While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks. Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as "The Big Five" personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills. Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes. Do not distinguish between the leadership attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences.
For instance, when the Harvard Business Review published an article on the topic two years ago, it attracted a higher percentage of readers than any other article published in that periodical in the last 40 years. I also will refer to some of the research linking emotional intelligence with important work-related outcomes such as individual performance and organizational productivity.
Even though the term has been misused and abused by many popularizers, I believe it rests on a firm scientific foundation.
Also, while there are aspects of the concept that are not new, some aspects are. Historical Roots of the Topic When psychologists began to write and think about intelligence, they focused on cognitive aspects, such as memory and problem-solving.
However, there were researchers who recognized early on that the non-cognitive aspects were also important. For instance, David Wechsler defined intelligence as "the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment".
As early as he referred to "non-intellective" as well as "intellective" elements, by which he meant affective, personal, and social factors. The main question is whether non-intellective, that is affective and conative abilities, are admissible as factors of general intelligence.
My contention has been that such factors are not only admissible but necessary. I have tried to show that in addition to intellective there are also definite non-intellective factors that determine intelligent behavior.
If the foregoing observations are correct, it follows that we cannot expect to measure total intelligence until our tests also include some measures of the non-intellective factors [Wechsler,p.
Wechsler was not the only researcher who saw non-cognitive aspects of intelligence to be important for adaptation and success.
Robert Thorndike, to take another example, was writing about "social intelligence" in the late thirties. Unfortunately, the work of these early pioneers was largely forgotten or overlooked until when Howard Gardner began to write about "multiple intelligence. In the s, under the direction of Hemphill, the Ohio State Leadership Studies suggested that "consideration" is an important aspect of effective leadership.
More specifically, this research suggested that leaders who are able to establish "mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and rapport" with members of their group will be more effective. At about the same time, the Office of Strategic Services developed a process of assessment based on the earlier work of Murray that included the evaluation of non-cognitive, as well as cognitive, abilities.
Many of the dimensions measured in assessment centers then and now involve social and emotional competencies such as communication, sensitivity, initiative, and interpersonal skills.
I could cite other strands of research and theory, but I think it is clear that by the early s, there was a long tradition of research on the role of non-cognitive factors in helping people to succeed in both life and the workplace. The current work on emotional intelligence builds on this foundation.
Contemporary Interest in the Topic When Salovey and Mayer coined the term emotional intelligence inthey were aware of the previous work on non-cognitive aspects of intelligence. Salovey and Mayer also initiated a research program intended to develop valid measures of emotional intelligence and to explore its significance.
For instance, they found in one study that when a group of people saw an upsetting film, those who scored high on emotional clarity which is the ability to identify and give a name to a mood that is being experienced recovered more quickly.
Goleman was a science writer for the New York Times, whose beat was brain and behavior research.What does it take to become an agent of change? To be a role model for others?
It starts by seeing a condition that must be changed, then feeling empowered and motivated to take action. As leadership expert Warren Bennis once stated, "leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality." Great leaders possess dazzling social intelligence, a zest for change, and above all.
CONFERENCE YEAR website maintained by LOCAL WEBMASTER CONTACT PERSON and Brad Sietz. website maintained by LOCAL WEBMASTER CONTACT PERSON and Brad Sietz. Master your role, transform your business and tap into an unsurpassed peer network through our world-leading conference series.
These personalities are good role models, but the halo effect that their popularity brings blurs the real person we want to see.
My people won't be able to see it, much less understand the beliefs. Why these leaders are my Role Models – I have chosen Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as my Role Models because; they both are or have been very successful leaders. Looking up to their success I believe that I will also be able to go very high in leadership standards.