emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents

Emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents

Danielle Charbonneau*, Adelheid A.M. Nicol

Department of Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada,PO Box 17000, Station Forces, Kingston, ON, Canada K7K 7B4

Received 8 June 2001; received in revised form 13 November 2001; accepted 9 December 2001

Abstract

We tested the validity of two measures of emotional intelligence (EI) and we investigated the relationbetween EI and leadership in 191 adolescents (M=14.33 years) attending a 3-week military training camp.A scale by Schutte et al. [Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 167] assessed primarily theintrapersonal aspect of EI, whereas selected items from the Weisinger [Emotional intelligence at work (1998)Dan Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass] scale measured primarily the interpersonal aspect. Participants were alsorated by their peers and junior leaders on the Weisinger items. Leadership was assessed using a peernomination system for task-goal and socio-emotional orientation [Schneider, Ehrhart, & Holcombe (in press)Leadership in adolescence: comparing peer and teacher perspectives and correlates, Leadership Quarterly].Both measures, but especially the Schutte et al. scale, correlated with social desirability, suggesting pro-blems of discriminant validity. Scores on the Schutte et al. scale did not correlate with any peer nomina-tions, indicating questionable convergent validity. In contrast, scores on the Weisinger scale (self-report)correlated with peer nominations of socio-emotional leadership and task-goal leadership. However, thelack of correlation between the self-rated and the other-rated versions of the Weisinger scale is a concern.# 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Emotional intelligence; Leadership; Adolescents

1. Emotional intelligence

Although the construct of emotional intelligence (EI) is still under development, research hasdemonstrated the usefulness of the construct of EI in college students and adults. For example,research has demonstrated the positive relations between EI and first year college grades (Schutteet al., 1998), life satisfaction and reduced depressive symptomatology (Martinez-Pons, 1997), and

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PI I : S0191-8869(01 )00216-1

Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1101–1113

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-613-541-6822.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Charbonneau).

effective leadership (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000). The current study tested the validity oftwo instruments measuring EI in adolescents participating in a summer military training camp.Because these adolescents were expected to demonstrate leadership-like qualities, we investigatedalso the relation between EI and leadership in this age group.The study of EI includes at least two kinds of approaches. Work by Mayer and Salovey (1997)

typifies the first approach that consists of identifying the abilities comprised in this type of intel-ligence. They have identified four basic abilities: to perceive, appraise, and express emotion; tointentionally use emotions to influence thinking; to understand the complexity and the transientnature of emotions; and, lastly, to use emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth.The second approach uses a broader definition of EI and focuses on what EI predicts, such assuccess in a broad sense across different situations. For instance, someone high in EI wouldmotivate themselves, would understand emotions in others, and would handle relationships suc-cessfully (Goleman, 1995). Petrides and Furnham (2000) refer to these approaches as informa-tion-processing and trait EI, respectively. The current study focuses on the trait aspect of EI,which can be measured by self-report inventories.Weisinger (1998) wrote about the application of EI in a work environment. He distinguished

between what he called the intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of EI. He defined the intrapersonalaspect as being able to help oneself by using one’s emotions. To do this, one must be aware of personalemotions and moods, be able to manage them and to use them to motivate oneself. In contrast, theinterpersonal aspect focuses on helping others. To help others, one must identify and respond toothers’ moods and emotions, guide these emotions toward a positive outcome, and help othershelp themselves. That is, Weisinger treated separately the awareness, management, and utiliza-tion of emotions in oneself and the awareness, management, and utilization of the emotions ofothers.

1.1. The study of EI in adolescents

Although much literature exists on the development of emotional competence (e.g. Saarni,1999) and prosocial behaviors (e.g. Eisenberg & Miller, 1987), the development of emotionalintelligence is less well understood. Saarni explains that the construct of emotional competence isbroader than that of EI because it includes empathy, moral character, a focus on emotions in asocial context, and a sense of self-efficacy.EI in adolescents has been less well investigated than EI in college students and adults.

One resulting difficulty in assessing EI in adolescents is that most instruments were designedfor use with post-adolescent samples. Consequently, our selection of measures and the basicvalidation of these instruments represent important aspects of this study and warrant someexplanation.Martinez-Pons (1998) is among the few who have investigated EI in adolescents. He studied

parents’ influence on their adolescents’ EI. He used the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (Salovey, Mayer,Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995) to measure the EI, but he claimed that this measure assesses theself-oriented aspect of EI. Indeed, he argued that EI is comprised of two aspects: the self-orientedand other-oriented, which are reminiscent of Weisinger’s (1998) intrapersonal and interpersonalaspects, respectively. Martinez-Pons concluded that the other-oriented aspect was a better pre-dictor of the quality of adolescents’ social interactions whereas the self-oriented aspect correlated

1102 D. Charbonneau, A.A.M. Nicol / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1101–1113

with task-orientation and reflects a concern for mastery and personal improvement. In this paper,the terms self-oriented and intrapersonal are used interchangeably, as are the terms other-orientedand interpersonal.

1.2. Selection and basic validation of instruments

Of the available measures of EI, we opted for the scale developed by Schutte et al. (1998) forfour reasons. First, the development of the items has a theoretical foundation because it wasbased on an earlier version of an emotional intelligence model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Sec-ond, Schutte et al. showed that this scale has sound psychometric properties in adults andAbraham (1999) recommends its use for this reason. Third, it is readily available. Finally, thecontent of the scale led us to believe that it might be suitable for use with adolescents. The twoaspects of EI, intrapersonal and interpersonal, are represented in the scale although the majorityof items describe intrapersonal EI. Therefore, we consider this scale as representing pre-dominantly the self-oriented aspect of EI. This assumption is consistent with Schutte et al.’sclaim that the scale is unifactorial, at least in adults (for a different opinion, see Petrides &Furnham, 2000).A second instrument was included to assess specifically the other-oriented aspect of EI

because we suspected that the quality of one’s social interactions may be related to leadership,the process of intentionally influencing others (Yukl, 1998). Martinez-Pons (1998) developedthree questions to measure this aspect of EI, but we wanted an instrument that captured thevarious dimensions of this construct. We selected the interpersonal dimension of Weisinger’s(1998) EI scale.Convergent and discriminant validity, two aspects of construct validity, were examined in this

study. Convergent validity is shown when a scale correlates with a measure of a theoreticallyrelated construct (DeVellis, 1991). Empathy includes the appraisal and expression of others’emotions, particularly distress, and, as such, is related to the other-oriented aspect of EI (Ciar-rochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Goleman, 1995, 1998). Empathy should also correlate with theSchutte et al. (1998) scale. Indeed, Salovey and Mayer (1990) claim that empathy may be animportant feature of emotionally intelligent behaviour, as empathy includes ‘‘the ability to com-prehend another’s feelings and to re-experience them oneself’’ (p. 194).To measure another aspect of convergent validity, self-reports and other-reports were taken

with Weisinger’s (1998) interpersonal scale, thereby investigating the possibility that some aspectsof EI may be assessed by others. A multi-rater approach was not taken with the Schutte et al.(1998) scale because information on how a person deals with his/her emotions may not be readilyobservable, unless we know the individual very well.Campbell and Fiske (1959) stated that a test is not valid if it correlates too highly with another

test that is not theoretically related to it. This is known as discriminant validity. In the presentstudy, the two measures of EI were expected to correlate poorly with a desirability scale.One other validity analysis was conducted. We wanted to replicate some gender differences. A

gender difference on the empathy scale has been reported in adolescents, with female adolescentsscoring higher than male adolescents (Davis & Franzoi, 1991). Also, adult women scored morehighly than adult men did on the Schutte et al. (1998) scale. Therefore, we expected a genderdifference using the same scale with an adolescent sample.

D. Charbonneau, A.A.M. Nicol / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1101–1113 1103

1.3. EI and leadership in adolescents

The association between EI and leadership behaviours has been demonstrated in adults (Barling etal., 2000). The authors demonstrated that managers who scored high on the Bar-on (1997) EI inven-tory were perceived by their subordinates as displaying more transformational leadership behaviours.Transformational leaders share their ideals with their subordinates and act as role models, inspirethem by articulating an appealing vision, stimulate them intellectually to think in innovative ways,and show care and concern for each of them (Bass, 1998). Megerian and Sosik (1996) describedtheoretical mechanisms that explain the link between EI and transformational leadership. Forinstance, they postulated that leaders need to show empathy towards their subordinates in orderto be effective in two-way communication, in delegating responsibilities, and in attending toindividual differences in needs. Also, one characteristic of effective leadership concerns the abilityto interpret what others have said and to identify the emotion associated with it (Locke, 1991).To our knowledge, the relation between EI and leadership has not been tested in adolescents.The study of early signs of leadership in adolescents, although sparse, suggests that adolescents

can display leadership behaviours similar to those of adults. For instance, Zacharatos, Barling,and Kelloway (2000) have shown that adolescents who display transformational leadershipbehaviours engender their teammates’ satisfaction with their leadership style and willingness toexert additional effort in a sports context. Schneider and his collaborators have launched aresearch program that investigates the prediction, understanding, and durability of leadershipbehaviours in adolescents but have not looked at EI (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Holcombe, in press;Schneider, Paul, White, & Holcombe, 1999).To examine the relation between EI and leadership, we followed a peer nomination method

similar to that used by Schneider et al. (in press). In this method, adolescents are asked to makenominations for two leadership styles, namely task-goal leadership (ability to complete a task andachieve a goal) and socio-emotional leadership (ability to make people cooperate with each otherand to be supportive; e.g. Yukl, 1998). These two aspects of leadership were chosen because oftheir resemblance, albeit distant, with Martinez-Pons’ (1998) criteria of task-orientation andquality of social interactions that were differentially associated with the two dimensions of EI.We expected that individuals high in other-oriented EI would be nominated more frequently as

socio-emotional leaders, because of their high social functioning (Martinez-Pons, 1998). We pre-dicted that scores on the Schutte et al. (1998) scale would correlate with nominations for both thesocio-emotional and the task-oriented leadership, because this instrument contains items repre-senting both aspects of EI.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were adolescents enrolled in a 3-week summer camp providing military skillstraining. During camp, participants resided together in military facilities. They were divided intogroups of five to 21 members, depending on their trade (e.g. boson, gunnery, music, and sailing).Scheduled activities were geared towards the development and practice of trade skills and other


military skills, under the supervision of junior leaders. Junior leaders were older adolescents whounderwent the summer training in previous years. These group leaders were responsible for theparticipants’ discipline and wellbeing.Two 3-week sessions occurred during the summer and participants were asked to complete the

study package during their last week at camp. No significant difference between participantsenrolled in these two sessions was observed on any of the variables measured here, so the twosamples were combined. A total of 235 adolescents participated in the study.After elimination of participants with incomplete data sets, 191 participants remained (81%).

Of these participants, 110 were male and 81 were female and 107 were involved in the first sessionand 84 took part in the second session. The mean age of participants was 14.33 years (SD=1.06;range=12–18 years). When the seven participants belonging to the extreme age groups wereexcluded from the analyses (three 12 year olds, three 17 year olds, and one 18 year old), theintercorrelations were generally higher than when the analyses were conducted on the entiresample. In this paper, we present the results for the entire sample.

2.2. Materials

A complete data set consisted of self-report questionnaires on intrapersonal and interpersonalEI, desirability, empathy, one to four peer ratings of interpersonal EI, and one to two juniorleader ratings of interpersonal EI. In addition, participants in the second session were asked tonominate three peers within their trade group for popularity, friendship and leadership.

2.2.1. Intrapersonal emotional intelligenceParticipants’ EI was assessed using the 33-item EI scale developed by Schutte et al. (1998). A

5-point Likert-type scale was provided, where 1=‘Strongly disagree’ and 5=‘Strongly agree’.Schutte et al. reported good internal consistency (�=0.90) and good test–retest reliability(r=0.78) for the scale when administered to adults. Furthermore, the instrument demonstratedgood predictive and discriminant validity. The scale contains items of intrapersonal EI (e.g. ‘‘I amaware of the non-verbal messages I send to others’’) and of interpersonal EI (e.g. ‘‘I help otherpeople feel better when they are down’’).

2.2.2. Interpersonal emotional intelligenceParticipants’ evaluations of their own and their peers’ interpersonal EI were measured with the

23 items representing this dimension of EI from the scale developed by Weisinger (1998). Itemsdescribe the use of EI with others (e.g. ‘‘Help a group to deal with their emotions’’; ‘‘Accuratelytell people how they are feeling’’; ‘‘Communicate your feelings effectively’’; ‘‘Recognize whenothers are distressed’’). Weisinger argued that four items describe both types of EI, and they wereincluded in the scale (e.g. ‘‘Stay calm when you are the target of anger from others’’). Because ofthe age group and the work environment context for which the items were developed, some itemshad to be reworded to be suitable for adolescents. For instance, ‘‘Mediate conflicts betweenothers’’ was reworded to ‘‘Help resolve conflicts with others’’. Also, items were modified forself and peers’ assessment. For example, ‘‘Help others manage their emotions’’ became ‘‘(nameprovided) Helps others manage their emotions’’. The modified instrument was given to twoadolescents, independent of the participants, for review of the wording. Answers were given on


a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 0=‘ Not at all’ and 4=‘Frequently or always’. The psychometricproperties of the scale are unknown.

2.2.3. Desirability scaleThe 8-item scale of desirability was taken from the Personality Research Form (PRF-E)

(Jackson, 1984). This scale measures the extent to which a participant has endorsed or notendorsed self-report statements which describe socially desirable behaviours.

2.2.4. Empathy scaleAs a self-report measure of empathy, the 28-item Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980)

was used. This scale contains four 7-item factors: Perspective Taking, Fantasy, Empathic con-cern, and Personal Distress. Perspective Taking includes the ability to understand other people’sperspective. Fantasy relates to the ability to identify oneself with fictional characters. EmpathicConcern describes feelings of compassion and concern for others. Lastly, Personal Distressassesses how anxious and uncomfortable one becomes in response to another’s distress. The 5-point Likert-type response scale ranged from 0=‘Does not describe me well’ to 4=‘‘Describes mevery well’. Davis reported internal reliabilities in the range of 0.71–0.77 for the scales. Davis(1983) demonstrated adequate validity for each of the four scales. This scale has been used suc-cessfully with high school students (e.g. Davis & Franzoi, 1991).

2.2.5. Popularity, friendship and leadership measuresParticipants were asked to identify the three people in their group that were ‘‘the most popular’’

and ‘‘their closest friends’’ (Schneider et al., in press). For the leadership assessment, a hypothe-tical scenario involving someone placed in charge of a committee was presented. Participants hadto nominate three people who, ‘‘would do the best job of getting things done and making sureyour goals are reached’’ (task–goal leadership) and three people who ‘‘would do the best job ofhelping the committee cooperate and work well together’’ (socio-emotional leadership). Thevariable of interest was the number of times a participant had been nominated in each category.Schneider et al. provided a list of names for adolescents to chose from. We replicated this methodin the first data collection but the nominal lists we had been given for each trade group wereincorrect. The incorrect lists could have biased someone’s choice and, consequently, we excludedthis data from analyses. Of particular concern was the fact that someone may have been pre-vented from nominating a person in their group because the name of that person did not appearin the incorrect list of names they were given to chose from. Conversely, some individuals maynot have been nominated because their name appeared on the list given to a different group. Forthe second data collection we asked participants to nominate three individuals from their groupwithout providing them with a nominal list.

2.3. Procedure

Nominal lists of participants were obtained from the personnel in charge of running the train-ing camp. During the last week of camp, participants were taken to one of two rooms where thestudy and the voluntary aspect of their participation were explained to them. Participants wereasked to complete the intrapersonal and interpersonal EI scales, the empathy scale, and the


desirability scale. For the peer evaluation, participants were asked to rate their roommate (whenpossible) and three or four randomly selected peers, mainly from amongst their trade group, oninterpersonal EI. Names of peers to be rated were written on Post-itTM flags, which were removedonce the measures had been sorted and stapled together for each participant. Blank ques-tionnaires were returned when participants did not know well the peer(s) they were asked to rate.This happened because of the incorrect lists we were provided and resulted in an unequal numberof raters per participant. Participants also nominated three peers from their group for popularity,friendship, and leadership.Junior leaders were asked to complete the questionnaire for each member of their respec-

tive group at the end of camp. They were involved in both sessions and thus rated bothsamples.

3. Results

Peers’ evaluations of participants’ interpersonal EI were aggregated, as were the junior leaders’evaluations. An index of interrater agreement, rwg, was computed to evaluate the appropriatenessof averaging the scores of different raters (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984, 1993). A computationwas made for four different groups. Results indicated that the following percentages of within-participant raters had rwg index scores of greater than 0.7: for two peer raters, 87% (N=34);for three peer raters, 85% (N=70); for four peer raters, 90% (N=75); for two junior leaderraters, 100% (N=119). The random selection of peers used for the peer assessments may havecontributed to the lower index scores observed for peer ratings as compared to those of juniorleader ratings. On the basis of these results, it was concluded that averaging of scores wasacceptable.

3.1. Reliability

Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and internal consistencies (when applicable)for each of the measures are presented in Table 1. For the second half of the sample,standardized scores were used for within-groups peer nominations to mitigate the effect ofdifferent group sizes (between 14 and 22). All observed internal consistency values wereabove conventional cutoffs (DeVellis, 1991) with the exception of the Personal Distress subscale.The scale was used, but results based on the Personal Distress subscale should be interpretedwith some caution.

3.2. Validity

To demonstrate convergent validity, the two EI scales should correlate with each other andwith empathy. As expected, results indicate that the scores on the Schutte et al. (1998) and theself-report version of the Weisinger (1998) scales are highly correlated. Both scales correlatedsignificantly with three empathy factors, namely Perspective Taking, Fantasy, and EmpathicConcern. Personal Distress did not correlate significantly with either EI scale. A further check onthe convergent validity of the Weisinger (1998) scale revealed that the self-rating scores did not


correlate significantly with peers’ or with junior leaders’ ratings. Peers’ ratings correlated sig-nificantly with junior leaders’ ratings, although the correlation is small.In sum, both the intrapersonal and interpersonal EI scales demonstrated good convergent

validity with each other and with empathy, but inter-rater correlations for the Weisinger scalewere lower than expected.A high correlation between the EI scales and desirability would suggest poor discriminant

validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). The Schutte et al. (1998) scale and the Weisinger (1998) scalecorrelated moderately with desirability. Hence, adolescents tended to answer items on both scalesin a way that made them appear good, which may be more problematic for the Schutte et al. scalethan for the Weisinger scale.Gender differences were expected on the empathy factors and on the Schutte et al. (1998) scale.

As expected, female participants scored significantly higher than male participants on threeempathy factors, namely Perspective taking, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress (seeTable 2). Although in the expected direction, the gender differences failed to reach significance forthe Fantasy scale and for the Schutte et al. scale. Female participants scored higher both on theself-report and on the peer-rating version of the Weisinger (1998) scale, but there was no genderdifference in the junior leader ratings on this scale.

3.3. Popularity, friendship, and leadership nominations

The peer-nomination data were obtained with a limited sample (N=84) and the scores werestandardized within each group to eliminate the effect of unequal group sizes. Contrary toexpectation, scores on the Schutte et al. (1998) scale did not correlate significantly with any peernominations (see Table 1). In contrast, scores on the self-rated version of the Weisinger (1998)scale correlated significantly with peer nominations of socio-emotional leadership and task-goal lea-dership. Similarly, peer-ratings of interpersonal EI correlated significantly with peer nominations

Table 1Descriptive statistics and incorrelations for all study variables (N=191)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Empathy (total) 2.29 0.71 [0.77]b

2. Perspective Taking 2.33 0.38 0.62c [0.67]

3. Fantasy 2.39 0.84 0.74c 0.25c [0.72]

4. Empathic Concern 2.70 0.67 0.76c 0.41c 0.38 [0.69]

5. Personal Distress 1.58 0.61 0.40c �0.12 0.12 0.13 [0.57]

6. Intrapersonal EI 3.70 0.53 0.22c 0.38c 0.45c 0.38c �0.10 [0.90]

7. Interpersonal EI (self) 2.77 0.49 0.30c 0.41c 0.33c 0.48c �0.08 0.58c [0.86]

8. Desirability 3.46 0.66 0.16 0.35c 0.16c 0.30c �0.26c 0.49c 0.34c [0.61]

9. Interpersonal EI (peers) 2.37 0.72 0.10 0.05 0.17 0.12 �0.10 0.14 0.09 0.15

10. Interpersonal EI (leaders) 2.42 0.82 �0.01 0.10 0.00 0.12 �0.17 0.04 0.14 0.18 0.22c

11. Popularity (Z-peers)a 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.03 0.04 �0.01 �0.02 �0.01 0.21 �0.18 0.10 �0.03

12. Friendship (Z-peers) 0.02 0.99 �0.00 �0.04 �0.03 0.12 �0.16 �0.12 0.25 �0.07 0.40c 0.00 0.49c

13. Leader-Task (Z-peers) 0.03 1.00 0.19 0.05 0.18 0.28 0.04 0.05 0.34c 0.01 0.35c 0.39c 0.12 0.37c

14. Leader- Social (Z-peers) 0.05 0.97 0.31c 0.18 0.23c 0.34c 0.13 0.04 0.38c 0.00 0.36c 0.20 0.44c 0.60c 0.63c

a For all peer nominations (11, 12, 13, and 14), data were available only for the second half of sample (N=84).b Numbers in square brackets represent Cronbach’s �.c P<0.01.


of friendship and the two types of leadership. Comparable junior leaders’ ratings correlatedsignificantly only with peer-ratings of task-goal leadership.

4. Discussion

The present study included a basic validity check on two measures of EI in adolescents. Weadopted Martinez-Pons’ (1998) conceptualization of EI. Specifically, we predicted that the twoaspects of EI would be differentially related to leadership.The present study extends previous research on EI in four ways. First, it suggests that the use of

Schutte et al.’s (1998) scale may be problematic with adolescents. Second, Weisinger’s (1998)interpersonal EI scale demonstrated acceptable basic psychometric properties and may be usedwith caution in adolescents, at least until further validation is undertaken. Third, we demon-strated that the other-oriented aspect of EI is observable and can be assessed by others. Lastly,the results demonstrated that some aspects of EI are associated with leadership not only in adults(Barling et al., 2000), but also in adolescents.

4.1. Validity

Convergent validation using an empathy scale yielded significant moderate to high correlationswith both self-rating scales of EI, as expected. Only the empathy factor of Personal Distress didnot correlate with either scale. Many items on this factor are related to how one reacts in emer-gency situations. These reactions may be less closely related to EI and more closely related toemergency reaction training, such as first aid, which is a learned skill. Also, the observed internalconsistency for this subscale was low.Weisinger’s (1998) interpersonal scale was also tested for convergent validity using a multi-rater

method. Consistent with the literature on self-reports (e.g. Sosik & Megerian, 1999), adolescentstended to rate themselves higher than did their peers or their junior leaders. However, the lack of

Table 2

Gender differences for empathy and emotional intelligence

Variable Boys Girls df t

M SD M SD

Empathy 2.22 0.85 2.40 0.43 189 �1.72Perspective Taking 2.22 0.66 2.46 0.67 183 �2.41a

Fantasy 2.30 0.81 2.51 0.86 181 �1.68Empathic Concern 2.57 0.70 2.88 0.60 182 �3.09b

Personal Distress 1.48 0.57 1.72 0.64 180 �2.70b

Intrapersonal EI 3.64 0.55 3.78 0.48 189 �1.75Intrapersonal EI (self) 2.69 0.49 2.87 0.49 186 �2.55a

Intrapersonal EI (peers) 2.23 0.74 2.55 0.64 182 �3.09b

Intrapersonal EI (junior leaders) 2.38 0.84 2.49 0.78 187 �0.88

a P<0.05.b P<0.01.


correlation between the self-rated and the other-rated versions is a concern. It is possible thatitems in the self-rated version were interpreted as how the participant focused on others’ emotionsin general. In contrast, the same items rated by peers and junior leaders may have been inter-preted more specifically as how the participant dealt with the rater’s emotions. Alternatively, itcould be that a period of three weeks is too short to get to know a person well on an emotionallevel, in a military environment.Theoretically, the other-oriented aspect of EI should be detectable by others. However, the

correlation between the peer-rated and junior leader-rated versions is low, suggesting a poorinter-rater convergent validity. Three explanations are possible. First, the random selection ofpeers used for the peer assessment may contribute to the lower correlation. Indeed, it is possiblethat the selected peers were familiar with participants to different degrees, thereby introducingexaggerated variability in the responses. Second, a military environment may not be conducive tointeractions on an emotional level between individuals of different ranks. Indeed, the militarymay encourage individuals to relate differently to their peers and to their superiors. Junior leadershad authority over the participants and it may have been considered inappropriate for a partici-pant to attend to his/her junior leader’s emotions. Finally, peers were younger than junior leadersand may have an EI that is less well developed than that of junior leaders. Accordingly, peers mayhave been less aware of others’ emotions.To demonstrate good discriminant validity, the EI scales should correlate minimally with the

desirability measure. Desirability was especially problematic in the Schutte et al. (1998) scale,suggesting a tendency to answer items in a way that leaves a good impression. The problem maylie with the scale (e.g. items too transparent, only three items reverse coded) or with the popula-tion (e.g. younger age group than that for which the instrument was intended), or both. Hence,the Schutte et al. scale should be used with caution with adolescents.As expected from previous findings (e.g. Davis & Franzoi, 1991), the present results indicated

significant gender differences on three of the four empathy factors. Only the difference on theFantasy factor did not reach significance and the reason for this is unknown.Female participants scored significantly higher than male participants in the self-rating and

peer-rating versions, but not the junior leader-rating version of Weisinger’s (1998) other-orientedEI scale. However, contrary to Schutte et al.’s (1998) reported gender difference in an adultpopulation, the gender difference on the Schutte et al. scale did not reach significance. Self-oriented EI may be less developed in adolescents than in adults. Indeed, the average item scoreson this scale (M=3.78 and M=3.64, for girls and boys, respectively) are lower than scoresreported by Schutte et al. for her adult samples (M=3.97 and M=3.78, for women and men,respectively).The general pattern of the validation results indicate that Schutte et al.’s (1998) scale may be

problematic for use in adolescents mainly because it correlates moderately with a measure ofdesirability. The items may not be well suited for this age group. Alternatively, the problem maylie with the scale and not this age group. Indeed, most items on the Schutte et al. scale aretransparent and worded positively. Comparison with the scale’s relation to social desirability inadult samples would clarify the issue.Weisinger’s (1998) interpersonal EI scale looks more promising, but should be more extensively

validated before its use can be recommended for adolescent populations. In particular, it shouldbe tested using other theoretically related constructs (e.g. extraversion, self-esteem, assertiveness,


interpersonal communication, interpersonal competence) to establish the distinctiveness of EIfrom other personal traits. As one anonymous reviewer rightly pointed out, the number of newscales that are labeled EI is increasing rapidly and it is imperative that new scales be tested toensure they are not re-labeled versions of well-established measures.

4.2. Popularity, friendship, and leadership nominations

Results are quite striking and contrary to expectations: none of the correlations betweenSchutte et al.’s (1998) scale and peer nominations are significant. Possible explanations includethe questionable validity of the scale, a poorly defined construct, and the younger age of theparticipants. Furthermore, the factorial structure of the scale has been questioned (Petrides &Furnham, 2000).In contrast, individuals who rated themselves highly on Weisinger’s (1998) interpersonal EI

scale were peer-nominated more often on leadership abilities. Similarly, peer-ratings on theinterpersonal EI scale were significantly correlated with nominations of friendship and the twoleadership types, but not with popularity. Taken together, these results suggest that popularitywas not associated with having high interpersonal EI.Lastly, a highly emotionally intelligent individual, as perceived by junior leaders, was more

likely to be nominated by peers as being able to get the job done (task–goal leadership) than to benominated for resolving interpersonal conflicts within a committee (socio-emotional leadership).Peers did not distinguish between the task-goal orientation and the socio-emotional orientation inleadership, but junior leaders did. On the basis of Martinez-Pons’ (1998) relation between other-oriented EI and social functioning, we expected the relation to be with socio-emotional leader-ship, which involves the use of social skills, and not with task–goal leadership. In the context of amilitary skills training camp, junior leaders may have paid more attention to the fact that a taskhad been completed, and less to the manner in which it was completed. In contrast, peers mayhave paid attention to both task completion and the manner in which it was completed. Indeed,peers are directly involved in accomplishing the task whereas junior leaders may be interestedmostly in its completion.The significant correlations between interpersonal EI and peer nominations of leadership are

consistent with Goleman’s (1998) claim of a relation between EI and leadership, at least in part.These results also extend Barling et al.’s (2000) findings of such a relation in adults. However, ourresults suggest that only some aspects of EI may be related to leadership.The pattern of peer nomination intercorrelations differs from that reported by Schneider et al.

(in press). First, the correlation between the two types of leadership (r=0.63) is lower than thatfound by Schneider et al. (r=0.81) and suggests that the two types of leadership are theoreticallyrelated but distinct from one another. Second, peers tended to nominate their friends as good leadersin the current study whereas in the Schneider et al. study, they tended to nominate popular individualsfor leadership positions. There are some important differences between the current study and that ofSchneider and his colleagues (in press). Peers had known each other for up to 24 months in theSchneider et al. sample, whereas peers had been observing each other for only 3 weeks in the currentsample, although some participants knew each other from previous summers. This shorter contacttime may have provided less time to get to know the popular individuals well enough to nominatethem for a leadership position. Another difference resides in themethod. Schneider and his colleagues


provided a list of names for peers to choose from whereas participants in the present study had tonominate peers within their groups, without the use of a list. In the absence of a list, it is possiblethat friends’ names came first to mind when answering the questions.

4.3. Generalizability and limitations

The present findings can be regarded with confidence for several reasons. First, gender differ-ences in empathy were replicated for the most part on a well-known empathy questionnaire(Davis, 1980). This gives credibility to the way participants responded to items. Second, we usedpeers and junior leaders as raters on one questionnaire, thereby avoiding mono-method bias.Third, it may be argued that summer military training camp emphasizes discipline and obediencemore than the development of EI. Therefore, scores on EI may have been lower than would havebeen found in other contexts. This increases our confidence that any significant result would bereplicable in another sample. Nonetheless, the instruments should be administered to different,non-military samples before firm conclusions about them can be reached.Some cautionary statements must be made regarding the findings. First, the scales that we used

were not ‘‘pure’’ on either dimension as each scale contained some items of the other dimension.We have not demonstrated that our assumption about the existence of two different aspects of EIwas correct. Because of concerns due to a limited sample size and the possibility of problems withthe validity of the Schutte et al. (1998) scale, conclusions based on a factorial examination of thepresent data set would be questionable. However, preliminary results (not reported here) suggestthat a factorial exploration of the intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of EI on a larger sam-ple may be a worthwhile endeavor. Second, the peer-nomination data on popularity, friendship,and leadership were obtained with a limited sample. Finally, the measure of leadership was basedon perceptions of who would be the most efficient individual in a hypothetical scenario. Aninstrument assessing leadership behaviours, such as transformational leadership behaviours,would be preferred as it may reflect reality more closely.In conclusion, results indicated that the Schutte et al. (1998) scale may be problematic because

of questionable discriminant validity, despite good convergent validity. In contrast, Weisinger’s(1998) scale revealed acceptable discriminant validity but yielded mixed results on convergentvalidity, evidenced by low inter-rater correlations. Results suggest that the interpersonal aspect of EI,which can be assessed by others, is associated with peer nominations of leadership in adolescents.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Academic Research Program Grant GRC0000B1607 from theRoyal Military College to Danielle Charbonneau. The authors thank Sarah Hill for her com-ments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

References

Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organizations: a conceptualization. Genetic, Social, and GeneralPyschology Monographs, 135, 209–224.

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an explora-tory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 157–161.


Bar-on, R. (1997). Bar-on emotional Quotient Inventory: technical manual. New York: Multi-Health Systems.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrati-multimethod matrix.

Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct.Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of SelectedDocuments in Psychology, 10, 85.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. L. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 25, 70–87.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bul-letin, 101, 91–119.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, November–December, 93–102.Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form Manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologist Press.James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without

response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78, 306–309.

Locke, E. A. (1991). The essence of leadership. The four keys to leading successfully. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Martinez-Pons, M. (1997). The relation of emotional intelligence with selected areas of personal functioning. Imagi-nation, Cognition and Personality, 17, 3–13.

Martinez-Pons,M. (1998). Parental inducement of emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 18, 3–23.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence?. In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotionaldevelopment and emotional intelligence: educational implications. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Megerian, L. E., & Sosik, J. J. (1996). An affair of the heart: emotional intelligence and transformational leadership.

The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 31–48.Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Indivi-dual Differences, 29, 313–320.

Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity and repair:Exploring emotional intelligence using the trait meta-mood scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure,

health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Holcombe, K. M. (in press). Leadership in adolescence: comparing peer and teacherperspectives and correlates. Leadership Quarterly.

Schneider, B., Paul, M. C., White, S. S., & Holcombe, K. M. (1999). Understanding high school student leaders, I:predicting teacher ratings of leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 609–636.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Devel-

opment and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Group andOrganization Management, 24, 367–390.

Weisinger, H. (1998). Emotional intelligence at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership inadolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 211–226.


emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents

Documents

nicol personality

royal military college

personal distress subscale

junior leaders ratings

junior leader ratings

transformational leadership behaviours

interpersonal ei scale

college students