orchestrated using the abilities of the
emotionally intelligent in order to achieve an effective transformation via follower acceptance of the
vision. Without the ability to understand how emotions affect individuals under specific circumstances, the knowledge of various emotions, the ability to regulate one's emotions and express emotions effectively, one would not be able to effectively communicate one's vision in an "emotional
and morally-charged" manner that is applicable to the situation.
Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) lend credit to this reasoning in their assertion that charismatic leadership may be based in the ability to manage emotions effectively. Riggio and Pirozzolo (2002)
stated, "The charismatic leader's ability to arouse and inspire followers also seems connected to a
leader's emotional intelligence. In fact, it has been suggested that both social and emotional intelligences are core, necessary components of a leader's charisma" (p. 247). Antonakis' (2003) own
arguments in the section on emotional outbursts confirms our reasoning when he stated, "charisma
is, among others, an outgrowth of leader emotional appeals" (p. 357).
Are emotional outbursts detrimental to leadership effectiveness? We understand Antonakis's
argument regarding the use of negative emotions to emphasize certain issues of importance. We
must clarify our actual statements in the article by reiterating that our argument specified the lack of
emotional control in displaying distressed emotions as the reason for negative effects on team member perceptions of the leader (see Prati et al., p. 26-27). In fact, Antonakis (2003) described this idea
of emotional control very well, "...with correct timing and using correct doses, (controlled) emotional outbursts can be useful, symbolic, and engender follower identification and trust" (p. 357).
One without the ability to express emotions toward a certain end or without the knowledge of emotions required to elicit a certain desired reaction lacks the emotional intelligence to achieve the
desired reaction. Those who can cognitively configure the appropriate emotional expressions, enact
those expressions effectively, and remain cognizant of momentary reactions of followers to emotionally charged statements have the abilities considered to be possessed by emotionally intelligent
individuals.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The purpose of using the studies such as Sosik and Megerian (1999), Williams and Stemberg
(1988), and Wasielewski (1985) was to compile theoretical evidence to indicate that such relationThe International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Vol. 11, No. 4. 2003

368

REPLY TO THE CRrriQUE BY ANTONAKIS

ships, which these studies were used to support, are plausible and therefore should be tested. Obviously, the studies published before the concept of emotional intelligence was formulated would not
use the exact term or specifications attributed to the term today. However, similar formulations of
the conceptual pieces that comprise emotional intelligence as a construct have existed for quite
some time. Jordan, Ashkanasy, and Hartel (2002) recognized that the conceptualization of emotional intelligence has been of interest to researchers for decades, beginning with Thorndike in the
1920's. Accordingly, it is reasonable to link stated abilities in earlier works as emotional intelligence skills falling under what has now been associated with emotional intelligence formally
defined.
The article by Prati et al. (2003) was not meant to be a summarization of the empirical literature to date. It was an attempt to provide a contribution to theory construction and refinement. Our
efforts were simply an attempt to mobilize empirical investigation for a more developed understanding in the areas of teams, leadership, and emotional intelligence.
As a final note, one might expect from this discourse that our article revolved around the issue
of leadership. This is not the case. We invite readers to thoroughly read the article, in total, to judge
for themselves whether emotional intelligence may play an infiuential role in team leadership effectiveness and team outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In this response to the Antonakis (2003) critique, we have restated several of the reasons why we
posit emotional intelligence as an important factor in team leader effectiveness. We appreciate the
interest and issues expressed by Antonakis (2003), and believe we have cogently addressed his
major points in this reply. Let's continue to build upon the available literature in our attempts to
refine our thinking about emotional intelligence.

REFERENCES
Antonakis. J. (2003). Why "Emotional Intelligence" does not predict leadership effectiveness. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, JJ{4), 353-359.
Ashkanasy. N. M.. & Tse. B. (2000). Tranformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual
review. In N. M. Ashkanasy. C. E. Haertel. & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.). Emotions in the workplace: Research,
theory, and practice (pp. 221-235). Westport. CT: Quorum Books/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Brackett. M. A.. & Mayer. J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147-1158.
Caruso. D. R., Mayer. J. D.. & Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E.
Riggio. S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership (pp. 55-74).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Channer. P., & Hope, T. (2001). Emotional impact. New York: Palgrave.
Cianciolo. A. T.. Antonakis. J., & Stemberg, R. J. (in press). Practical intelligence and leadership: Using experience as a "mentor." In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader Development for Transforming Organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Geher, G., Warner, R. M.. & Brown. A. S. (2001). Predictive validity of the emotional accuracy research scale.
Intelligence. 29(5). 373-388.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

L. M. PRATI, C. DOUGLAS, G. R. FERRIS, A. P. AMMETER, & M. R. BUCKLEY

369

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional
and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27, 361-372.
Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence, adaptation to stressful encounters, and health outcomes. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 459-489). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emotion, intelligence. 22,
89-113.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-27). New York: Basic
Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence as Zeitgeist, as personality, and as a
mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory,
development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 92-117). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Offermann, L. R., & Phan L. U. (2002). Culturally intelligent leadership for a diverse world. In R. E. Riggio,
S. E. Murphy & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership (pp. 187-214). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C , Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1),
21-40.
Riggio, R. E., & Pirozzolo, F. J. (2002). Multiple intelligences and leadership: Implications and applications for
research and training. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and
Leadership (pp. 241-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4). 707-721.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality. 9(3),
185-211.
Salovey, P., Woolery, A., & Mayer, J. D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Conceptualization and measurement.
In G. Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 279-307). Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role
of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group and Organization Management. 24(3). 340-366.
Thomdike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper's Magazine. 140, lll-lTiS.
Wasielewski, P. L. (1985). The emotional basis of charisma. Symbolic Interaction, 8(2), 207-222.
Williams, W., & Stemberg, R. L. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12,351-311.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003