RELATING EMOTION RECOGNITION, EXTRAVERSION AND COGNITIVE INTELLIGENCE TO LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE: AN INTEGRATIVE

RELATING EMOTION RECOGNITION, EXTRAVERSION AND COGNITIVE INTELLIGENCE TO LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE: AN INTEGRATIVE

PERSPECTIVE

REDMAR J. WOUDSTRA Student number: 1542303

University of Groningen

Msc HRM, Faculty of Economics and Business Spaanse Aakstraat 57

9741 CV Groningen Tel: 06 30 40 51 46

Email: r.j.woudstra@student.rug.nl

Coach:

F. Walter

RELATING EMOTION RECOGNITION, EXTRAVERSION AND COGNITIVE INTELLIGENCE TO LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE: AN INTEGRATIVE

PERSPECTIVE

ABSTRACT

This study examined how emotion recognition related to leadership emergence in a

sample of 73 undergraduate students in 22 groups. Moreover, I tested for moderating effects

of cognitive intelligence and extraversion on the emotion recognition – leadership emergence

relation. Moderated multiple regression analysis of the data showed empirical support for the

hypothesis on the moderating effect of extraversion. This result replicates other research and

stresses the importance of research in leadership emergence mechanisms. Practical

implications for team design and use of emotion recognition in selection are given.

INTRODUCTION

More than a century after Terman’s (1904) first notion, the trait approach to leadership is back on track. Trait theory assumes that leadership depends on personal characteristics of the individual (Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002). Traits serve two important purposes.

First, people hold certain prototypes of leaders with associated traits, which they project on individuals (Hogg, 2001; Lord, Foti & De Vader, 1984) and use to judge the individual as a leader (Smith & Foti, 1998). Second, traits play an important role in understanding behaviour (Smith & Foti, 1998) and emergence of leaders (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983).

Leadership emergence is the perception of the leadership qualities of an individual in groups with no formal leader (Judge et al., 2002; Lord, DeVader & Alliger, 1986; Lord et al., 1984; Taggar, Hackett & Saha, 1999). Understanding the emergence of leaders is important as today’s organizations increasingly implement self-managing work teams. In these teams, no formal leader is appointed so an informal leader may emerge (Wageman, 1997). To predict which individuals emerge as leaders, knowledge of traits and other individual characteristics of the potential leader is necessary (Wageman, 1997). The effect of traits like personality and intelligence on leadership emergence are widely investigated. The Big Five personality factors accounted for 28% of the explained variance in leadership emergence (Bono & Judge, 2004). Extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience contribute most to leadership emergence (Bono & Judge, 2004). Cognitive intelligence also has a positive contribution to leadership emergence (Judge, Colbert & Ilies, 2004). Although not considered traits, emotion-related variables are also important in leadership (Humphrey, 2002;

Muchinsky, 2000), as leadership is an emotional process (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002).

The role of emotion-related variables is however largely overlooked (Damen, Van

Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2008).

Within the emotion domain, emotional intelligence is advocated to be essential for leadership (Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter & Buckley, 2003). Unambiguous empirical evidence that clarifies the role of EI in leadership emergence is sparse (Antonakis, 2003).

Most studies focus on charismatic and transformation leadership (Barling, Slater & Kelloway, 2000; Downey, Papageorgiou & Stough, 2006; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Rubin, Munz &

Bommer., 2005; Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002) and leadership effectiveness (Prati et al., 2003;

Rosete & Carriochi, 2005; Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002). Up to now, few studies (Côté, Lopes, Salovey & Miners, in press; Wolff, Pescosolido & Druskat, 2002) focus on the link between EI and leadership emergence. This paper empirically closes the gap between emotional intelligence and leadership emergence.

Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize, use, have knowledge about and manage emotions of the self and others (George, 2000). Emotion recognition is the most reliable and valid part of emotional intelligence (Chiarocchi, Chan & Caputi, 2000; Elfenbein

& Ambady, 2002b). Emotion recognition accuracy (ERA) refers to accuracy in assessment of outward expressions of emotional behaviour, like facial expressions and gestures (Elfenbein

& Ambady, 2002a). ERA fosters right interpretation of emotional reactions (Newcombe &

Askhanasy, 2002), social interaction (Nowicky & Duke, 2001) and effective negotiation (Elfenbein, Foo, White, Tan & Aik, 2007). Also, ERA contributes positive to transformational leadership (Rubin et al., 2005), which shows that ERA can play a role in leadership.

Therefore, this study will focus on the relevance of ERA for leadership emergence.

Past research on EI and leadership emergence revealed three main problems. First, little research has been done to link EI and ERA with leadership emergence (Daus &

Ashkanasy, 2005). This is remarkable, because even harsh critics advocate leadership

emergence to be a logical variable influenced by EI (Landy, 2005). A study that investigates

the EI-leadership emergence relation is the study of Wolff and colleagues (2002). The study

did not focus on ERA, but on another part of EI, empathy (George, 2000). They found empathy to support cognitions and behaviours necessary for emerging as a leader, but a direct relation between empathy and leadership emergence was not tested (Wolff et al., 2002). In another study, Côté and colleagues (in press) found that emotion recognition was the most robust predictor of leadership emergence. The body of research is to date too small to conclude on the direct effect of EI or ERA on leadership emergence.

Analogous to this problem is that most studies on EI and leadership fail to control for personality and cognitive intelligence (Antonakis, 2003). Controlling for personality and cognitive intelligence is necessary to determine the incremental value of EI in the leadership context (Antonakis, 2003). Several studies (Austin Saklofske & Egan, 2005; Gannon &

Ranzijn, 2005; Vakola, Tsaousis & Nikolau, 2004) showed that EI can predict over-and-above personality and cognitive intelligence on several life outcomes. Evidence with regard to leadership outcomes is still absent (Antonakis, 2003). Also, moderating effects are found for extraversion, on the relation between EI and transformational leadership behaviour (Rubin et al, 2005), and cognitive intelligence (Côté & Miners, 2006), on the EI – job performance relation. These studies show the importance of controlling for and investigating moderating effects of personality and cognitive intelligence.

Thirdly, many studies uses self-report measures instead of ability measures of EI

(Barling et al., 2000; Downey et al., 2006; Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002). There is much

criticism on self-reports measures. Conte (2005) argues that self-report EI measures are

measuring personality constructs, not individual’s ability. Self-reports can work well when the

individual’s understanding of his ability is right, but most of the times this is not the case

(Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000). People generally overestimate their emotional intelligence

ability (Côté et al., in press). Therefore, self-reports measure emotional self-efficacy instead

of emotional ability (Petrides & Furnham, 2003).

This research addresses the three problems. First, this study adds to the studies of Wolff and colleagues (2005) and Côté and colleagues (in press) by testing a direct relation between emotional intelligence and leadership emergence. Second, to determine the incremental value of ERA to leadership emergence, I control for personality and cognitive intelligence factors as Antonakis (2003) deemed necessary. Moreover, I examine possible moderating effects of extraversion (Rubin et al., 2005) and cognitive intelligence (Côté &

Miners, 2006) on the ERA- LSE relation. Third, I use the most validated part of EI: emotion recognition accuracy. The studied relationships are graphically shown in model 1. This study helps to give an integrative perspective on personality, cognitive intelligence, EI and leadership. The results could tell more about the importance of ERA in social situations in general and leadership situations in particular (Elfenbein et al., 2007; Rubin et al., 2005).

- - - - - - insert figure 1 about here

- - - - - -

HYPOTHESES Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence

I hypothesize that EI can contribute to leadership emergence in two ways: through impression management and by fostering favourable interpersonal relations.

Perceptions of being suitable as a leader play an important role in leadership

emergence (Lord et al., 1984; Smith & Foti, 1998). Impression management, the process of

manipulation of the image of the self towards others (Rao, Schmidt & Murray, 1995), can

feed these perceptions (Chan, Hannah & Gardner, 2005). The leader-follower relation is laden

with emotions (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Lewis, 2000), and leaders are expected to

understand and value emotions (Kellet, Humphrey & Sleeth, 2002). Emotion recognition

helps to decode these emotional cues correctly (Newcombe & Ashkanasy, 2002) and making a good impression by taking proper action (Pescosolido, 2002). So, emotion recognitions can help to make positive impressions of the self (Fox & Spector, 2005). The positive impressions make the individual more leaderlike in the eyes of the followers. Hence, the individual will emerge more likely. This can be illustrated with the following example: an individual recognizes emotions of a peer. By acting upon this emotion, the individual creates the impression of understanding and valuing the emotion (Kellet et al., 2002). That impression feeds a positive perception of leader qualities, making it more likely that the individual will emerge as leader. Thus, by enhancing perceptions of leader qualities, emotion recognition adds to leadership emergence through impression management.

Second, someone can emerge as a leader through good relations with followers (Uhl- Bien, 2003), because followers expect leaders to create a bond with them (Kellet, Humphrey

& Sleeth, 2006). A leader can built a bond by meeting the emotional needs of the followers (Michie & Gooty, 2003; Nowicky & Duke, 2001; Zaccaro, Foti & Kenny, 1991). Individuals high on emotion recognition are able to work out the emotional desires of the followers, because they recognize the emotions that feed these desires (Riggio & Reichard, 2008). By acting upon the emotions, the needs of the followers can be met (Lopes et al., 2004; Rossen &

Kranzler, 2009). For example, some followers are sad, because there is a negative group atmosphere. Someone high in emotion recognition will identify the emotions (sadness), act upon it and meets the followers needs by create more positive group moods (Rubin et al., 2005). This will foster the leader-follower relation and the person will more likely emerge as a leader.

Based on these arguments, emotion recognition skills can influence leader emergence

in two ways. First by influencing the perceptions that make the leader emerge through

impression management. Second, emotion recognition helps to build better relations between the potential leader and member, which is an important requirement for emerging as a leader.

H1: Emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence are positively related.

Cognitive intelligence, emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence

In an extensive meta-analysis, Judge and colleagues (2004) examined the relationship between cognitive intelligence and leadership emergence. They found a moderate positive relation between pen-and-paper measures of cognitive intelligence and leadership emergence.

Perceptions of being intelligent are related to leader emergence too (Rubin, Bartels &

Bommer, 2002). Intelligence serves an important function in impression management:

intelligent people emerge as a leader, because they are able to impress followers with their intellect (Rubin et al., 2002). So, cognitive intelligence can be an important predictor of leadership emergence

.

This does not imply that there is no hope for those (relatively) low on cognitive intelligence. Certain individual characteristics can compensate for a lower cognitive intelligence (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). Côté and Miners (2006) showed that EI becomes more important for predicting job performance when cognitive intelligence decreases. Thus, EI can compensate for a lower cognitive intelligence in job performance.

The results of Côté & Miners (2006) foster interest in the moderating effect of cognitive intelligence on leadership outcomes. Cognitive intelligence helps to achieve better performance on the technical aspects of the job, because leaders deal with complex problems and decisions, which can be solved with high cognitive intelligence (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs & Fleishman, 2000). On the other hand, the relation-oriented aspect of leadership (Humphrey, 2002) can not be neglected. That is the part where ERA comes into play. Those high on ERA create better leader-member relations. I argue, in line with the

1 Because extensive research is done on the main effect of cognitive intelligence on leadership emergence (see

reasoning of Côté and Miners (2006), that emerging leaders can compensate for low cognitive intelligence by higher ERA. They compensate their lesser skill on the technical aspects of leadership with more skill on the relation-oriented aspects. This mechanism can be illustrated with an example. Someone low on cognitive intelligence can be just average in setting goals (technical aspect; Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta & Kramer, 2004), but very good in maintaining member relations (Michie & Gooty, 2003), and therefore still emerge as a leader. The lower the cognitive intelligence is, the stronger the relation between emotional intelligence and leadership emergence (Côté & Miners, 2006). Therefore, I developed hypothesis H2.

H2: Cognitive intelligence moderates the relation between emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence. The lower the score on cognitive intelligence, the stronger the relation between emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence.

Extraversion, emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence

The five-factor model of personality (FFM, also called Big Five) is the most used personality model (Judge et al., 2002). The five factors of personality are neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness. Personality has been extensively studied in relation with leadership topics. Judge and colleagues (2002) performed a meta-analysis to relate the FFM factors to leadership emergence. Personality accounted for 28% of the variance in leadership emergence. Three out of the five dimensions showed a significant positive relation to leadership emergence: extraversion, conscientiousness and openness. In this study, only extraversion is considered

, as it is the strongest contributor to leadership emergence (Judge et al., 2002). Extraversion is the propensity to be social and assertive. High scorers experience positive moods and are energetic (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998; Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge et al., 2002).

2 Because extensive research is done on the main effect of extraversion on leadership emergence (see Judge et al., 2002), I will only look at the moderating effect of extraversion.

Rubin and colleagues (2005) found extraversion to moderate the relation between ERA and transformational leadership behaviour. I argue that this moderating effect can be reproduced for the relation between ERA and leadership emergence, because being extraverted helps to act upon recognized emotions.

Being able to recognize emotions does not mean that something is done with that information. Being extraverted increases the chance of acting upon the recognized emotion.

Extraverted individuals are less anxious to act upon (Zuckerman, Larrance, Hall, DeFrank &

Rosenthal, 1979) and more attentive to emotions of others (Matsumoto et al., 2000).

Therefore, it is more likely that extraverted individuals act upon an emotional cue of another individual. To illustrate this with an example: someone can have superior ERA and recognize emotional cues in others perfectly accurate, but because he or she is a very shy person (thus introverted) he or she does not act upon these emotions. An extraverted individual will do act, and so harvest the advantages of their emotion recognition accuracy (Rubin et al., 2005). As stated earlier, acting upon emotions gives followers the impression of valuing and understanding the follower’s emotion (Kellet et al., 2002). Thus, being extraverted makes effective impression management through acting upon emotions more likely. Consequently, we can infer a moderating effect of extraversion on the ERA – leadership emergence relation.

I posit that extraverted individuals with a high ability on recognizing emotions are more likely to emerge than individuals low on extraversion and high on emotion recognition. So, hypotheses H3 will be:

H3: Extraversion moderates the relation between emotion recognition accuracy and

leadership emergence. The higher the extraversion score, the stronger the relation between

emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence.

METHODS Participants

Participants were 162 undergraduate students from the second year of a business study at a large Dutch public university. Out of the 162, response rate was 44,5 percent: 72 students completed all the necessary tests and questionnaires. The students were enrolled in a practical course in organizational change and human resource management, in which they performed several assignments in groups. The students were randomly assigned to 22 groups, consisting of 2 to 4 students, with an average of 3.32 member per group. The sample included 40 men and 33 women. Age ranged from 19 to 24, with an average 21.00 years (sd = 1.38).

Procedures

The research was a obligatory part of the course. The research took part on three different points. First, emotion recognition accuracy and cognitive intelligence were assessed before the assignments started. The students performed the respective tests in a classroom in groups of 30-40 students.

After the first three weeks of the practical course, the students received a paper survey with questions regarding personality variables and control variables. Three to four weeks later, the second questionnaire was done, assessing the leader emergence of the team members. All questions of the questionnaires were in English. The data of the respondents was anonymised for confidentiality issues.

Measures

Emotion recognition accuracy. Emotion recognition accuracy was measured by the

Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA: Nowicki & Duke, 2001). The

DANVA has shown to be a valid measure (Rubin et al., 2005) and is widely used (Mayer,

Roberts & Barsade, 2008). The DANVA assesses the ability to accurately identify emotions

in pictures of facial expressions, postures and voices. The participants first watched 24

pictures of faces expressing either happiness, sadness, anger and fear in low and high

intensities. After the pictures, the participants watched 24 photographs of postures in a happy, sad, angry or fearful state. In the last part of the test, the participants listened to two actors saying a neutral sentence 24 times on a happy, sad, angry or fearful tone. For all test parts, the participants needed to asses the right emotion. Answers could either be “0”(wrong) or “1”

(correct). For research purposes, the mean of all 72 questions was taken. Internal reliability of the test was just acceptable (Cronbach’s α = .62). This is in line with earlier empirical findings by Rubin and colleagues (2005), who found a Cronbach’s alpha of .68. Nowicki and Duke (2001) found an internal reliability of .78, showing that the DANVA is in general a reliable measure.

Cognitive intelligence. Cognitive intelligence was measured through the Culture Fair Intelligence Test, scale 3, form A (Cattell & Cattell, 1963). In general, the CFIT has shown to be a reliable and widely used measure of cognitive intelligence (Baltes, Cornelius, Spiro, Nesselroade & Willis, 1980; Côté & Miners, 2006). The test consists of 50 items, divided into four different parts. For every part, a fixed time is given in which the participant needs to complete as many items as possible. Of all 50 items, the correct answers are counted (missing answers are considered wrong) and summed into an overall intelligence score. Higher scores indicate higher cognitive intelligence of the participant. Crohnbach’s alpha was moderate (Cronbach’s α = .52), suggesting internal reliability problems of the CFIT in this sample. I return on this problem in the discussion section.

Extraversion. Extraversion was assessed by four items. The items consist of two positive statements (e.g. “I am the life of the party”) and two negative statements (e.g. “I don’t talk a lot”), which are adapted from the mini-IPIP scales (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird &

Lucas, 2006). The participant needs to indicate how much this statement describes the self by

picking an answer out of the 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very

accurate). The extraversion measure demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .76). The scores on the four items were computed into a mean score. The higher the score,

the more extraverted the participant is.

Leadership emergence. Leadership emergence was assessed in the second

questionnaire. Every team member assessed the leadership emergence of their teammates.

There were six items for every member (e.g. “how much leadership does team member X exhibit in you team?”), adapted from the General Leadership Impression scale (GLI: Foti &

Hauenstein, 2007; Lord et al., 1984). Scores range on a 5 point Likert scale from “1” (very little) to “5” (very much). Internal reliability showed to be excellent (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Scores are aggregated per individual and I computed a total mean score.

Control variables. Control variables are necessary to extract the incremental effect of EI on outcomes (Antonakis, 2003). Therefore, I included several control variables. I will control for cognitive intelligence and all FFM personality factors. This is in line with Antonakis (2003) argumentation, who stated that controlling for general intelligence and personality measures is vital in EI research. As extraversion, all four remaining FFM

personality factors are measured with four statements, out of which a mean score is computed.

Internal reliabilities the measures for the conscientiousness (Crohnbach’s α = .67),

neuroticism (Crohnbach’s α = .69) and openness to experience (Crohnbach’s α = .70) measure proved acceptable, though the agreeableness measure was only marginally acceptable

(Crohnbach’s α = .60).

I also added another control variable to the analysis: liking, which is the extent to

which other members regard the respective person as a nice person and a (potential) friend

(Hogg, 2001). It affects leader-member exchange (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000), which

can lead to perceptions of someone being an emergent leader. Most important, the rating of

someone as a possible leader is heavily influenced by interpersonal affect, e.g. liking (Brown

& Keeping, 2005). Liking is measured with three items from Brown and Keeping (2005), assessing the extent to which a ratee regards the rated team member as a good friend, the extent of liking and the extent of getting along. Answers are on a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree). Scores per group member are averaged into a total score. Internal reliability is good (Cronbach’s alpha = .87).

ANALYSIS

To test my hypotheses, I will perform a hierarchical moderated multiple regression analysis. By using this method, all hypotheses could be tested at once. Dependent variable is the mean measure of leadership emergence from the second questionnaire. In hierarchical regression, the independent variables are entered in different steps. The first set of entered variables are the control variables: cognitive intelligence, all five FFM personality factors and liking. In the second step, the ERA measure is added, to determine the extra variation explained by ERA over-and-above the control variables.

In the last step, the cognitive intelligence and extraversion moderation measures are added. In moderated multiple regression, interacting variables for both moderating effects are computed. The variable is computed by first subtracting the mean from both the independent variable (ERA) and the dubbed moderating variable (CI or extraversion), and then multiplying these variables. By including the interaction variables in the analysis after the respective independent variables are added to the analysis, the unique variance explained by this variable can be assessed (Antonakis, Schriesheim, Donovan, Gopalakrishna-Pillai, Pellegrini &

Rossomme, 2004).

RESULTS

Table 1 shows means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations for all variables

included in the study Extraversion relates moderately positive to leadership emergence (r =

.25, p < .05), which was in line with earlier findings (Judge et al., 2002). Also, agreeableness

relates to leadership emergence (r = .30, p < .01). Cognitive intelligence and emotion recognition accuracy correlate moderately (r = .36, p < .01), indicating that both are related.

- - - - - - insert tables 1 and 2 about here

- - - - - -

Table 2 presents the results of the regression analysis. Hypothesis 1 stated that emotion recognition accuracy is positively related to leadership emergence. The results in Table 2 do not support hypothesis 1. The regression results for emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence are not significant (β = .09, p = n.s.).

Concerning the moderating effect of cognitive intelligence, hypothesis 2 stated that cognitive intelligence moderates the relation between emotion recognition accuracy and leadership emergence, so that the association between ERA and leadership emergence becomes stronger when cognitive intelligence is lower. This hypothesis is not supported by the results. As can be seen in table 2, the result for the interaction variable (ERA x CI) is not significant (β =- .01; p = n.s.).

Hypotheses 3 is concerned with the moderating effect of extraversion on the ERA- leadership emergence. A positive moderating effect is hypothesized: the higher the extraversion, the higher the effect of emotion recognition on leadership emergence. As can be seen, the interaction variable (ERA x Extraversion) contributes positively to leadership emergence (β = .314; p = .004). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is supported. Figure 2 shows how the moderating effect can be graphically shown.

- - - - - - insert figure 2 about here

- - - - - -

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine whether emotion recognition could add to leader emergence over-and-above personality and cognitive intelligence. Moreover, I wanted to examine the moderating effects of cognitive intelligence and extraversion on the emotion recognition – leadership emergence relation. Three hypotheses were tested: one was supported by the data. Neither a main effect of emotion recognition on leadership emergence, nor a moderating effect of cognitive intelligence was found. However, I found a positive moderating effect for extraversion on the emotion recognition – leadership emergence relation, which supported my third hypothesis. These findings do not only replicate earlier findings, they also shed a new light on emotion recognition and extraversion and their relevance for leadership processes.

First, although another study found a significant main effect of emotion recognition on leadership emergence (Côté et al., in press), I could not replicate this finding. A possible explanation can be that the sample size of this study is half the sample size from the Côté and colleagues (in press) study: 73 versus 138 participants. The found effect of emotion recognition in the study of Côté and colleagues (in press) is significant, but small (β=.02;

p<.05). This result suggests that although significantly contributing to leadership emergence, the direct effect of emotion recognition is small. A larger sample size might be able to determine a significant main effect of emotion recognition on leadership emergence (Higgs &

Aitken, 2003).

For the hypothesis on cognitive intelligence, the non-significant result means that

based on this result, the argument of Viswesvaran & Ones (2002) that one can compensate for

lower cognitive intelligence, does not hold for emotion recognition accuracy. That this study

did not produce significant results for cognitive intelligence, can be explained by the student

population. As all participants were students in the same academic study on the same

university, differences in cognitive intelligence between the students were small. Scores ranged from 20 to 38 (maximum score is 50), with a mean of 29.63. This indicates that most students had a similar level of cognitive intelligence. In addition, the low internal reliability (α

= .52) of the measure is problematic and can explain why no significant result was found. For this research, the CFIT was not a consistent measure. Therefore, the moderating effect of cognitive intelligence did not reach significance.

The supported hypothesis for extraversion means that high extraversion strengthens the relation between emotion recognition and leadership emergence. The same effect of extraversion was found by Rubin and colleagues (2005) for ERA and transformational leadership behaviour. The replication of this effect for leadership emergence shows the importance of extraversion in using emotion recognition ability. Together with the non- significant main effect of ERA on leadership emergence, these results suggest that ERA alone is not enough for leader emerging. As long as you are not extraverted (enough), you will not profit from your emotion recognition ability.

This finding can have important implications for the role of EI in leadership. The importance of extraversion to leadership was already known. Meta-analytical evidence that extraversion relates to leadership is plentyful (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000;

Judge et al., 2002). Extraversion has also shown to be a variable that distinguishes leaders

from followers and also adds to effective leader behaviour (Kickul & Neuman, 2000). The

direct effect of extraversion on leadership emergence confirms Kickul and Neuman’s (2000)

statement: extraversion distinguishes leaders from followers. On the other hand, their

statement regarding effective leader behaviour (Kickul & Neuman, 2000), can also be

supported with these results. The moderating effect of extraversion can suggest that

extraversion helps to use the emotion recognition ability in a way that adds to emerge as a

leader. Deeper investigation of the behaviours ERA contributes to, can help to give a more clear view on how ERA can be important for (potential) leaders.

Practical implications

With current rise of self-managing work teams, this research can help to give more insight in which team member might emerge as a leader. Earlier research showed the importance of extraversion, which this study confirms. This can have important implications for the design of teams, which has shown to influence team performance (Bell, 2007). Careful composition can lead to better performance (Bell, 2007). Extraverted individuals are more likely to emerge, so it is advisable to spread extraverted individuals over teams. When put altogether into one team, problem could arise that there are several potential leaders. Although distributed leadership can work under certain circumstances, it generally leads to performance problems (Day, Gronn & Salas, 2007). Teams with only introverted individuals can end up without any leader, floating to nowhere. Leaderless teams are problematic, as it can lead to severe performance deficits (Barry, 1991).

Based on this study, emotional intelligence still needs to be approached with caution.

Although significant contributions of EI-variables to work place outcomes are found, the conflicting results throughout current academic research suggest that selecting individuals on EI needs to be avoided (Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts, 2004). This study however does help to gain more insights in the role of extraversion and emotion recognition in leadership. It shows that emotion recognition matters for extraverted people. So, emotion recognition ability could become a selection variable when extraversion is also important for the potential employee.

Limitations

Although this study has some methodological strengths (controlling for cognitive

intelligence and personality; ability measure of emotional intelligence; longitudinal data), there are some limitations.

First, the data was obtained from a student population. This has some important implications. The students are all from the same academic study. This can lead to preselection: variation within the study population is relatively low. The choice for this study can imply that the students have more or less comparable personalities. Moreover, differences in cognitive intelligence are generally small between students as compared to real practice (Zeidner, Shani-Zinovich, Matthews & Roberts, 2005). Therefore, an important suggestion for future research on this topic is to take a more diverse population, for instance members from a business organization.

Second, based on this data, we can not make any inferences about causality. Although some requirements for a real experiment were met (e.g. random assignment), no variable was manipulated and there was no control group. Research in a laboratory setting on these variables could give more information on potential causal relations between the variables.

Third, as this study is performed in the Netherlands, generalizability across cultures is problematic. According to Hofstede’s (1980) cultural classifications, the Dutch society is characterized by both high femininity and high individualism. In feminist societies emotional intelligence can be more important because relations are more based on the amount of attention paid to the emotions of others (Férnandez-Berrocal, Salovey, Vera, Extremera &

Ramos, 2005). So, emotion recognition could play a greater role in feminist cultures. In similar countries like Scandinavia (Hofstede, 1980), the results of this study can be useful.

The Anglo-Saxon context is also pretty masculine (Hofstede, 1980) and Rubin and colleagues

(2005) showed that the moderating effect for extraversion is also applicable in this context

Nevertheless, research in even more masculine cultures, like Japan, Italy and South America,

could reveal whether the moderating effect of extraversion is cross-culturally applicable.

Moreover, in collectivist cultures emotions are more directed towards relations (Mesquita, 2001). This directivity towards others can influence the use and importance of emotion recognition. Other-directed emotions are more common in collectivist countries (Mesquita, 2001), so culture type can dwindle the effects of emotion recognition. Again, the results of this study can be applicable for more individualistic cultures, like the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries (Hofstede, 1980). In collectivist cultures in many Asian and South- American countries (Hofstede, 1980) the results can be different. These cultural differences do not only limit generalizability across countries, also within countries it can be problematic.

In the Netherlands for instance, generalizing these results towards collectivist cultures that hold a significant proportion of the total population, like the Turkish or Surinamese minorities, can be problematic (Mesquita, 2001).

Directions for future research

With regard to the moderating effect of extraversion on the ERA – leadership emergence relation, more research is required to examine this mechanism more closely.

Propensity to act upon emotions after recognition (Zuckerman et al., 1979) could be a variable that can tell us a bit more about the mechanism. More research on the mechanisms underlying the moderation of extraversion on ERA – leadership relations could well give more insight in how extraversion and emotional recognition, or even emotional intelligence are, interrelated.

Another related aspect on which future research should focus, are the processes that determine leadership emergence. Earlier research attempted to unravel the foundations of leadership emergence (Bryson & Kelley, 1978; Taggar et al., 1999; Wolff et al., 2002; Zarror

& Gastuello, 2000), but failed to give a definite picture. More research for mediating variables

and processes could help to solve the mystery of leadership emergence. One direction could

be to look whether antecedents of charismatic leadership can be applied to other forms of

leadership as well. Shamir and Howell (1999) identified the importance of environmental

conditions, like crisis, for emergence of charismatic leadership. Environmental conditions could be mediating factors in emergence of other forms of leadership too. Another important perspective on leadership emergence is the social construction view on leadership (Meindl, 1995). Leadership is seen as a social creation of followers, influenced by interpersonal aspects and relations. As impression management and relationship building can influence the social constructions (Meindl, 1995), this seems an fruitful view to link emotional intelligence to leadership emergence.

To assess whether the result on the moderating effect of cognitive intelligence found by Côté and Miners (2005) can be extended, future research should look for other samples than academic student samples. A more diverse sample can give more useful results.

Also, to assess whether these results are applicable in other cultures, samples from other cultures than the Dutch or Anglo-Saxon could be reveal more on cross-cultural effects of extraversion and emotion recognition on leadership outcomes. Especially Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions of masculinity and collectivism are culture factors that could influence the moderating effect of extraversion.

Also, because this study failed to find a main effect for ERA on leadership emergence, more research needs to be done to assess whether ERA can predict some variance in leadership emergence. When carefully controlling for other variables, the incremental value of ERA in leadership outcomes can be determined (Matthews, Roberts & Zeidner, 2004). The importance of emotions in leadership is little known but seems a fertile area for future research (Damen et al. 2008; Riggio & Reichard, 2008). Also, a larger sample is necessary to find a possible significant effect of emotion recognition on leadership outcomes (Higgs &

Aitken, 2003).

Conclusion

Though the role of emotional recognition in the leadership context remains elusive,

this study uncovers a little more. The moderating effect of extraversion on the emotion

recognition – leadership emergence relation found in this study does not only reproduce

earlier results (Rubin et al., 2005), it also gives direction for future research. Future research

should focus on examining the underlying processes of leadership emergence. That can tell us

more about why extraversion seems so important to emotion recognition and leadership.

LITERATURE

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. & Kramer, S.J. 2004. Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (1): 5-32

Antonakis, J. 2003. Why “emotional intelligence” does not predict leadership effectiveness: a comment on Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley 2003. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 11 (4): 355-361

Antonakis, J., Schriesheim, C.A., Donovan, J.A., Gopalakrishna – Pillai, K., Pellegrini, E.K. & Rossomme, J.L. 2004. Methods for studying leadership. In: Antonakis, J., Ciancolo, A.T. & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), The nature of leadership, 48-71. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Austin, E.J., Saklofske, D.H. & Egan, V. 2005. Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38 (): 547- 558

Baltes, P.B., Cornelius, S.W., Spiro, A., Nesselroade, J.R. & Willis, S.L. 1980.

Integration versus differentiation of fluid / crystallized intelligence in Old Age.

Developmental Psychology, 16 (6): 625-635

Barling, J., Slater, F. & Kelloway, E.K. 2000. Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21 (3): 157-161

Barry, D. 1991. Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership.

Organizational Dynamics, 20 (1): 31-47

Bell, S.T. 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance:

a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3): 595-615

Benet-Martínez, V. & John, O.P. 1998. Los cincos grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3): 729-750

Bono, J.E. & Ilies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (4): 317-334

Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology¸89 (5): 901-910

Brower, H.H., Schoorman, F.D. & Tan, H.T. 2000. A model of relational leadership:

the integration of trust and leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (2): 227- 250

Brown, D.J. & Keeping, L.M. 2005. Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: the role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2): 245-272

Bryson, J. & Kelley, G. 1978. A political perspective on leadership emergence, stability, and change in organizational networks. The Academy of Management Review, 3 (4): 713-723

Cattell, R.B. & Cattell, A.K. 1963. Test of “g”: Culture Fair (Scale 3, Form A).

Savoy: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing

Chan, A., Hannah, S.T. & Gardner, W.L. 2005. Veritable authentic leadership:

emergence, functioning, and impacts. In: Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J. & Walumbwa, F.O.

(Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: origins, effects and development, 3-42.

Bingley: Emerald

Ciarocchi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C. & Caputi, P. 2000. A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28 (3): 539-561

Conte, J.M. 2005. A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 26 (): 433-440

Côté, S., Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. & Miners, C.T.H. In press. Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly

Côté, S. & Miners, C.T.H. 2006. Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (1): 1-28

Damen, F., Van Knippenberg, B. & Van Knippenberg, D. 2008. Affective match in leadership: leader emotional displays, follower positive affect, and follower performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 38 (4): 868-902

Dasborough, M.T. & Ashkanasy, N.M. 2002. Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5): 615-634

Daus, C.S. & Ashkanasy, N.M. 2005. The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4): 453-466

Day, D.V., Gronn, P. & Salas, E. 2007. Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6): 857-880

Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. & Lucas, R.E. 2006. The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18 (2): 192-203

Downey, L.A., Papageorgiou, V. & Stough. 2006. Examining the relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence and intuition in senior female managers. Leadership &

Organizational Development Journal, 27 (4): 250-264

Elfenbein, H.A. & Ambadi, N. 2002a. On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: a meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (2): 203-235

Elfenbein, H.A. & Ambady, N. 2002b. Predicting workplace outcomes from the

ability to eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 963-971

Elfenbein, H.A., Foo, M.D., White, J., Tan, H.H., Aik, V.C. 2007. Reading your counterpart: the benefit of emotion recognition accuracy in effectiveness in negotiation.

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31 (4): 205-223

Fernández-Berrocal, P., Salovey, P., Vera, A., Extremera, N. & Ramos, N. 2005.

Cultural influences on the relation between perceived intelligence and depression. Revue Internationale de Psychology Sociale, 18 (1): 91-107

Fisher, C.D. & Ashkanasy, N.M. 2000. The emerging role of emotions in work life: an introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (2): 123-129

Foti, R.J. & Hauenstein, N.M.A. 2007. Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2): 347-355

Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. 2000. Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: it’s not all ‘G’.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (2): 203 – 220

Gannon, N. & Ranzijn, R. 2005. Does emotional intelligence predict unique variance in life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 38 (6): 1353-1364

Gardner, L. & Stough, C. 2002. Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 23 (2): 68-78

George, J.M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence.

Human Relations, 53 (8): 1027-1055

Gilmore, D.C. & Ferris, G.R. 1989. The effect of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15 (4): 557 – 564

Higgs, M. & Aitken, P. 2003. An exploration of the relationship between emotional

intelligence and leadership potential. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18 (8): 814-823

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Newbury Park: Sage

Hogg, M. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (3): 184-200

Humphrey, R.H. 2002. The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5): 493-504

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. & Gerhardt, M.W. 2002. Personality and leadership:

a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4): 765-780

Judge, T.A., Colbert, A.E. & Ilies, R. 2004. Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3): 542-552

Kellet, J.B., Humphrey, R.H. & Sleeth, R.G. 2002. Empathy and complex task performance: two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5): 523-544

Kellet, J.B., Humphrey, R.H. & Sleeth, R.G. 2006. Empathy and the emergence of task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2): 146-162

Kenny, D.A. & Zaccaro, S.J. 1983. An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (4): 678 - 685

Kickul, J. & Neuman, G. 2000. Emergent leadership behaviors: the function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAS. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15 (1): 27-51

Landy, F.J. 2005. Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4): 411-424

Lewis, K. 2000. When leaders display emotion: how followers respond to negative

emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21

(2): 221 – 234

Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. & Alliger, G.M. 1986. A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3): 402-410

Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J. & De Vader, C.L. 1984. A test of leadership categorization:

internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34 (3): 343-378

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken, K., Ekman, P., Yrizarry, N., Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., Yee, A., Amo, L. & Goh, A. 2000. A new test to measure emotion recognition ability: Matsumoto & Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian brief affect recognition test (JACBART). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24 (3): 179-209

Matthews, G., Roberts, R.D. & Zeidner, M. 2004. Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15 (3): 179-196

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. 2008. Human abilities: emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 507-536.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D.R. 2000. Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: the case for ability scales. In: Bar-on, R. & Parker, J.D.A. (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and the workplace, 320-342. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Meindl, J.R. 1995. The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: a social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (3): 329-341

Mesquita, B. 2001. Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 80 (1): 68-74

Michie, S. & Gooty, J. 2003. Values, emotions, and authenticity: will the real leader

please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3): 441-457

Muchinsky, P.M. 2000. Emotions in the workplace: the neglect of organizational behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (7): 801-805

Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T.O. & Fleishman, E.A. 2000.

Leadership skills for a changing world: solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1): 11-35

Newcombe, M.J. & Ashkanasy, N.M. 2002. The role of affect and affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: an experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5): 601-614

Nowicki, S. & Duke, M.P. 2001. Nonverbal receptivity: the diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy (DANVA). In: Hall, J.A. & Bernieri, F.J. (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Pescosolido, A.T. 2002. Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5): 583-599

Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A. 2003. Trait emotional intelligence: behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Psychology, 17 (1): 39-57

Prati, L.M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G.R., Ammeter, A.P. & Buckley, M.R. 2003.

Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11 (1): 21-40

Rao, A., Schmidt, S.M. & Murray, L.H. 1995. Upward impression management: goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48 (2): 147-167

Riggio, R.E. & Reichard, R.J. 2008. The emotional and social intelligence of effective

leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (2): 169-185

Rosete, D. & Ciarrochi, J. 2005. Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 26 (5): 388-399

Rossen, E. & Kranzler, J.H. 2009. Incremental validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intellingence Test Version 2.0 (MSCEIT) after controlling for personality and intelligence. Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (1): 60-65

Rubin, R.S., Bartels, L.K. & Bommer, W.H. 2002. Are leaders smarter or do they just seem that way? Exploring perceived intellectual competence and leadership emergence.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality¸ 30 (2): 105-118

Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C. & Bommer, W.H. 2005. Leading from within: the effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 846-858

Shamir, B. & Howell, J.M. 1999. Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2):

257-283

Sivanathan, N. & Fekken, G.C. 2002. Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 23 (4):

198-204

Smith, J.A. & Foti, R.J. 1998. A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence.

The Leadership Quarterly, 9 (2): 147-160

Taggar, S., Hackett, R. & Saha, S. 1999. Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52 (4): 899-926

Terman, L.M. 1904. A preliminary study in the psychology and pedagogy of

leadership. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 11: 413-451

Uhl-Bien, M. 2003. Relationship development as a key ingredient for leadership development. In Murphy, S.E. & Riggio, R.E. (Eds), The Future of Leadership Development: 129-147. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I. & Nikolau, I. 2004. The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes towards change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (2):

88-110

Viswesvaran, C. & Ones, D.S. 2002. Agreements and disagreements on the role of general mental ability (GMA) in industrial, work and organizational psychology. Human Performance, 15 (1/2): 211-231

Wageman, R. 1997. Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams.

Organizational Dynamics, 26 (1): 49-61

Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. & Druskat, V.U. 2002. Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5):

505-522

Zaccaro, S.J., Foti, R.J. & Kenny, D.A. 1991. Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: an investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 76 (2): 308-315

Zarror, G. & Gastuello, S.J. 2000. Self-organization and leadership emergence: a cross-cultural replication. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 4 (1): 113- 119

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. & Roberts, R.D. 2004. Emotional intelligence in the workplace: a critical review. Applied Psychology, 53 (3): 371-399

Zeidner, M., Shani-Zinovich, I., Matthews, G. & Roberts, R.D. 2005. Assessing

emotional intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school students: outcomes depend on

measure. Intelligence, 33 (4): 369-391

Zuckerman, M., Larrance, D.T., Hall, J.A., DeFrank, R.S. & Rosenthal, R. 1979.

Posed and spontaneous communication of emotion via facial and vocal cues. Journal of

Personality, 47 (4): 712-733

APPENDIX FIGURE 1:

Research model EI and leadership emergence

FIGURE 2:

Interaction figure moderating effect of Extraversion on ERA – LSE relation

TABLE 1

Means, standard deviations (s.d.) and Pearson correlations for all research variables

Variable Mean s.d. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Liking 3.38 .58 (.87)

2. Cognitive Intelligence .59 .08 .12 (.52)

3. Extraversion 3.66 .67 .02 -.07 (.76)

4. Conscientiousness 3.66 .67 .11 -.07 .06 (.67)

5. Openness to Experience 3.21 .42 .06 .16 -.04 -.30** (.70)

6. Neuroticism 3.60 .69 -.07 .05 .30** -.01 .07 (.69)

7. Agreeableness 4.05 .52 .01 -.12 .15 .26** -.05 -.08 (.60)

8. Emotion Recognition Accuracy

.72 .08 .14 .36** .02 -.10 .18 -.20 -.07 (.62)

9. Leadership Emergence 3.20 .64 .35** .07 .25* .12 -.07 -.12 .30** .16 (.93)

Note: ** p < .01; * p < .05

TABLE 2

Results of hierarchical moderated multiple regression analysis for leadership emergence

Leadership emergence

Variable β

Step 1

Liking .35***

Cognitive Intelligence .04

Extraversion .30***

Conscientiousness .04

Openness to Experience -.05

Neuroticism -.19*

Agreeableness .23**

R² .24

Step 2

Liking .34**

Cognitive Intelligence .01

Extraversion .28*

Conscientiousness .04

Openness to Experience -.06

Neuroticism -.17

Agreeableness .24*

Emotion Recognition Accuracy .09

R² .23

∆R² -.01

Step 3

Liking .36***

Cognitive Intelligence -.06

Extraversion .22*

Conscientiousness .02

Openness to Experience -.02

Neuroticism -.15

Agreeableness .30**

Emotion Recognition Accuracy .14 ERA x Cognitive Intelligence -.01

ERA x Extraversion .31***

R² .31 .34

∆R² .08 .05

Note: *** p < .01; ** p < .05; * p < .10