University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization

(USC Thesis Other)

Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Emotional Intelligence Self-Perceptions in Non-Clinical Leaders:
An Examination Into a Healthcare Organization
by
Lisa Renee Bagby

Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Lisa Renee Bagby 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Lisa Renee Bagby certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Helena Seli
Eric Canny
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a concept originally introduced in the 1960s in the realm of
psychiatry, which was later defined in 1990 by Mayer et al. (2004). The specific concepts of EI,
encompassing empathy, self-awareness, reflection, and emotional self-regulation, were explored,
for the purpose of this study, through Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT) (1990, 1997,
1998, 2005) framework. This study explores EI self-perceptions among healthcare non-clinical
frontline leaders, focusing on their reported EI related behaviors and skills. Environmentally, the
study delves into the organizational barriers or influences for developing leader EI while the
literature discusses the impact poor leader EI has on organizational performance outcomes.
Study participants self-reported they demonstrated all EI competencies being explored for this
study, they desired formal, interactive EI training and mentorships, and their overall self-rating
of EI self-perception was very high. The recommendations within the study were informed by
various considerations of the study around leader EI self-perceptions, EI development, and
organizational influences that leaders believe help to foster improved organizational performance
outcomes such as motivation, high employee engagement, and reduced turnover.
Keywords: emotional intelligence, soft skills, incivility, social cognitive theory

v
Dedication
To my mom and my daughter, I could not have achieved this without your love and support. It
has meant more to me than either of you could know and my degree attainment is the result of
that support. My tears, joy, laughter, self-reflection, and personal and professional growth have
been part of the journey that you have both helped see me through. I love you.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee chair at University of Southern
California, Dr. Jennifer Phillips who has been so helpful and guided me along the way and
through this dissertation. I could not have accomplished this work without her support. I also
must express gratitude and appreciation for my co-chairs, Dr. Eric Canny and Dr. Helena Seli. I
cannot thank you enough for the feedback and encouragement through the dissertation process.
To my Cohort 12 members from the Organizational Change & Leadership doctoral
program, your friendships, insights, and support have helped me develop new and more diverse
perspectives in research. Thank you especially to Dr. Jessica Walters, Dr. Danette Nelson, Dr.
Patricia Gonzalez, and Dr. Alia Ashley. I look forward to networking and future collaborations.
To the research participants, this body of work could not have been done without you and
your openness and willingness to trust me. Your stories and experiences shared are contributions
that will help organizations see things in new ways and enrich the places in which we work.
I must also express appreciation to my leader, the organizational leaders, the internal IRB
team, Dr. Saul and Dr. Hicks through my doctoral journey. Each of you helped motivate and
inspire me. The “it takes a village” encouragement was so meaningful to me. To my data guru,
Henry Alvarez, MHA, MSQA, and Master Black Belt for his all-important support and insights
through my data analysis process, I thank you.
Finally, thank you to my family and close friends who played an invaluable role in seeing
me through this program. You have made the biggest sacrifices of all. My mom, who remained
patient for three years of going without “Coffee Sundays,” and my daughter, Alexis, who just
completed her MBA, and said to take “me time.” And the old and new lifelong friends who said,
“don’t give up! or “you got this!” To all of you, I say, ‘I love you’ and thank you ever so much!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ............................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... x
Introduction to the Study ..................................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ........................................................ 4
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................... 5
Theoretical and Methodological Framework .......................................................... 6
Literature Review .................................................................................................... 7
Summary ................................................................................................................ 27
Overview of Design ............................................................................................... 28
Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 37
Discussion and Recommendations for Practice .................................................... 83
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 102
References ....................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix A: Definitions ................................................................................................. 117
Appendix B: Ethics and Role of The Researcher ............................................................ 119
Underlying Ethics and Study Goals .................................................................... 119
Ethics and Assessment Tools .............................................................................. 120
Participant Confidentiality ................................................................................... 120
Appendix C: The Researcher ........................................................................................... 121
Appendix D: Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................... 122

viii
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 122
Delimitations ....................................................................................................... 124
Appendix E: Leader Interview Protocol Questions ......................................................... 125
Appendix F: Survey Instrument ...................................................................................... 127

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Crosswalk of EI Competencies With Leadership Practices 23
Table 2: Data Sources 30
Table 3: Demographic Data 42
Table 4: Organization and External Influences on Leaders and Reported Behavior 52
Table 5: How Often Leaders Believed They Admit Their Mistakes 67
Table 6: How Often Leaders Believed Their Empathy Matched Others Emotions 68
Table 7: How Often Leaders Believed They Easily Understood Others 68
Table 8: Self-Rating Reason Leaders Shared About Their Leader Effectiveness 78
Table 9: EI Training Program Evaluation—Kirkpatrick Model Example 99

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Emotional Intelligence Conceptual Framework 28
Figure 2: Organizational and Individual Values Code Frequency 44
Figure 3: Organizational Culture as an Influence on Frontline Leaders Behaviors 47
Figure 4: Frequency of Behavior Influences on Leader by Practices Seen Modelled 48
Figure 5: Percent of Leaders Who Believe Organization Supports Their EI Development 54
Figure 6: Percent of Leaders With a Mentor Who Models EI 54
Figure 7: Percent of Leaders Who Would Value EI Training 60
Figure 8: EI Competencies From Coding of Interview Transcript Themes 62
Figure 9: Self-Awareness Survey Items and Answer Percentages 64
Figure 10: Percent of Leaders Who Pause as a Self-Reflection Practice 72
Figure 11: Percent of Leaders Who Self-Reflect About Their Emotions 73
Figure 12: Leader Self-Efficacy (SE) Perception: One of Two Top Rated SE Questions 76
Figure 13: Leader Self-Efficacy (SE) Perception: Two of Two Top Rated SE Questions 76
Figure 14: Emotional Intelligence Concepts Frequency Code Co-Occurrence 81

1

Introduction to the Study
Many organizations employ leaders with the types of leadership skills who can coalesce a
team, encourage collaboration, creativity and innovation, and engender trust by and among their
team (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Northouse, 2015). These leaders are often able to move an
organization’s goals forward (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Schein, 2004). Additionally, various
studies suggest leaders who are considered effective leaders are those who successfully apply
and practice emotional intelligence (EI) and contribute to the achievement of an organization’s
strategic goals and performance outcomes (Mayer & Salovey, 1995, 1997; Mayer et al., 2004;
Pearson & Porath, 2010; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Shojaei & Siuki, 2014).
Emotional intelligence employs skills in the social cognitive realm. Emotional
Intelligence includes social cognitive constructs such as self-awareness, emotional self-
regulation (Tsui & Ashford, 1994), empathy (Badea & Pana, 2010), and self-reflection (Barley
2010); these are also reported traits of successful transformational leaders (Kumar, 2014;
Northouse, 2015; Skinner & Spurgeon, 2005). In contrast, leaders who lack EI skills and the
ability to motivate and collaborate teams cost U.S. organizations as much as $400B annually
(Pearson & Porath, 2010). These costs reflect in areas such as high employee turnover,
disengagement, absenteeism, low productivity and innovation (Gartner, 2019; Harter et al., 2002;
Hollis, 2015). Moreover, these leaders’ behaviors embody traits often called uncivil or
destructive (Schyns & Schilling, 2013) and are indicative of poor emotional intelligence (Boddy,
2011; Lewis & Malecha, 2011; Thoroughgood et al., 2012).
Organizations that do not recognize and address the impact of leaders lacking effective EI
inadvertently create hostile work settings and foster incivility (Porath & Pearson, 2009), which in
turn makes recruiting, retention, and employee engagement challenging propositions (Holm et
2

al., 2015; Maddocks & Hughes, 2019). Comparing between organizations with poor work
settings and outcomes to those with improved outcomes, studies find that organizations whose
leaders are trained in and practice EI (Boddy, 2011; Goleman, 2015) attribute EI competency to
improved revenues and performance outcomes (Korn Ferry Institute, 2018; Porath & Pearson,
2009). Korn Ferry’s 2018 report of 867 employees surveyed found that leaders who
demonstrated high EI skills indicated that 69% of their team intended to stay for more than five
years.
It is important to address the problem of low EI among leaders because organizations that
fail to address and develop leaders EI skills will be continually challenged to meet organizational
performance outcomes in a globally competitive landscape (Dungan, 2018; Erickson et al., 2015;
Gartner, 2019; Hollis, 2015). This study presents an examination of one organization within the
health industry and explores its non-clinical frontline leadership’s emotional intelligence across
two departments among two of its hospitals. It explores EI concepts and self-perceptions of EI
among non-clinical, frontline leadership.
Context and Background of the Problem
HSP Health (HSPH, a pseudonym), located in California employs a diverse clinical and
non-clinical workforce of over 10,000 employees in the Los Angeles County area. According to
the organization’s website, its mission is founded on the principle of providing healthcare and
access to everyone regardless of economic background or ability to pay. The senior and
executive leadership are a homogenous group with a majority being Caucasian male and female
leaders. The frontline and middle leaders, which include acute, clinical and non-clinical
professionals are more ethnically and racially diverse, inclusive of Indian, Hispanic, Filipino,
African American, Asian, and Caucasian professionals.
3

The organizational culture is espoused as empathic and HSPHs leadership foundation is
built on principles of transformational and servant leadership, sharing similar traits which
include building trust, empowerment, and collaboration. However, HSPH leadership practices,
principles, and culture are not always aligned contributing to inconsistent outcomes such as
employee engagement. When espoused leadership principles and practices are misaligned with
organizational values, stakeholder expectations, and strategic goals, an organization can
experience poor performance outcomes (Watson & Papamarcos, 2002). These can reflect in low
engagement scores and high turnover (Gallup, 2017) and become important in examining root
causes of these types of costly organizational performance indicators. Accordingly, to Gallup
(2017) and Gartner (2019), employee engagement and exit survey data respectively, have
illuminated organizational performance challenges through survey question items such as "intent
to leave” (retention), and “willingness to go above and beyond” what is asked for work
(engagement).
Retention and Engagement
Since 2016, employee retention and engagement within HSPH have been areas of
misalignment, and both the 2016, 2017, and 2018 engagement surveys and the 2017 and 2018
exit surveys have exposed an opportunity for development within its frontline leadership
(Gartner, 2019). While the organization has sought to develop frontline leaders to be more
engaged, especially with new hires, it is often to the disadvantage of longer-term employees.
This presents an opportunity to evaluate and develop longer-term frontline leaders and doing so
sooner in their leadership role (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003). Although HSPH reviews and analyzes
quantitative data from its annual employee engagement surveys and turnover data, both,
internally and via third party administrators, the focus is on the first-year new employee
4

experience. Exit data reflect first year turnover (FYTO) in the high twentieth percentile during
the periods 2016–2018 which further draws attention to the need to develop frontline leaders.
Leadership Development Program: A Pilot
In mid-2018, HSPH piloted a new frontline leader development program that emphasized
more consistent leader involvement with newly hired employees. The year-long program
includes a module on emotional intelligence; however, the program’s emphasis rests on
consistent communication and initial ninety-day touchpoints with new hires (Personal
communication, 2019). This training effort is to reduce or avert FYTO, flight risk, and improve
engagement scores (Conner, 2018; Gartner, 2019; Work Institute, 2017). The program lacked
root cause analyses into the reasons why 28% of employees leave within a year and others
intended to leave, also known as “intent to stay,” in the coming year. Employee turnover
insights, such as exit interviews or post-engagement survey focus group data, also have not been
consistently addressed by HSPH senior leadership. These data, garnered by human resources and
third-party administrators, yield insights that may help address organizational outcomes such as
FYTO or low engagement scores related to EI skills among frontline leaders.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate non-clinical, frontline leaders’ EI skills and EI
self-perceptions. The study explored non-clinical frontline leader self-perceptions of their EI, the
influence of environmental factors, such as the organizational culture, and learning and
development in the workplace. Through the lens of Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1988, 2005), the study also focused on EI concepts such as self-awareness, self-reflection,
emotional self-regulation, and empathy (Goleman, 2015; Mayer et al., 2004). Self-efficacy was
factored into the study to examine the non-clinical frontline leader’s self-perception of
5

effectiveness in demonstrating EI skills. The questions which follow are proposed to examine
non-clinical frontline leadership EI and environmental influences. The research questions that
guide this study are:
1. How does the environment influence the non-clinical leader’s role in applying EI
for effective leadership?
2. Which EI aligned practices do non-clinical leaders self-report?
3. What is the self-perception of non-clinical leaders regarding their emotional
intelligence?
Importance of the Study
To examine this problem of practice of the emotional intelligence competencies among
leaders, the literature explores areas that provide insight to engagement, retention, leadership EI,
and organizational culture. Research shows that poor leader EI, also referred to as soft skills,
(Marques, 2013; Robles, 2012) costs organizations billions of dollars annually due to low
productivity, less creativity, and less innovation (Popli & Rizvi, 2016). Across the literature,
these costs are known as soft costs (Harter et al., 2002; Hollis, 2015; Lewis, 2011; Mandanchian
et al., 2017; Porath & Pearson, 2010; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Additionally, leaders lacking
effective EI create work environments that are toxic, stressful, and impede idea generation
(Erickson et al., 2015; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Conversely, leaders who demonstrate EI incur
positive organizational outcomes including higher employee engagement, higher retention rates
and lower absences, more or enhanced creativity, and improved organizational culture yielding
higher revenues and organizational viability (Cherniss & Caplan, 2001; Deming, 2017; Harter et
al., 2002; Korn Ferry Institute, 2018; Lewis & Malecha, 2011). According to Gallup’s 2017
study of 195,000 employees, 70% of employees are disengaged and 51% are looking for new
6

opportunities. Exploring leadership practices that are aligned to emotional intelligence
competencies helps to glean insights to leaders’ EI self-perceptions and influences on the
environment and the staff which can impact engagement and retention (Gallup 2019).
Theoretical and Methodological Framework
Bandura’s (1988, 1991, 1997, 2005) social cognitive theory (SCT) addresses interactions
with people, the role of environments, and behaviors. Within SCT are Bandura’s (1997, 2005,
2012) concepts of self-awareness, self-perception, empathy, and emotional self-regulation.
Additionally, the importance of seeing oneself as able to succeed at something or make a
successful change underlies self-efficacy. This study explores how these concepts play a role in
developing and practicing EI. The research discusses behaviors such as seeing others model
compassion and empathy, apply listening and communication skills such as feedback (Martin,
2019) of which, studies indicate, can be learned (Brackett et al., 2011; Uhran Torun, 2018).
Therefore, to develop one’s EI involves evaluating the social cognitive theoretical model and the
influence of various environmental factors.
The overview of the methodological framework consists of using a mixed method
approach employing both quantitative (self-assessment) and qualitative (interview) data
collection. The study sample consisted of 20 non-clinical frontline leaders of two departments;
Environmental Services and Food Services & Catering. The study population was asked to
participate in an emotional intelligence self-assessment and were invited to a subsequent
confidential interview to explore workplace experiences and influences for applying and
developing EI.
7

Literature Review
The literature review explores aspects of emotional intelligence (EI) among
organizational leaders and the resulting organizational implications or outcomes, such as leader
impact on engagement and retention. Through the lens of SCT, the literature examines
environmental factors that influence leaders and opportunities to develop leader EI. As SCT
addresses reciprocal influences, such as environment, people, and behaviors (Bandura, 1988,
1997), the literature explores relationships of emotional intelligence competency and influences
towards its development among leaders.
As part of the examination, the literature review first begins by framing non-clinical
leadership in the health industry. Next, the review explores the underpinnings of emotional
intelligence competencies that have been researched, including empathy, self-reflection, self-
awareness, and emotional self-regulation (Mayer et al., 2004). Although self-efficacy is not an EI
competency, it is included in the research as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) lends to the effective
application of EI competencies (Gross, 2014; Mayer et al., 2004). Through this examination, the
aim is to explore and expand the understanding of EI and the behavioral and environmental
influences, through the lens of SCT (Bandura, 1997), for developing frontline leader EI.
Non-Clinical Leadership in the Health Industry
Non-clinical leadership in the health industry includes many similar roles. For purposes
of this study, the roles discussed are focused on acute care health organizations. In an acute care
setting, non-clinical leadership is typically responsible for areas such as engineering,
environmental services, food services, dietary, surgical support, laboratory, supply chain,
marketing/branding, and finance as examples (Santiago Clement, 2020). This study focuses on
the non-clinical leadership roles that oversee Environmental Services and Food Services &
8

Catering departments. Employees for these two departments come from other hospitality sectors
and bring valid experience however, in a clinical or acute care setting, this sets different
expectations due to regulatory agencies that accredit healthcare organizations and creates
accountabilities to ensure safe care to the patient population (Joint Commission website).
Consequently, these two departments and its leaders have a serious responsibility centering
around outcomes of safe patient care.
For Environmental Services, frontline leaders must maintain and adhere to regulatory
body standards for cleanliness, sterilization, and infection control and prevention (CDPH
website). Within Food Services & Catering, these leaders must ensure that food preparation for
patients is not harmful and therefore also must meet strict guidelines as mandated by the
patient’s physician. These considerations are based on the health condition of the patient such as
not creating a choking hazard, creating an allergic reaction, or creating contraindication to
medications. In both cases, there are expectations and consequences that are incumbent upon the
frontline leader that would positively or negatively impact patient outcomes (CDPH website). In
short, outcomes the organization would seek to avoid are those related to worsening a patient’s
illness, condition, or their mortality; those outcomes being sought are to ensure the health and
well-being of a patient who is able to return home in a healthier state with a good experience
overall while being cared for (CDPH website; Joint Commission website). Thusly, the leader can
have both direct and indirect impacts as someone who can influence their environment and their
employees.

9

Introduction to Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence competencies encompass several traits, concepts or practices.
Some of the most frequently discussed competencies or constructs and those which the literature
review include are empathy, self-reflection, self-awareness, emotional self-regulation (Badea &
Pana, 2010; Gibb, 2014; Marques, 2013; Mayer et al., 2004). Barley (2010) explained that
reflection and emotional intelligence work in concert with each other. Specifically, Barley
explained reflection on action (RoA) is about thinking of one’s own feelings or emotions and
those of others. Optimally, practicing self-reflection both in the moment (reflection in action -
RiA) and after the interaction (reflection on action - RoA) (Barley, 2010) are elemental to
developing emotional intelligence. Equally important is developing the ability of being (self)
aware in a manner that allows one to be objective enough to understand the effects their actions
have or can have on others “learn[ing] to see” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 232).
An absence of reflective behaviors such as RiA or RoA, by leaders can create poor
organizational outcomes such as low engagement and low retention (Barley, 2010; Harter et al.,
2002; Popli & Rizvi, 2016). These behaviors may have root in seeing others in their environment
model poor EI or incivility be it in the home or the workplace (Holm, 2015; May et al., 2014). In
addition, other negative behaviors may emanate from cultural differences and the dissonance
within an American organization of expected, civilized workplace behaviors (Schein, 2004). The
subsequent subsections will address the emotional intelligence theoretical context as well as
competencies explored by this study: empathy, self-reflection, self-awareness, and emotional
self-regulation. Self-efficacy is discussed in the final sub-section for understanding its role in
feeling as though one can be successful in applying the learned EI competencies.

10

Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical Context
Emotional intelligence has been conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer (1990) as
emotional information that is related to cognitive practices. Conceptually, they discussed
appraisal, expression, and regulation of the self and others and the ability to adaptively apply
emotions. They explained that these are abilities that can be learned and are part of an
individual’s mental health. Through the application and study of various EI related scales and
assessments, Salovey and Mayer (1990) have been able to yield understanding about EI and its
associations between emotional communication.
Emotional communication consists of non-verbal expressions (facial expressions),
empathy, and emotional self-regulation. Perceiving others’ emotions is a form of “non-verbal
perception of emotion” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 193) and can be interpreted by others’ facial
expressions. Empathy is being able to understand another person’s feelings and experience them
for one’s self; and emotional self-regulation, as Salovey and Mayer (1990) explained, is about
one’s ability to manage and gauge their own emotions and respond in a given situation
accordingly. The ability to regulate or modulate one’s own emotions may have an influence over
others’ reactions.
As research on EI has continued to develop, Mayer et al. (2004), theorized EI as a
combination of both emotion and intelligence where they work together cooperatively (p. 197)
and considered it a cognition that works with individual, emotional matters. Through the
development and use of their EI test, known as Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT), Mayer et al. (2004) sought to measure four EI areas: perception, using,
understanding, and managing emotions. Other researchers applying the MSCEIT tests in various
settings (both collegial and private organizations), in an effort to measure the four EI areas,
11

found employee commitment was positively related to their leaders [high] EI (Mayer et al.,
2004). The idea of emotional intelligence, its measures, and applications have positive
implications for individuals and organizations stand to benefit if leaders demonstrate high EI
capabilities (Korn Ferry Institute, 2018; Maddocks & Hughes, 2019; Wong & Law, 2002).
Empathy
Empathy is the non-verbal ability of reading, sensing, and understanding another’s
emotions or feelings (Badea & Pana, 2010; Skinner & Spurgeon, 2005). These non-verbal forms
of communication make up 90% of communication, which emanate from facial expressions,
voice intonation, and physical movements by an individual (Badea & Pana, 2010). Goleman
(2015) explained that empathy is a leader’s ability to consider the impact that decisions may
have on employees and incorporates purposeful listening to the needs of others. Empathy and
compassion are often terms used interchangeably as they are related as research shows. A
research study by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) (2016) of 6,731 leaders, explained
that empathy is about understanding the emotion, experience or situation from someone else’s
perspective. Compassion is about a person’s response to the information of someone else’s
[emotional] experience—reacting compassionately. Center for Creative Leadership further
explained how empathy is demonstrated citing the following, showing interest in the hopes and
dreams of another; willingly helping an employee with problems; and showing compassion when
a personal loss is disclosed. The study revealed that empathy was positively correlated to
improved work performance reflecting that leaders who demonstrate empathy encourage a more
productive work environment. Sinclair et al. (2017) explained the relationship of compassion and
empathy stating that compassion enhances aspects of empathy through altruism and kind acts by
the responder.
12

Self-Reflection
Being self-reflective, according to Barley (2010), allows one to give pause to their
actions and ideally ascertain how such actions impact others and consider what one can do
differently in the future. Barley (2010) further contended that such a practice affords for learning
and learning about one’s self through experiences and similarly, Rodgers explains, the
importance of being present as one of four principles of reflection (2002). According to Castelli
(2015), reflective leadership relies [largely] on being mindful and aware while employing good
judgment, which can be seen as good leadership traits, and as part of emotional intelligence. For
leaders, it is a practice that helps them make sense of uncertain or conflicted situations.
Self-Awareness
Self-awareness involves actively focusing on some aspect of the self instead of the
external environment and has been known to increase leadership effectiveness (Castelli, 2015).
Church (1997) explained self-awareness as being able to “reflect and accurately assess one’s
own behaviors and skills...in workplace interactions” (p. 281). Gatling (in Castelli, 2015)
discussed the importance for recognizing emotional triggers, personality traits, and family and
cultural influences of self-awareness which can adversely impact relationships. Whether viewed
as a trait or a skill, self-awareness has the ability to affect others and research has shown high
performing leaders possess greater self-awareness (Church, 1997).
Emotional Self-Regulation
Emotional self-regulation is the ability to manage one’s emotions and may include acting
in accordance with having the ability to recognize and regulate one's emotions (Gross &
Thompson, 2014; Tsui & Ashford, 1994). The perception or determination of what is good or
bad for emotional self-regulation remains in question and is debated in many regards, however
13

Gross and Thompson (2014) further explain emotional self-regulation is often influenced by
“perceived personal resources and perceived environmental demands”' (p. 223). Vohs and
Baumeister (2016) discussed various theories of emotional self-regulation but defined this
behavioral construct as an ability to control oneself in alignment with norms and standards. They
continued by explaining that the introduction of conflict to an individual can lead to a loss of
motivation and self-control, thereby devolving self-awareness and increasing impulsivity. In
short, during conflict matters, the ability to manage physical sensations, expressions, and
thoughts are demonstrations of emotional self-regulation.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is not an EI competency. However, Bandura (1997, 2005) explained its
importance towards a sense of task-specific confidence to continue pursuing a new skill or
overcoming challenges. Self-efficacy is the determination of the amount of effort someone is
willing to exert in relationship to their feeling of success in completing or applying a task or skill
(Bandura 1977, 1997). For leaders to apply increased skills, including in the realm of EI, having
a sense of success or confidence (self-efficacy) is important for feeling competent or gaining
mastery (Ambrose et al., 2010). In effecting mastery however, the environment (culture) must be
conducive and supportive, and ideally modelled by organizational senior leaders themselves
(Northouse, 2016; Schein, 2004). Support may be demonstrated in ways such as role playing and
emulating the behaviors that can help build leader self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 2005, 2012), as
well as creating leadership trust (Schein, 2004), and safe spaces to learn (Grossman & Salas,
2011) within the organization. Self-efficacy serves as a source of motivation and can be
attributed to leaders seeking feedback that improves performance effectiveness (Tsui & Ashford,
1994). A lack of self-efficacy, or one’s sense of low confidence, can create negative outcomes by
14

not using new skills or knowledge. Self-efficacy is important if a leader is to feel they can be
successful in their performance or when applying newly acquired EI competencies (Maddocks &
Hughes, 2019).
Leadership’s EI Influence on Employees
Leaders have an ability to influence employees either positively or negatively (Boddy,
2011) through their own behavioral demonstrations or examples. When employees see incivility
demonstrated by leaders, it influences them to behave similarly; a “monkey see, monkey do”
effect, causing negative outcomes to the victim such as poor wellbeing (Holm et al., 2015, p. 7).
Other researchers explored similar organizational outcomes showing significant soft costs due to
[poor EI] by leaders (i.e., decreased intent to stay at the organization, lower productivity, and
staff disengagement) (Gartner, 2019; Korn Ferry Institute, 2018). Notably, reports show 11% of
employee turnover is due to the misbehavior of managers (Bolden-Barrett, 2017). The following
subsections discuss impacts to organizations; uncivil leaders and the high cost of employee
turnover, and positive organizational outcomes when leaders apply EI skills.
Uncivil Leaders and the High Cost of Employee Turnover
Effective EI among leadership is especially beneficial to the performance outcomes of an
organization’s bottom line (Pearson & Porath, 2010; Porath & Pearson, 2013). Turnover alone,
on average, costs [U.S.] organizations 30% to 50% of employees’ salaries (Gallup, 2017, 2019;
Otto, 2017). Pearson & Porath (2010) found that turnover can cost up to 150% of mid-level
managers salaries and as much a 400% of a high-level managers salary, ultimately costing
organizations billions of dollars due to leaders who behave uncivilly. In contrast, organizations
with high employee engagement saw 22% profitability and 21% productivity increases
respectively (Popli & Rizvi, 2016). Gudmundsson and Southey (2011) explored the aspect of
15

uncivil leaders, calling them “corporate psychopaths” (p. 22), but further explain that an
organization’s future success is dependent on a culture that cultivates leaders with organizational
awareness, empathy, humility and is able to inspire, influence, and develop others.
Positive Organizational Outcomes for Leaders Applying EI Skills
According to a Gallup (2017) workplace study, leaders who apply EI competencies as
part of leader practices result in organizations that have higher employee engagement, improved
team motivation, and higher profitability. Leadership practices consist of giving and receiving
useful employee feedback, building organizational trust, and investing in developing others for
their success (Krishnaveni, 2018). Additionally, the report outlined Molson Coors and Caterpillar
successes due to improved engagement. Molson Coors reported over $1.7M in savings due to
improved safety practices which were correlated to high employee engagement, and Caterpillar
saw an $8.8M increase due to lower absenteeism, turnover, and overtime (Krishnaveni, 2018).
Research conducted by Wong & Law (2002) reflect correlations between positive organizational
outcomes with leaders who demonstrate high EI competencies and emotional maturity such as
being empathic and supportive and treat employees with respect and consideration of their
emotions and feelings. Leaders who develop their EI [soft] skills have shown that organizations
benefit from these competencies (Korn Ferry Institute, 2018).
Organizational Influences
An organization, its leadership, and their practices are what create its culture and
ultimately influence employees’ behavior (Northouse, 2015; Schein 2004). According to
Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, reciprocal influences occur between a person, their
environment, and their own and others’ behavior. Influences can include feedback, observing,
modeling and emulating desired behaviors, and role playing (Bandura, 1988, 1997). In the
16

consideration of a leader developing emotional intelligence, organizational culture, senior
leadership, and workplace learning environments are all influences that play a role in ways that
reinforce EI skill development. These influences will be discussed in the following sub-sections.
Environment and Culture
Environment and culture are shaped and influenced by the various behaviors of others in
an organization or department (Korn Ferry Institute, 2018). Behaviors such as reflection and
feedback, play important roles as they are the ways individuals think about and communicate
their interactions and therefore contribute to the environment and culture. Reflection and
feedback are enhanced as part of the meta-cognitive process (Bandura, 2005; Barley, 2010;
Ghaye, 2010; Medina et al., 2017) and is often referred to as the “thinking about thinking”
(Barley, 2011, p. 1). The act of reflecting (Barley, 2010; Ghaye, 2010), which can include role
playing, supports learning, learning transfer (Martin, 2019), and self-efficacy. However,
reflecting is not enough to engage solely by merely providing a once-only, short training, or job
aids or guides to leaders (Ambrose et al., 2010; Gibb, 2014). To assure changed behavior,
Bandura (1988) explained the need for modelling, or guided practice with corrective feedback,
and “help in transferring the new skill to the job situation” (p. 278). Further, Bandura (1988)
explained that role playing, as an aspect to reinforce learning via practice, for instance, over a
consistent duration of time after training ensures the transfer and regular application of new
skills. Behaviors such as feedback, modelling, and acting on metacognitive processes such as
reflexivity allow for a leader to integrate new knowledge and ultimately foster better outcomes
with their team including building or maintaining a supportive culture.

17

Leadership and Organizational Culture
Organizations that strive to align leadership and culture (Hirayappa, 2008) to support
practices and expectations for behaviors and skills, such as emotional intelligence, are in a better
position to develop organizational trust (Watson & Papamarcos, 2002) and improved
performance outcomes (Korn Ferry Institute, 2018). However, when leaders are not expected to
or held consistently accountable for uncivil behaviors, this leads to unsettling work environments
or diminished organizational culture (Hirayappa, 2008); thus, the leadership practices and culture
lack alignment and allow for “incivility [to] thrive” (Harold & Holtz, 2014, p. 20). In contrast,
senior leadership employ competent EI skills, and typically demonstrate them among one
another but fail to delineate expectations or consistently hold frontline leaders accountable. Such
incongruency exposes a developmental or improvement opportunity within the organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This developmental opportunity impacts the organization’s culture
including employee engagement and retention (Harter et al., 2002; Kumar, 2014).
An organization that strives to put forth consistent expectations, goals, and leadership
behavior practices is applying known tools for creating an engaged workforce and culture
(Gartner, 2019). By reinforcing and supporting the application and expectation of desired
behaviors and learned EI skills of its frontline leaders, both leaders and followers can influence
organizational culture and organizational outcomes (Harter et al., 2002). Ultimately, leaders with
developed EI competencies create a culture that has positive organizational impacts and drives
performance (Korn Ferry Institute, 2018).
Culture and Individual Behavioral Influences
An organization is a dynamic setting because of its employees; both leaders and
followers. The influence that people have within an organization are, “[o]ne form of influence
18

[via] specific leadership behaviors in interactions with subordinates, peers, and outsiders” (Yukl,
2008, p. 711). Both leaders and followers influence organizational performance outcomes which
can be positive or negative (Popli & Rizvi, 2016). Consistent adherence and accountability of
expected behaviors support the organizational culture by leaders and followers. Popli and Rizvi
(2016) emphasize the importance for organizations to help leaders to be aware of what to do as
much as “what not to do” to ensure leader behaviors influence engagement, productivity, and
innovation (p. 976).
Leaders and Followers
As a leader, the application of EI skills or competencies is important for motivating and
influencing followers while the behaviors of a manager are often around directing tasks and
managing budgets (Harms et al., 2010). Although the expectations and behaviors of leaders
include tasks and budget management too, they do so with a more focused lens toward deep
organizational impact (vision, strategic planning) that have both implicit and explicit
implications to the bottom line (Northouse, 2015) and the organization’s future via an engaged
workforce (Gartner, 2019).
Throughout various studies, EI has been shown to be positively correlated to managerial
innovative work behaviors (Boyatzis et al., 1999; Shojaei & Siuki, 2014). It is an attribute that
encourages novel thoughts like innovative thinking. For leaders, this is especially important
when handling crises or unpredictable conditions that can have an impact to the organization
(Dulewicz et al., 2003). Leaders who engage their EI skills, such as emotional self-regulation,
empathy or self-awareness (Boyatzis et al., 1999), can navigate organizational change and
challenges more effectively and coalesce and motivate followers towards the organization’s
strategic goals or outcomes (Kumar, 2014). Research reflects that more positive organizational
19

outcomes are yielded when EI competencies are regularly practiced by its leaders (Popli & Rizvi,
2016). Such practices can include role playing, reflection, feedback, and having a learning
environment (Ambrose et al., 2010) or culture of which all can be influential in developing
leaders’ emotional intelligence (Gibb, 2014). Leaders play a significant role with their staff.
They have influence upon their teams and being emotionally intelligent aids them in their ability
to effectively lead a team during challenging times to keep teams engaged and motivated.
Learning Environments. Learning and learning environments are an important element
in developing skills (Ambrose et al., 2010) for any individual or organizational leaders. There are
many environmental influences that contribute to a person’s knowledge and learning (Grossman
& Salas, 2011), which includes learning emotional intelligence. They may consist of family and
parental influences, religious or spiritual influences, and mentors or similar adult influences in
one’s life. While many personal influences may shape a person’s emotional intelligence, research
reflects two common environments that help develop EI; educational settings, specifically
business schools as learning influences, and work environment (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Nealy,
2005) Both are institutions that can help develop, influence, and shape EI skills as professionals
and leaders.
Business Schools. When addressing soft skills for up-and-coming leaders, studies show
business school settings and related leadership development programs have evolved and explore
soft skills as an aspect of a leaders’ effectiveness (Gibb, 2014; Nealy, 2005). Business and
leadership development programs cover topics such as effective communication and feedback as
components of soft skills (Gibb, 2014). Gibb (2014) discussed the importance of timely,
constructive feedback, stating that a lack of soft skills is “implicated in organizational
ineffectiveness” (p. 456). Nealy (2005) examined soft skills development through a study of
20

active learning in a college management course setting. The study surmised that regular
feedback, expectations on performance, and reflection can help to improve students’ soft skill
development in preparation for the 21
st
century workforce. As such, graduates have higher self-
efficacy about their ability to regulate their emotions and perform in a manner that has positive
organizational outcomes (Boyatzis et al., 2002; Nealy, 2005). Similarly, a 2015 survey
conducted by Martin (2019) explained the [positive] impact that higher education and active
learning have on the development of student soft skills. Specifically, it revealed that 74% of
college students entering the workforce felt their higher education prepared them with the soft
skills [EI] needed to be “successful in the workplace” (p. 45). Simply, the students’ college
environment and experiences, and active-learning business related courses supported
development of their emotional intelligence.
The potential benefits of business schools to develop business students’ EI or soft skills
can be valuable to organizations. Developing and transferring these skills, as leaders, to the
workplace has a direct effect on business by improving organizational performance outcomes
(Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003; Gudmundsson & Southey, 2011; Popli & Risvi, 2016). However, not
all leaders come to organizations with formal or college level education, in which case, the work
environment can be a fertile learning ground.
Workplace Settings. While research shows that business schools such as Harvard, MIT,
UC Berkeley, Yale, and Columbia answer the call from organizational leaders to develop EI
skills among its students (Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Marques, 2013), organizations often
employ or promote leaders without a business degree, and these leaders may lack development
of their EI. However, the work environment can provide great learning opportunities for
employees, and especially leaders, when developing components of EI, such as self-awareness or
21

self-reflection which is effectively learned both in the moment and after the fact (Barley, 2010;
Rodgers, 2002). As Martin (2019) explains, active learning and structured feedback through
situation judgments training (SJT) allows for sharing alternatives (feedback) early so behavioral
corrections and learning can be made quickly. Contrasting that to classroom or collegial settings,
training or learning transfer held at the workplace also provides for creating accountability and
self-motivated responsibility, which are important keys to EI development (Martin, 2019).
In developing other EI competencies, self-awareness, self-efficacy, and preparing leaders
for the demands of their roles (Boyatzis et al., 2002), workplaces can take advantage of
opportunities to develop and shape frontline leaders’ emotional intelligence mastery thereby
creating positive organizational outcomes. To deeply develop new skills takes time for leaders to
integrate them at work in order to create a meaningful impact on organizational performance
(Urhan Torun, 2018). Modelling, combined with guided practice, lends itself to experiences
which are successful and lead to improved outcomes (Bandura, 1988). In affecting this type of
mastery, however, the environment must be conducive and supportive by the organizational
leaders themselves in ways such as modeling the desired behaviors (Bandura, 2005) and creating
workplaces that are trusted and safe spaces for learning (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Within the
workplace, opportunities exist to practice using skills and integrate them ideally, to a level of
self-efficacy, (Bandura, 1995, 1997, 2012) and automaticity or mastery (Ambrose et al., 2010).
These elements of learning lean to the increased chance for emotional intelligence to develop to
a level of confidence or feeling successful by the leader (Grossman, 2011). Developing mastery
of EI competencies requires practice, seeing others model the desired EI behaviors, supportive
leaders, and a trusting workplace. To ensure embedding of EI competencies, however, should
include modes for effective and meaningful feedback to frontline leaders as well.
22

Before transitioning into a discussion of the conceptual framework, Table 1 depicts the
leadership practices discussed in this section that are aligned with EI competencies.

Table 1
Crosswalk of EI Competencies With Leadership Practices
EI competency Leadership practice Literature RQ
Empathy Managing facial expressions Badea & Pana (2010) 1, 2, 3
Voice intonation, listening Badea & Pana (2010)
Physical movements Badea & Pana (2010)
Self-reflection Reflection on Action (RoA) Barley (2010) 1, 3
Reflection in Action (RiA) Barley (2010)
Mindful of good judgement Castelli (2015)
Aware of practicing good judgement Castelli (2015)
Self-awareness Learning to see Rodgers (2002) 2, 3
Actively focusing on self Castelli (2015)
Emotional self-
regulation
Managing emotions Gross & Thompson
(2014); Tsui &
Ashford (1994)
1, 2, 3

23

Conceptual Framework
Emotional intelligence is a concept that is broadly explained as the ability to manage
one’s emotions, being self-aware of one’s emotions, and involves sensing others’ emotions and
the ability to use that information to respond accordingly to a matter or situation (Mayer et al.,
2004; Salovey et al., 1990). For everyone, EI is influenced and shaped by a variety of factors
such as cultural, educational, personal, and professional experiences (Boyatzis et al, 2001;
Carmelli, 2003; Castelli, 2016). The social cognitive theory framework by Bandura (1988,1995,
2005) includes research and exploration of the person, their behavior, and their environment.
Social Cognitive Theory and Emotional Intelligence Competencies
Social cognitive theory (SCT) is a causal model that explores the bi-directional roles and
influence of people, behaviors, and environments (Bandura, 1991, 1997, 2000, 2005). This
triadic bidirectionality consists of behavioral influences on people and their environments,
environmental influences on behaviors and people, and people’s influence on behavior and
environments (Bandura, 1988, 1997). SCT relates to constructs of EI that include social
cognition of influences that shape one’s behaviors and the effective management of them
(Brackett et al., 2011) through self-awareness, emotional self-regulation, empathy, and self-
reflection.
Emotional intelligence consists of emotional self-regulation, empathy, self-reflection, and
self-awareness, which require cognitive development (Gibb 2014; Salovey & Mayer, 1990;
Mayer et al., 2004). Emotional intelligence, as a skill and competency, has experienced
challenges such as validating and defining it, training to it, isolating a set of relative terms of it,
assessing, and measuring it by many social scientists and researchers (Antonakis et al., 2009;
Brackett et al., 2011; Cherniss et al., 2001; Mayer et al., 2004). Nonetheless, business schools
24

and organizations recognize its importance and developing EI among its leadership is critical for
future viability (Boyatzis, 2002; Carmeli, 2003; Cherniss & Caplan, 2001; Marques, 2013).
Environment: Organizational Elements and Culture
Organizational culture can have an influence on the learning and mastery of abilities for
employees and can impact those skills that affect the environment and the organization’s bottom
line positively or negatively. For learning to be positively affected, the organization and its
stakeholders need to support and create a safe, trusting culture which is affected through
behavioral integrity; saying what they will do and doing or modeling what they say (Northouse,
2015). This engenders feedback, and modeling desired behaviors via constructive criticism,
which, as research shows (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Tsui & Ashford, 1994), is necessary for
learning and behavioral change to occur and to be sustained. A culture of trust, learning, and safe
space (Schein, 2004) for feedback can also yield improved retention rates among employees
(Shojei & Suiki, 2014).
Organizational culture is very influential in the development of its leaders (Schein, 2004)
and creating an engaging workplace (Gartner, 2019). An organization that is lacking in leaders
who practice EI skills, or senior leaders who fail to hold frontline leaders accountable (Martin,
2019), are cultivating an environment that is not only threatening performance outcomes
(Northouse, 2015), but are impeding the opportunity for new leaders to master their EI skills
(Boddy, 2011; Harms & Crede, 2016). To cultivate these environments, it is important that there
is a trusting culture whose senior leaders support developmental efforts (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Northouse, 2015; Schein, 2004) and see the value of efficacious EI competencies for HSPH
frontline leaders. Support may be demonstrated in ways such as role modeling and emulating the
25

desired behaviors that build self-efficacy (Bandura, 2005, 2012), as well as creating leadership
trust and safe spaces (Schein, 2004) to learn within the organization (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
Behavioral Influence on Retention and Engagement
Two different reports, one by Garter (2019), and one by Gallup (2016) revealed
employee retention and engagement is largely affected by the behaviors demonstrated by an
organization’s leaders. In their findings, trends showed as much as 30% of employees indicated
reasons for leaving an organization were due to poor interactions with their leader (Gartner,
2019; Gallup, 2016). Employees shared that they experienced feelings of being burned out and
excluded from important communications and information about tasks (poor leader self-
reflection), being treated unfairly or disrespectfully (poor leader emotional self-regulation, self-
awareness), and not feeling heard when raising concerns to their leader (poor leader self-
awareness, empathy) (Gallup, 2016). Such behaviors are often identified as traits of emotional
intelligence constructs (Mayer et al., 2004) that tie to Bandura’s (1997, 2000, 2005) social
cognitive theory.
As Salovey and Mayer (1990) explained, increasing self-awareness, emotional self-
regulation, and even conducting an assessment of these EI competencies, is a first step for
[leaders’] development and understanding influences of EI on others. Further, research showed
that developing, practicing, becoming confident and competent in using EI, as part of [frontline]
leadership’s skill set, improves employee retention and increases engagement (Dulewicz &
Higgs, 2003; Gartner, 2019; Shojei & Suiki, 2014). While developing a leader's skills to a level
of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 2012) and competency takes time (Grossman & Salas, 2011),
organizations that support learning and feedback stand to gain from reduced turnover and
increased engagement among its employees.
26

Culture and Individual Behavior
Both leaders and followers shape an organization’s culture and influence behavior.
Developing emotional intelligence in the workplace would consist of one’s ability to self-
regulate emotions including being self-aware and empathetic (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Barley,
2010). Leaders are often expected to be influencers and leaders of change (Northouse, 2015);
the ability to apply emotional intelligence in such circumstances can impact others’ willingness
to follow or adapt to the organizational culture (Carmeli, 2003).
Leaders influence behavior of followers and have an opportunity to demonstrate and
create a setting of respect and trust (Northouse, 2015; Schein 2004). For leaders to successfully
apply EI and create a meaningful impact on organizational performance outcomes, competently
developing EI skills while in the workplace can be an effective practice (Barrett et al., 2011).
Giving and receiving timely coaching or feedback (Martin, 2019), allowing for self-reflection
(Barley, 2010; Ghaye, 2010), self-motivated responsibility and developing a sense of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1995, 1997, 2000) are practices that can influence desired EI behaviors.
Figure 1 reflects the conceptual framework of the individual and factors as influences of their
emotional intelligence.

27

Figure 1
Emotional Intelligence Conceptual Framework

Summary
Leader behaviors are impacted by others and their environment, and environments impact
people and their behaviors. (Bandura, 1988, 2005). Leaders are better able to develop skills in
organizations that support learning environments to affect the desired EI behaviors and
organizational performance outcomes (Cherniss & Caplan, 2001; Cherniss & Goleman, 2001).
Subjugating incongruencies or impediments within organizational environments (Clark & Estes,
2008) such as culture and organizational (dis)trust (Northouse, 2015) can help foster settings for
EI skill development of frontline leaders. Numerous studies have found that developing EI can
28

yield positive organizational outcomes and are important if a leader is to be a valuable
contributor to the organization. Research shows outcomes include improved retention, high
performing employees, and engaged teams which yield overall better productivity and innovation
(Boyatzis, 2011; Carmeli, 2003; Cherniss & Caplan, 2001; Deming, 2017; Dulewicz & Higgs,
2003; Pearson & Porath, 2010; Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
Overview of Design
The nature of the study is enriched through using a mixed method approach. Mixed
method is explained by Creswell and Creswell (2018) as combining both qualitative (open-
ended) and quantitative (closed-ended) data for analysis and is appropriate to be used to explore
EI among HSPH non-clinical frontline leaders. The study design incorporates qualitative,
phenomenological components so as to explore the experiences, perceptions and perspectives of
non-clinical frontline leaders. Quantitative data were captured using an adapted survey
assessment tool whereby the leaders answered questions about their EI self-perceptions followed
by an interview. This approach is explanatory sequential where quantitative data was captured
first, and qualitative data was captured secondarily (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Other details
about the survey and interview will be further discussed in this section.
A non-probability, purposeful sampling approach was used to identify study participants
that spread across leaders of both departments: Environmental Services and Food Services &
Catering. Each department has three common 8-hour shifts to ensure coverage for a 24-hour
workday therefore, all three work shifts were informed and invited to participate and to ensure all
frontline leaders at each shift had an opportunity to participate in the study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).

29

Table 2
Data Sources
Research questions Surveys Interviews
How does the environment influence the non-
clinical leader’s role in applying EI for
effective leadership?
X X
Which EI aligned practices do non-clinical
leaders self-report?
X X
What is the self-perception of non-clinical
leaders regarding their emotional
intelligence?
X X

Data Sources
Multiple data sources are used in the study. These sources consist of a 25-question
quantitative survey given to non-clinical frontline leaders and a 19-question qualitative interview
with non-clinical frontline leaders (presented in Appendices E and F) (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Robinson & Leonard, 2019). These methodologies and strategies were employed to glean
insights about the leaders’ self-perceptions of their EI and the competencies associated with EI
(Mayer et al., 2004; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Basic demographic questions on the survey and
interviews were to provide additional insights to department roles, any emerging themes or
influences such as education levels, organizational environment, or cultural background that may
be associated with EI competency among non-clinical frontline leaders.
Method 1: Survey
A census survey was the first method of data collection in this study. The survey
assessments were anonymous, and there was no disclosure of feedback on answers provided by
30

the frontline leaders by the researcher to senior management or other supervisors. The tool was
accessible via computer, iPad, laptop, tablet and cell phone and invited participants to a
participate in an interview at the end. The survey tool was designed to encourage frontline
leaders to reflect on their thoughts of their EI self-perceptions and their application of these
behaviors in the workplace.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants for the survey include all non-clinical frontline leaders in the
Environmental Services and Food Services & Catering departments in two HSPH hospitals.
These groups and departments were each chosen for the study as they have shown low annual
engagement survey scores between 2016 and 2018 compared to the organization’s overall
engagement scores and turnover has remained unimproved in the same timeframe.
At the time of the study, there were 20 total frontline leaders between the two
departments. There were no restrictions or exclusions based on race, disability, ethnicity,
religious belief, sexual orientation, cultural background, or gender identity in selecting
participants from this population. The participants were all over the age of 18 and been employed
by the organization and the specific department for at least one year. This requirement is
important for inclusion of third-party data collection of the employees’ feedback in HSPHs
annual engagement survey in 2016, 2017 and 2018.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument was adapted from two different EI validated tools and consists of
25 statements using a five-point Likert scale for each (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The survey
assessment (presented in Appendix F) was adapted from one tool by Emily Sterrett, Ph.D. called
“Emotional Intelligence Self-Assessment Tool” (2000) and another tool called “Emotional
31

Intelligence: Assessment Questions and Key Points to Consider” (author unknown, 2009).
Adaptation included identifying question items as related to EI concepts within the current tool
and analyzing them for alignment to the research questions with minor modifications for
wording that would be understood without changing their EI dimension being evaluated by the
study participant.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection processes for the survey only used an online accessible format via
Qualtrics. A paper and pen option was not allowable due to COVID-19 restrictions and potential
interactions with participants. Through Qualtrics, the survey was available in various online
formats using a computer, laptop, cell phone or tablet. Survey and interview completion was
open for 28-days from the announcement of the start of the study.
Data Analysis
Survey assessment data analysis consisted of identifying frequencies and looking at
possible relationships within the data based on the research questions. By using Qualtrics to
implement the survey, relationships within the data were explored and compared with a
descriptive analysis of a small sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using Qualtrics allowed for a
review of the survey outputs to assess if any of the participants failed to answer any survey
items, review survey abandon rates, time to complete the survey, and overall completion rates.
After reviewing the overall response report, individual survey items were evaluated based on EI
competencies, then grouped by the competency, and finally evaluated based on number of
responses and Likert scale rating data. Statistical data was pulled to assess any statistical
significance using Pearson’s r and relational data. However, based on a lack of variation and
32

differentiation, analysis was focused on evaluating the data to review the strengths and
weaknesses of respondent answers based on the Likert scale ratings.
Validity and Reliability
For the survey to establish validity and reliability, the assessment tool must have content
validity in that the statements cover the behaviors considered for the dimension(s) being self-
evaluated or assessed (Bordens & Abbott, 2008). An aid to that effort was having clear
statements associated with the EI concepts and behaviors which contributed to increased validity
levels. To ensure clear statements, the adapted survey tool was reviewed by the organization’s
IRB coordinator. The survey sought target responses from 80% of the study population to ensure
a reliable sample size (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Achieving this response rate provided data
that could adequately assess the concepts or behaviors of frontline leaders (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss congruency, measures and the tools being used for
collecting data. Specifically, the findings should be congruent with what is actually trying to be
captured, and that measures are, in fact, measuring what the researcher thinks they are
measuring.
For this study, the survey assessment tool used to collect EI self-perception data was
adapted from two EI validated sources. It consisted of 25 statements using a five-point Likert
scale for each item (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). One tool used for the adaptation is by Emily
Sterrett, PhD called “Emotional Intelligence Self-Assessment Tool” (2000) (Appendix F). The
other tool used for reference and adaption is called “Emotional Intelligence: Assessment
Questions and Key Points to Consider” (author unknown, 2009) (Appendix F).
33

Method 2: Interviews
Interviews were done as a semi-structured approach to afford space for storytelling by
participants and probing by the researcher (instrument located in Appendix E) (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The target population was non-clinical frontline leaders across two departments
and two hospitals. Interviews provided insight about each leader’s sense of emotional
intelligence from their own perception. As Patton (2002) discussed, an interviewee’s ability to
share their perspective of stories is important to maintain the qualitative format of the interview,
therefore allowing for ease and flow of communication is important to capture a rich, detailed
transcript.
Participating Stakeholders
The study’s participating stakeholders included non-clinical frontline leaders of the
Environmental Services department and the Food Services & Catering department. To garner
volunteers for the interview, the survey included a question at the end that invited the participant
to partake in a confidential interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Participants were asked to
provide either an email address or phone number to be contacted and given additional
information about the interview’s purpose.
The objective was to obtain interviews from at least ten (10) of the survey respondents. If
voluntary interviews reached more than fifteen (15), the researcher would randomly select ten
from among the fifteen who volunteered. Should the interviews reach a point of saturation before
all fifteen interviews had been conducted, then additional interviews would have been
suspended.
34

Instrumentation
A semi-structured interview tool was used by the researcher (instrument located in
Appendix E). The interview consisted of 19 questions with probing questions for seven (7) of
them. Probing questions were included to guide and aid the interview with clarity and to
encourage storytelling by the participant. It is through careful questioning during the interviews
that elicited the study participants’ reflection and sharing of experiences and perceptions thereby
garnering rich interview data for the researcher (Patton, 2002).
Data Collection Procedures
In facilitating the data collection and to ensure minimal risk to participants, the
organization required an IRB coordinator’s review of protocols to ensure minimal risk and harm
from the interview data collection processes. This component of the data collection consisted of
a review of the interview and survey protocol before submission to the IRB. Additionally, the
coordinator was CITI certified and able to assess the interview protocol questions. The
coordinator ensured adherence to document safeguards and appropriate destruction of data after
collection and analysis (Creswell & Creswell 2018). Interview participants were de-identified or
anonymized by using a number coding method (i.e., Leader 001). Additionally, the participant
data was disaggregated (i.e., participant names, departments, and any other personally
identifiable data) to further ensure confidentiality safeguards. Confidentiality was explained
before opening the study and at the start of the study protocol with each participant, as well as
asking two preliminary questions that each participant was comfortable with the interview in
English only and gave their consent to record the interview. Study participants were informed of
the recording format, which was via Zoom meetings (with or without video) and Otter (an audio
recording and transcription service). This non-contact method was in accordance with IRB health
35

and safety restrictions and guidelines due to COVID-19. Interview recording, using Otter as a
backup source, was the chosen method to more accurately capture transcription for analysis and
coding (Gibbs, 2018). Participants were informed that all recordings and transcripts would stay
with the researcher, be computer encrypted, and then deleted and disposed of post-study and
doctoral program completion. Further, once the recording concluded, participants were advised
of such however, when participants continued sharing experiences or stories that added richness
to the data, the participant was asked if their additional information could be included in the
interview (Patton, 2002). The researcher made notation of any extra information and verified its
accuracy and understanding with the participant before the final conclusion and closure of the
interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Initially, there was a low response rate for interviews, and a $10 grocery store gift was
offered as an incentive to increase participation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This increased
participation to a total of nine interviews. During the start of each interview, participants were
informed they could conclude or leave the interview at any time and still receive the gift card.
Offering the gift card was also retroactive to those who had already participated in interviews so
as to afford the same treatment to every volunteer of the study.
Data Analysis
Analyzing interview data was a two phased approach. Initial analysis was conducted by
evaluating the transcripts of the interviews, and the second phase was conducted using online
coding software such as Atlas.ti (Gibbs, 2018) to identify themes, create categories, or groupings
of themes or EI study-related constructs. While collecting interview data, Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) explain [qualitative data] collection and analysis “should be simultaneous” processes (pp.
195, 197) which was achieved by capturing notes during interviews. Taking notes during the
36

interview allowed for some probing and analysis to occur in the moment (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Probes helped garner story detail or information for clarification of an interviewees
experience. Interview data was also recorded to help sort, categorize and analyze the bulk of the
data at a later time. Notetaking processes were maintained as a codebook to use for interview
transcription cross-referencing.
Interviews were uploaded to Atlas.ti transcription analysis software and cross-checked
with the codebook (Gibbs, 2018). Within Atlas.ti, a first round of coding (open coding) was
conducted evaluating for EI competencies (self-awareness, emotional self-regulation,
empathy/compassion, and self-reflection) and associated leader practices or behaviors. A second
round of coding for follow-up analysis was undertaken to create axial coding or sub-codes and
begin identifying responses and insights to each of the research questions (RQs) and refining EI
competencies into categories (Gibbs, 2018). By conducting this step in the analysis, code
frequencies could be compared further and illuminated which EI competencies were discussed or
inferred by study participants and the number of study participants who discussed a particular EI
competency. Additionally, the sub-coding process allowed for identifying code co-occurrence
which is the process of identifying initial EI competency codes, that were also identified or
associated with another EI competency or sub-code.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Validity and reliability within a qualitative study, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explain,
is about the ethical management of data and the ability to trust the results and, in doing so, the
“studies must be rigorously conducted,” giving careful consideration to the manner in which the
study data has been “collected, analyzed and interpreted” (p. 238). Since interviews are
inherently reliant upon the participants sharing their thoughts, beliefs, and other influences, the
37

researcher by listening objectively for similarities of those thoughts, ideas or opinions, can
suggest reliability. By applying the coding process as part of the analysis, researchers can review
the data for similar concepts or ideas as part of cross-checking code for data reliability (Gibbs,
2018). In this sense, the interview data collection process as well as the analysis and
interpretation of it, included descriptive narratives of the study process, the participants (without
compromising confidentiality), providing detailed writing in a manner to help the reader envision
a setting, and lastly to draw on connections from the literature and research questions (Creswell
& Miller, 2000).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) in reference to credibility and trustworthiness, further
explained the interview process is designed to allow the participants to also express their
perceptions in the workplace that center around the narratives of their experiences or phenomena.
Given this aspect from the participant’s point of view, the researcher had to trust the information
shared by the study participant and bracket or “set aside” their (the researcher’s) own biases or
assumptions so as not to influence the interviews (p. 27). Further, to address researcher bias and
support credibility, Gibbs (2018) discusses reflexivity wherein the reality is that, as a qualitative
researcher, one cannot claim to [be completely] objective, but legitimacy can be attained by
having a deliberate focus and assessment of data collection and its processes, “evaluations and
interpretations” (p. 129).
Results and Findings
The purpose of the study was to explore non-clinical frontline leader emotional
intelligence (EI) competencies at HSPH healthcare organization (a pseudonym) located in Los
Angeles County. The study focused on non-clinical frontline leaders in the Environmental
Services department and the Food Services & Catering department. Two data collection methods
38

(mixed methods) explored the self-perception of non-clinical frontline leaders; an EI self-
perception survey and a qualitative interview.
The study participants first evaluated themselves and their perception of their application
of EI competencies. Through interviews that followed the survey, the study participants shared
stories, discussed how their EI competencies were applied and how they believed these behaviors
had been formed or influenced. Based on participant feedback post-interview, having the
participants take the survey first helped them glean some idea of the interview. Interviewees also
shared how it eased them through the interview conversation about their EI competencies,
leadership skills, behaviors, and experiences.
Through the lens of the study participants’ personal and leadership experiences and
reported behaviors, the study sought to explore participants’ lived experiences that influence
their EI competencies and their EI self-perceptions. In doing so, the participants shared stories as
examples about influences on their behaviors that supported their perception of their EI
competencies. Some of these influences were personal upbringing and some were value-driven;
both personal and organizational values were influenced by observing other leaders. Also, during
interviews, study participants delved into the goals or outcomes they believed resulted from
applying their EI competencies effectively within their departments and among their teams.
The findings showed that study participants rated themselves “strongly agree or agree” on
self-perception scales around self-awareness of their emotions and responses, ability to self-
regulate, and self-efficacy concerning their effectiveness as a leader. These outcomes also
aligned with interview themes. Due to the relatively small interview sample size (n = 9), the EI
component was deemed an important or significant theme for analysis when discussed by 75% of
the study population. Additionally, significant thematic findings indicate that all participants
39

mentioned a topic directly or indirectly at least 35 times. The research questions explored were
the following: (a) how does the environment influence the non-clinical leaders’ role in applying
EI for effective leadership, (b) which EI aligned practices do non-clinical leaders self-report and,
(c) what is the self-perception of non-clinical leaders regarding their EI competencies they
possess?
Participating Stakeholders
Participating stakeholders included frontline clinical leaders across all levels within the
two study departments: Environmental Services and Food Services & Catering. The job titles
and role of leaders ranged from senior departmental leaders to shift leaders who manage a team
of employees during a shift. All participants reported they were over the age of 18 and worked
for at least a year in the organization’s department. There were eighteen (N = 18) total
participating stakeholders.
Survey Participants
The survey participants included non-clinical Environmental Services frontline leaders
and Food Services & Catering services frontline leaders at HSPH healthcare (a pseudonym)
across two hospitals in Los Angeles County. COVID-19 impacts made some leaders unavailable
at the time of the survey, resulting in 20 out of the targeted 25 participants receiving the survey.
Nineteen of 20 frontline leaders participated in the Qualtrics survey, but one abandoned the
survey part way through. This left a final survey participant count of 18 (N = 18).
Interview Participants
Of those who completed the survey (N=18), initially 14 agreed to participate in the
voluntary interview. However, only nine ultimately participated in an interview (n = 9). I made
efforts to obtain the additional five survey participants; however, after four attempts to obtain
40

Zoom interviews, efforts ceased. As a researcher, it is important to carefully balance the ethical
considerations of a study and the participants’ willingness to participate versus the needs of the
study itself without making participants feel coerced or compromising “voluntary” participation
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The interviews averaged 40 minutes, and all participants were informed of confidentiality
protocol and asked if interviews could be audio recorded. All interviewees (n = 9) consented to
be recorded and allow the use of their quotes and stories for the research. To further protect the
study participants, a Leader number (i.e., Leader 001) was assigned to each participant for the
purpose of discussion in this study. The racial demographics of the nine participants included
those who identified as White, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latinx. Due to the small
sample size, maintaining confidentiality was important to protect the participants. Therefore,
certain potentially identifying demographic data was excluded in Table 3. Table 3 depicts the
demographic characteristics of all study participants (survey and interview).

41

Table 3
Demographic Data of EI Study Participants
Years in role n
1 - 5 years 6
6+ years 12

Age n
18 - 34 3
35 - 54 6
55+ 9

Education level n
4 yr degree+ 6
HS Diploma/GED 6
Some college/2yr
deg/Vocational 6

Note. N = 18

RQ 1: How Does the Environment Influence the Non-Clinical Frontline Leader’s Role in
Applying EI for Effective Leadership?
The environment was found as a factor with influencing the frontline leaders’ role and
their sense of leader effectiveness when applying EI. This section discusses themes of influence
from the personal, behavioral and environmental perspectives as shared by the study participants
in their professional or lived experiences. Discussion included leader and organizational values
that shape behaviors, culture and individual behaviors, and lastly, leadership and organizational
culture influences. There was overlap in the data and findings among interviewees and study
Gender n
Male 10
Female 8
Non-binary 0
Other 0
42

participants about EI training and mentorship as environmental influences that help develop a
leader. The repeated themes, terms, stories, and descriptors used by the interviewees and
compared against quantitative data found saturation points reflected when applying coding and
sub-coding of the qualitative interviews and reviewing frequencies in the surveys. Survey data is
presented first before interview data in the sub-sections for each theme. In some cases, survey
data did not contribute to the themes that emerged in the study.
Theme 1: Leaders’ Values Align to Organizational Values for Effective Leadership
All nine interviewees (100%) mentioned that values and behaviors, as an effective leader,
were important to the department or organizational culture. Discussions evolved about alignment
of personal values to the organizational values, such as compassion or empathy and respect,
which all interviewees (n=9) indicated was a regular part of their leadership practices.
Additionally, the topic of accountability arose as being part of the frontline leader’s
responsibility. Still, accountability was coupled with being respectful to the staff, being held
accountable, and maintaining the department culture.
Frontline leaders also felt their commitment to maintaining the organizational culture and
environment was a direct corollary to the organizational values and those values in which they
believed. Transcript coding from interviews reflected that being supportive to the staff was
mentioned the most among all interviewees (100%), followed by compassion and respect. Being
supportive was akin to leaders helping the team and ensuring each leader felt they were doing
their part for the team.
Survey Results. Survey questions did not provide insight into this theme.
Interview Findings. Eight out of nine (89%) of the interview participants mentioned
how individual values were important. Interview question 6 (Appendix F) engaged the leaders
43

about values and the organizational influence on their leadership style. Respondents highlighted
the values of being supportive, compassion or empathy, and being respectful most highly. Figure
2 shows the frequency coding mentioned by study participants for compassion, respect, and
support.

Figure 2
Organizational and Individual Values Code Frequency

Note. Gr: Groundedness of Codes (number of quotations coded by a code) (Atlas.ti).

44

Leader 1015 explained how they expressed the value of compassion, sharing an example
of a conversational approach with a team member where they opened, saying:
‘How's the family, how are you?’ Things like that. You know, we got to show them you
care too, and you have to be authentic, it can't be fake. [T]hey'll read (through) that like
quickly, they'll read it so quick. And you just got to be authentic about it and that's one
thing…is that I'm authentic.
Leader 1004 discussed being respectful to staff and indicated, “you really want to give
voice to them [the employees].” Additionally, this same leader explained that from a value-drive
frame, they are influenced by the organization and how senior leaders help to create the
organizational culture, saying “the top leaders [their behaviors] in the organization; I think that,
that it (mission and values) aligns already so well with my own and (my team).”
Leader 1005, with a big smile and wide eyes, expressed with passion and enthusiasm,
about their values of respect, compassion, and excellence towards people for a good experience,
stating:
Excellence is one of the values I believe in; just making sure everything's perfect for our
patients and customers (employees and hospital visitors) …our goal is to try to just make
that experience as best as we can… kind of making them (patients) feel comfortable.
That's how I was brought up; like if anyone's down you want to help them (supportive).
Other leaders interviewed discussed the role of a leader as also one who helps maintain
the organization’s positive culture and the environment by holding people accountable yet being
respectful of the employee and the team. Leader 1001 explained an approach to an employee
who was not fulfilling their duties and said, “so I'll be more like you know asking employees,
‘What's going on? What is leading you to go this route right now? You are an excellent
45

employee (or a good employee), but lately, this is happening (inferring declining performance).’”
Leader 1009 expanded on one feedback meeting with an employee trying to avert a negative
encounter and explaining to the employee, “‘we need to sit down … this needs a conversation to
happen because it's more serious’… and I saw those types of situations that might become more
volatile. I know it (the behavior) has to be addressed.” Similarly, leader 1007 said, “you (the
leader) have to take accountability too, as to whose employees are there (on shift) doing the
work.” Leader 1007 discussed their show of compassion towards employees, telling them, “I'm
here.” I give them a phone number [and say], “you can always call me, text me, if anything's
going on, you know, just in case if you know something's going on.” Lastly, leader 1018
explained how their leadership style and values in turn influences their team, “you tend to be
kind and respectful to them. I think respect is important. Communication is important. You
know, and then pushing yourself” as they also discussed the work ethic with which they were
raised. Creating and maintaining a department and environment that reflects the organizational
values reinforced leaders’ beliefs that doing so enhances team motivation and engagement.
Being respectful and compassionate while ensuring teams completed the expected work
assignments also seemed important for ensuring a positive culture and department environment
as study participants reported.
Summary. Study participants explained that practicing the leadership behaviors of
respect, compassion, and holding others accountable aligned their values and behaviors with the
organization’s values. The interviewees explained they felt this helped engage their team and
motivate them intrinsically. As discussed by the various leaders, accountability emphasized the
importance of addressing issues sooner rather than later and being respectful to employees even
during difficult conversations. Although study findings revealed leaders did not discuss how they
46

are held accountable by their own leaders, they did discuss being an effective leader meant
reminding employees of the expectations within the workplace and among the team, especially
when performance began to decline.
Theme 2: Organizational Culture and Other External Factors Influence Leader Behavior
The participants explained how, in their perception, both the organization’s environment
(culture) and external factors influence their behavior. Further, they explained how their own
behavior creates an environmental influence for their employees and peers. Additionally, the
leader shared how factors such as being compassionate, respectful, and helpful impact how their
teams interact with them and the leaders’ perception of their leadership effectiveness based on
the idea of reciprocal behaviors and modeling other leaders’ behaviors.
Survey Results. Survey questions 21 and 22 reflected that study participants’ behaviors
were influenced by the organizational culture. As seen in Figure 3, of 18 participants, 50% of the
survey participants believe that their leader behaviors are influenced “a great deal” by the
organizational culture. Further, 38% believe the organizational culture influences their behavior
by “a moderate amount.”

47

Figure 3
Organizational Culture as an Influence on Frontline Leaders Behaviors (N =18)

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.

Similarly, Figure 4 reflects leaders’ beliefs that organizational practices influenced their
behaviors by what they see modeled in their senior leaders. Seventy-seven percent of surveyed
leaders indicated senior leader practices were influential to their behaviors, specifically with 33%
stating this was “always” an influence and 44% indicated this influenced them “most of the
time.” Only 22% believed their senior leaders’ practices influenced their behavior half the time
or less. This indicates that organizational practices influence leader behaviors at least half the
time or more.
48

Figure 4
Frequency of Behavior Influences on Leaders by Practices Seen Modelled

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.

Interview Findings. All nine (100%) of the leaders interviewed discussed examples of
how their leadership behaviors influence others (followers or employees) and how their
leadership behaviors impact the culture. In eight of the discussions, leaders referenced behaviors
they engage in that foster a positive culture. They indicated, as leaders, they do not let their
employees see them when they are upset, whether in pain or due to illness, frustrated, or angry
about work-related matters.
Four of the leaders explained instances when their staff suspected they were not feeling
well, and their staff asked, “How can I help?” These leaders attributed this support as a
My leadership behaviors are influenced by the organizational practices I see modelled by
senior leaders
49

reciprocal behavior, where their compassionate nature with the staff led the staff to be
compassionate and supportive to their leader. The leaders explained their efforts were to
influence a positive culture among their team by demonstrating the desired behaviors such as
being respectful or willing to “roll up [their] sleeves” to help the team. Four of the study
participants discussed they felt they helped cultivate a compassionate and supportive culture.
Finally, all interviewees except one expressed that they emulated the behaviors from their senior
leader, which they saw as contributing to an organizational culture and value for compassion.
Organizational Culture Is Influenced and Shaped by Senior Leader Behaviors. Study
participants explained being compassionate and supportive were behaviors they modeled, and
shared examples such as being respectful, being helpful, and having a positive attitude. Modeled
behaviors were a discussion point where study participants shared how they can influence other
behaviors. Leader 1015 explained how they modeled behaviors seeing them as reciprocal
actions, and discussed the outcomes they see saying, “you have to respect them, you know, then
they give it back to you. And they do. They are more productive and everything; you know,
whatever they need to get the job done on time or ahead of time.” Another leader, 1017, stated,
“… if you're on your phone, they're on their phone. If you're sitting down, they're sitting down; if
you're slacking off, they're slacking off,” indicating the behavior modeling that follower’s
practice from what they observe of their leaders. Leader 1018 discussed the importance of
modeling a positive attitude and the influence it can have to overcome barriers and keep the team
motivated. They explained, “I try to be positive and help the team when there are high patient
volumes, especially now due to COVID-19 and “callouts” due to employee illness.” This same
leader also explained, “I like to empower the team to do work with few barriers so that I can
have more time to focus on other needs of the department such as workforce planning and
50

managing budgets.” Probing as to where Leader 1018 adopted this “empowerment” approach,
they explained they “had a senior leader who worked like this” and observed how employees
seemed motivated and the senior leader was able to accomplish more tasks. In this leader’s view,
they associated being an effective leader with demonstrating positive behaviors and ensuring
their team was supported by being fully staffed and therefore not calling out or callouts were
less.
External Influences on Frontline Leader Behaviors. Frontline leaders also discussed
how external influences shape their behavior. For example, Leader 1009 expressed how their
leader behavior is shaped, saying, “I feel that my actions should reflect what I believe the
Christian values are, and so I try to maintain that level of action with people.” This same leader
shared an early-career professional story that helped them develop their leadership behavior and
culture by drawing on a negative experience by a prior leader. Leader 1009 explained this
experience as very similar to a character in a popular television show that glamorized a culture of
bullying, demeaning, and name-calling. This leader summarized their early-career experience:
I had a crazy [boss] that used to yell at people. And actually, I became the victim of that
once, and I thought this is the most horrendous thing to happen to someone, to have
someone (a boss) in your face yelling at you. I can't even imagine doing that. So, I
usually will just remove myself until I can calm down and go back and approach the
situation properly.
Remembering family influences as modeled behaviors, Leader 1007 credited their father as the
first influencer of their leadership behavior at a young age, explaining:
I learned a lot from him [my dad] from showing, you know, the tenacity of trying to do
something and get it done and get it done quickly as possible and not be afraid to do it.
51

I've learned the same thing with other managers and other directors. being hands on as
well. So, if I see them [other leaders] being hands on, being very active, like not afraid,
then I do the same, hopping in to help.

52

Table 4
Organization and External Influences on Leaders and Reported Behaviors
Leader Organizational
influence
Reported behavior
affected or demonstrated
at work
External
influence
Reported behavior
affected or
demonstrated at work
1001 Org culture,
Senior leader,
Mentor

Compassion, Respect,
Listening

1004 Org culture,
Senior leader

Compassion, Feedback,
Inclusive
Family Respect
1005 Org culture,
Senior leader

Helpful, Giving,
Integrity, Trust
Family Donating,
Volunteering
1007 Org culture,
Senior leader,
Mentor

Compassion,
Communication,
Integrity, Trust
Family Respect
1008 Org culture,
Senior leader

Fairness, Justice,
Respect

1009 Org culture,
Senior leader

Fairness, Justice,
Respect
Christian
values
Kindness
1015 Org culture Compassion,
Authenticity

Prior leader
(outside
current org)
Fair, Hard-working
1017 Org culture,
Senior leader

Inclusiveness
1018 Senior leader,
Mentor
Respect, Feedback

Note. (n = 9). Column 3 reflects reported behaviors by leaders that align to the EI competencies.
53

Summary. Interviewees shared stories of internal and external influences on their
behaviors and their awareness that behaviors and interactions impact and influence the
organizational environment (culture). They also believed that being compassionate, respectful,
and supportive are behaviors that affect the team and shape the culture. Overall, leaders
suggested the importance of being directly involved and willing to help was expressed as
cultivating a positive culture through modeling and being supportive to the team. Additionally,
leaders believed that creating a positive culture and influencing a team to work together was
fostered by showing respect and compassion. Lastly, while leaders discussed learning these types
of behaviors from past leaders, both positive and negative in their perception, they shared that
learning from family or others outside of their organization contributed to their development of
EI competencies and becoming effective leaders.
Theme 3: Leaders Seek Organizational Support and Mentorships for Their EI Development
Study participants (N = 18) indicated that they seek EI developmental opportunities and
support from the organization. Survey items 23 and 25 inquired about the leaders’ perception of
organizational support and mentorship as developmental training within the organization. The
concept of mentorship received codes with the frequency of 44 times throughout all nine
interviews.
Survey Results. The survey results indicated 15 of 18 participants (83%) “strongly
agreed or agreed” that the organization supported their EI development, as shown in Figure 5 and
Figure 6. Three participants (16%) “disagreed” that the organization supported their EI
development (Q.23). In the area of mentorship for informal EI development, three participants
(16%) indicated they lacked mentorship from whom to learn, model or develop EI behaviors (Q.
25).
54

Figure 5
Percent of Leaders Who Believe Organization Supports Their EI Development

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.

Figure 6
Percent of Frontline Leaders With a Mentor Who Models EI (N = 18)

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.
Respondent Answer Type
The organization supports my professional emotional intelligence development.
55

Interview Findings. When discussing organizational support for EI development, all
study participants expressed interest for EI training. Of nine interviews, only one indicated
having received training in how to handle interactions with employees. However, none of the
study participants had any knowledge of EI training sponsored by the organization. Additionally,
participants felt that the organization did not support their development in EI although this was
in contrast to the survey findings. Having sought EI training internally and explaining what EI
means to them, leader 1001 explained, “having EI training is about being able to step back from
a tense situation and... how you speak to people matters, how you act, and some strategies.” This
leader understood why EI training would be useful but also shared that they had neither found EI
training nor knew of EI training within the organization; they obtained their EI training
externally.
Two Leaders, 1007 and 1004, originally sought EI training inside the organization and
eventually sought EI training outside of the organization with the support of their 1-up leader
after failing to find training internally. When asked to describe what the external training was
about, Leader 1001 explained the training as, “it's around communication and understanding
emotions and how that plays into their management style, and how their management style is
perceived by others.” Study participants were able to describe what EI training could include and
their desire to improve EI; however, not having this training accessible or available internally
appeared as a lack of organizational support.
Leader 1009 shared a missed opportunity about the (internal) training they began to
attend, but [the training] was suddenly discontinued. This leader found the training helpful and
enjoyed being around other leader peers to learn from as well, and in closing stated, “if it's [EI
training] out there, and they're not letting us know, or it's not diffused properly, then that should
56

be looked at.” This leader seemed to feel that organizational communication was not done well
about formal EI training, if it was available.
Participants viewed mentorship as distinct from formal learning opportunities and
considered this as a positive influence. All but one interviewee (eight out of nine interviewees)
mentioned mentoring as a positive influence on their EI behaviors. Leader 1001 described the
observed behaviors of their past mentor, demonstrating EI skills explaining, “[s]he's very calm,
always thinking through everything [and] making wise decisions. I try to learn from [a leader
like her].” Leader 1001 continued about their current mentor’s influence, saying, “[He is] a great
example handling how to disagree with a person, and I like to (observe) how he deals with issues
that I'm unable to do myself and learn from how he works with it.” Leader 1004 reflected on how
their mentor had significant influence on their style, explaining, “[she] transformed my
leadership abilities in the last [several] years…helping me connect the dots to the mission …and
purpose of, you know, why we're doing the work that we do.” This same leader further conveyed
the importance of learning from an EI competent mentor regarding difficult conversations
stating, “[Newer] managers need to see [how to manage a difficult conversation] because most
people are not comfortable having those conversations. And I think it has to be not just telling
someone what they've done wrong, but a conversation for a solution.” Leader 1017 explained
they had no mentor as an influence on their behavior, but explained they are guided to “just to do
the right thing” by employees and that “it’s [their] style to be this way.”
Summary. None of the interview participants knew of organization-sponsored EI
development resources, yet the perception survey item indicated frontline leaders had
organizational support for EI development. During interviews, exploring organizational support
or lack of support for EI development was more tied to mentorship interactions from whom the
57

participants learned or modeled EI behaviors they wanted to develop rather than formal training
that was provided by the organization. The interviewees felt they could develop and benefit in
speaking tones, communication, and self-regulating behaviors. Participants expressed that if they
were more effective in their EI abilities, it would only further help support their employees.
Eight of nine participants also identified a mentor who was a leader in whom they looked up to
and believed strongly in how they lead others, including motivating a team, demonstrating
empathy, and successfully handling difficult conversations. They valued these observations and
discussions, seeing them as learning opportunities from their mentor.
Theme 4: Leaders Desire In-Person and Internal Formal EI Training
Leaders expressed during interviews a desire for internal, in-person EI training. Despite
the social distancing conditions due to COVID-19, every interviewee (n = 9) was receptive to the
training virtually as long as they would have the interactions and opportunities to practice with
others in the training group. Surveys and interviews contributed to this theme.
Survey Results. Survey item 24 asked participants “would they value the opportunity to
develop their EI.” All (N = 18) of the survey participants said they “strongly agree or agree” they
would value the training opportunity to develop their emotional intelligence. Figure 7 denotes the
response rates for valuing EI training development from the organization.
Interview Findings. Aligned with survey results, all nine (100%) interviewees expressly
indicated they had a desire for formal training to develop their emotional intelligence skills
further. Leader 1004 explained they sought training for themselves and others regarding
emotional intelligence. Specifically, the leader stated, “[I was looking for training] around
communication and understanding emotions and how that plays into [a leader’s] management
style, [and] how their management style is perceived.” Both this leader and leader 1018 said they
58

sought communication and emotional intelligence training outside the organization because it
was not offered or not found within the organization. Leader 1004 sought EI training specifically
to help another (new) leader with their emotional intelligence skills. Leader 1004 reported the
[new leader’s] recent engagement scores demonstrated they were “struggling with coalescing
their team, being encouraging and supportive, and motivating others to be productive and timely
with their work.” Unsolicited, Leader 1004 explained the importance of EI training, in their
opinion and experience, sharing there is the “need to be self-aware and reflect on one’s behaviors
and communication, including the impact to a team when done hastily or without compassion.”
Expressing a sense of urgency, leader 1004 saw the need for EI training for a leader, explaining,
“This leader had poor engagement scores, communication challenges, and treatment that seemed
less than fair [toward their staff].” When probed further about finding EI-specific training, leader
1004 said, “Yeah, it was training by an outside source teaching about how you act or speak really
matters…it’s about how your management style is also being perceived.” When asked about the
value and availability of EI training inside the organization, leader 1004 explained, “…it’s
important to have training on [knowing how to respond] in a very tense situation so that we were
being sure that we were communicating appropriately.” Leader 1004 explained they saw the
value in EI training but had to find training outside the organization. This leader expressed that
“developing EI skills will be of help to be a better leader.”
Internal training, when available, was reported by respondents as helpful. Leader 1009
referenced a leadership training program they attended inside the organization and believed it
had value. “It was offered more than two years ago but has since ceased,” explained this leader.
The leader shared that the training had a short module on emotional intelligence and conflict
resolution:
59

I did the first one (leadership training session), and then the program died for some
reason…it was great because there were leaders from all the departments [which] was
really good to interact and hear how different managers dealt with [conflict]; and…, if
that was available, I would take advantage of it again…some leaders really lack in the
area of EI development and are ‘outta’ the loop.
Leader 1007 shared that the need for training has increased due to the pressure and stress
COVID-19 has elicited and wanted to know how to be more empathetic to employees. This
leader indicated their desire for training stating, “yearly HR management training or developing
[EI] skills like how to stay positive, being sympathetic towards others, ... keeping people
motivated especially right now [during] COVID.” With the unique pandemic-related pressures,
this leader believed having formal training in EI competencies would be helpful to them and
provide for better staff support and interactions as a leader.
Leader 1017 indicated they did not know of any work-related EI training or resources in
the organization. They explained their desire to develop their EI and said expressly they would
find it helpful to learn “[t]he way my tone is with someone, [that] would be good” (self-
awareness). They went on and also stated, “…[knowing] when talking to people, you're not upset
or anything, you just stay calm” (emotional self-regulation). This same leader shared, “I am
sensitive to the diverse culture of the department and… I want to talk respectfully with each
culture, whether Black or Latino or any other culture.” Additionally, this leader expressed their
desire for EI development to help them “to be culturally sensitive and [more] understanding of
differences in communication styles.” Further, the leader emphasized the “multicultural” aspect
of their department and that others emulate or model what they see their leader doing.
60

Other interviewees shared a common interest in developing their EI and seeing the
importance of doing so. Leader 1018 said, “I haven't ever heard of any [EI] resources for, you
know, for managers that I can think of. I think that would benefit them [us] a lot.” And leader
1017, said, “I am very interested [in EI training] because I want to help others like myself if I
have to improve some of what I need to do, to manage better.” Figure 7 reflects the percent of
frontline leaders who would value EI training.

Figure 7
Percent of Leaders Who Would Value EI Training (N = 18)

Note. Percentages represent response rate.

I would value the opportunity for training to develop my soft skills (EI) as a leader.
61

Summary. All study interviewees expressed they would value and have a desire for
developing their EI skills. Some interviewees explained they had previously sought
(unsuccessfully) training internally, while only two interviewees said they sought and found
training externally to the organization. Based on the interviewee findings, they expressed their
desire for formal training to be conducted in-person or with virtual groups as an interactive
learning process. Hence, the workplace, they believe, affords this opportunity for real-time
feedback and learning and sharing with other leaders. An additional point was the interviewees
said they would find EI training to be very valuable, especially for crisis conditions such as the
COVID-19 pandemic. A recommendation regarding formal EI training sponsored by the
organization will be discussed in the Discussion and Recommendations section of this study.
RQ 2: Which EI Aligned Practices Do Non-Clinical Leaders Self-report?
The top four self-reported EI practices identified by leaders, with coding frequency in
parentheses, were self-awareness (59), empathy/compassion, (56), self-reflection (50), and
emotional self- regulation (34). The practices and frequencies are shown in Figure 8. Those with
a code frequency of 50 or above are reflected because they were well above the minimum
frequency coding threshold of 35 identified previously. A coding count of 35 was 60% of the
maximum (59) coding across the various EI competencies for the interview portion of the study.
These competencies are based on emotional intelligence theory (Goleman, 2015; Mayer et al.,
2004; Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

62

Figure 8
EI Competencies From Coding of Interview Transcript Themes

Note. Self-efficacy, while not an EI competency, is included due to the frequency of mentions
and self-ratings by interviewees (Table 4).

Theme 5: Self-Awareness Is Strongest EI Competency Among Leaders
Study participants mentioned or discussed self-awareness behaviors most often of all the
EI competency codes and had co-occurrences with other codes of self-reflection, emotional self-
regulation, self-efficacy. Self-awareness was coded 59 times from five interview questions
across all interviewees (n = 9). Additionally, six direct survey question items inquired about the
study participants' perceptions of how they practiced self-awareness behaviors.
Survey Results. The six survey items gleaned insights about the study participants' self-
perceptions about their reactions or behaviors relating to their awareness of others’ feelings,
63

reactions, and impacts from their interactions with others. Survey results reflected how leaders
perceived themselves as very capable with their ability to apply self-awareness practices by
answering “always” or “most of the time” across “self-awareness” question items 1, 3, 4, 11, 13,
and 16 as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9
Self-Awareness Survey Items and Answer Percentages (N = 18)

Note. Numbers within each bar represent percent of respondents answering
64
65

Interview Findings. There were five interview questions about self-awareness. A priori
coding of the transcripts found self-awareness mentioned or inferred fifty-nine (59) times.
Among all nine interviewees, it was the most frequently mentioned EI competency. Study
participants shared various ways they considered self-awareness behaviors with one study
participant sharing aspects of self-awareness 17 times.
Three leaders mentioned self-awareness no less than six times as they shared stories or
explained how they applied it in their leadership journey, influences and observations. For
example, Leader 1015 explained:
I have to run the ship, so I have to hold myself to a higher standard than most. And I’ve
got to make sure that no matter what, whether the managers above me or the corporation
or whoever supports me or not, I gotta support these people because, you know, they're
my staff, they're my people.
This leader identified the need to be aware of the departmental demands every day and the needs
of their team as a form of self-awareness. They also mentioned being supportive as part of being
an effective leader. Leader 1007 mentioned or discussed experiences requiring self-awareness
seventeen times and explained, “your [self-awareness] is about adapting to the styles of how
people work, and you're constantly trying to push but have them [the team] understand the needs
or urgency of the work.” Leader 1007 then shared a story of their upbringing and the influences
of their dad that shaped their leadership style using a car lesson and analogy, said:
[My dad] will tell you [me], ‘Oh, you could do [it in] three steps’ and then would ask me,
‘how do you break something apart?’ Then, I'll break it apart, and he goes, ‘Okay, now,
I'm sure you could do it with this, this and this.’” Leader 1007 stated they then said, “oh,
why didn’t you tell me that before I started breaking it apart, dad?
66

This leader had vivid and fond memories from their youth, sharing their story with a big grin and
eyes wide, expressing valuable and unforgettable lessons from their dad that helped develop
some of the leadership skills they currently possess. These stories reflected various self-
awareness influences on leaders, with some lessons instilled early in their childhood or pre-
professional years.
As part of self-awareness, pausing was part of the story shared by two study participant
leaders. Leader 1005, when asked about self-awareness, reflected and paused for a moment
before answering, stating, “I always think my thoughts through and try to say the right things not
to upset the person.” Similar to leader 1005, leader 1001 shared how they “pause,” explaining
they take a moment to think consciously about their words or impact their actions can have,
which was a form of growth for them as a leader in their self-awareness:
I step back and think about it first before I try to give them or myself a solution or what I
have to do; before, I used to be more impulsive; more you know, right away, 'okay, let's
do this.' Now I always do some stepping back and thinking about it before I deal with the
problem.
Summary. Based on the data, self-awareness appears as the most mentioned EI
competency among study participants. They explained through their stories, that self-awareness
is about sometimes pausing, not being reactive, and taking a moment to think carefully first
before speaking; realizing that words matter. The participants articulated that by being aware of
their thoughts or behaviors, one might be more efficient, arrive at a better or alternative solution,
and consider the possible impact of their actions.
67

Theme 6: Empathy and Compassion Are Seen As Necessary Skills by Leaders
Study participants discussed empathy and compassion interchangeably during interviews.
Research indicates they are related to each other as understanding and reacting to or matching
another’s emotions (Gentry et al., 2016). Leaders revealed empathy and compassion were
necessary to be an effective leader. Three survey questions explored empathic behaviors among
participants. Although there was no specific interview question that inquired about empathic
behaviors, one interview question (Q. 6) about the leadership style aligning with organizational
values drew out examples of practices of empathy or compassion in all interviews (n = 9).
Survey Results. Three survey questions (Q. 2, 13, 18) inquired about empathy behaviors
by study participants. Questions were about admitting mistakes, matching their feelings to
others, and understanding others’ emotions. Tables 5, 6, and 7 reflect that all study participants
(N = 18) indicated they “always” or “most of the time” felt they were skilled in demonstrating
empathy.

Table 5
How Often Leaders Believed They Admit Their Mistakes

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.
Q.2. I can admit my mistakes.
Answer %
Always 61.11
Most of the time 38.89
About half the time 0.00
Rarely 0.00
Never 0.00
68

Table 6
How Often Leaders Believed Their Empathy Matched Others Emotions

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.

Table 7
How Often Leaders Believed They Easily Understood Others
Q.18. It is easy for me to understand why people feel
the way they do during work interactions.
Answer %
Always 11.11
Most of the time 88.89
About half the time 0.00
Rarely 0.00
Never 0.00

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.

Q.13. I am able to show empathy and match my
feelings with those of another person.
Answer %
Always 55.56
Most of the time 44.44
About half the time 0.00
Rarely 0.00
Never 0.00
69

Interview Findings. Empathy and compassion statements were coded 108 times
combined, across interviews. Interviewees frequently interchanged the words empathy and
compassion when describing an experience or example. Empathy was coded 56 times and
compassion was coded 52 times among all nine (n = 9) interviewees. Common descriptors by
study participants were words such as “to understand” or “understanding others” as the verbiage
used when describing being empathetic or compassionate. All of the interviewees shared their
recollections or examples of how they thought they demonstrated empathy or compassion and, in
general, felt was an EI skill that they possessed and practiced regularly.
Leader 1017 said they leaned on compassion as a skill and referenced an example of their
compassionate demonstrations during a workday stating, “I like the compassion [organizational
value], because if someone's going through it one day [you] put yourself in their shoes and see if
you can help them out … the workers are more comfortable if you show compassion.”
Another leader 1015, described their groundedness and commitment to being a
compassionate leader, explained:
I've always been a very compassionate person, very [much] understanding who I am, and
I don't try to change that for how you work. Sometimes maybe higher-ups want you to be
a little bit more stern or a little bit more aggressive, but this is what ‘got me to the dance,’
and I don't want to change it.
Leader 1015 explained, “got me to the dance” to mean it is compassionate behavior and practice
that has helped them advance in their career and become a better leader and person overall. This
same leader explained their perspective for why they embrace compassion towards others:
My issues are so small compared to others. Okay, so I, I just think about… you put things
in your mind and think about a kid who doesn't have a home, doesn't have bed to sleep in;
70

you think about the homeless person, you think about people losing loved ones, and you
just think, and you dissect and you're like, man, my issues mean nothing compared to
these people's issues.
Leader 1001 expressed their empathic style in being a leader and referenced grounding
themselves daily by being mindful that “someone else always has it tougher than you do.” This
leader contextualized this perspective by explaining a time when an employee asked them, “how
do you stay so calm and level all the time?”
Expressing their practice of compassion, leader 1007 stated, “[W]e know we’ve (leaders)
got to be compassionate. You've got to be compassionate to [the] employees and to our patients.”
Putting themselves in the others’ shoes, leader 1001 recalled a conversation asking an employee,
“What can I do on my part, what can we do for you; you know, to make it better for you?"
Substantiating why compassion is essential to them, leader 1001 said, “they can come to you for
anything versus being scared to try to speak up.” This leader further shared the idea of trust that
employees might have for their leader if they showed empathy for an employee. Having an
understanding of others through compassion or empathy and being authentic was an EI
competency that frontline leaders thought was important as part of looking beyond themselves.
Additionally, they believed being compassionate helped to build relationships and trust with their
staff and that it is a necessary skill for a leader to have.
Summary. Interview findings aligned with results of the survey, which indicated study
participants ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ felt they exhibited compassionate practices. Leaders
shared examples and stories to support the contention of their empathic practices and abilities.
However, survey data reflected that the majority (61%) of survey participants admit their
mistakes but none spoke about this aspect during interviews. An inferred association by leaders
71

during interviews was the act of being reflective as part of being compassionate, as this was
aligned with their empathic practices.
Theme 7: Self-Reflection as a Mindful Practice by Leaders
Study participants, directly and indirectly, articulated that self-reflection was an EI
practice in which they engaged. Survey questions items 9 and 14 addressed self-reflection
practices. During the participant interviews, leaders explained how they believed they applied
self-reflective practices regularly about how they could be better as a leader.
Survey Findings. Eighty-eight percent of survey participants indicated that they felt
they “always” or “most of the time” practiced self-reflective acts or behaviors. Figures 10 and 11
represent the break-out of study participants (N = 18) and their answers for the two survey
questions. Both question items 9 and 14 indicated the leaders believed they pause “always,”
“most of the time” or “about half the time” before taking an action or when thinking about the
emotions behind their actions.

72

Figure 10
Percent of Leaders Who Pause as a Self-Reflection Practice (N = 18)

Note. Percentages represent response rate.

73

Figure 11
Percent of Leaders Who Self-Reflect About Their Emotions

Note. (N = 18). Percentages represent response rate.

Interview Findings. The act of reflection is demonstrated or described throughout the
interview findings. All interviewees (n=9) mentioned or explained self-reflective behaviors.
Analysis of the transcripts resulted in ‘self-reflection’ identified as a code 50 times.
Self-reflection was a practice used to prepare for a challenging situation or crucial
conversation. Leader 1009 recalled an interaction with an employee applying self-reflection as
part of the communication preparation for a meeting:
So, I would try to think …of when we go into this meeting, [they] may say that someone
else is to blame. Or [they] may say, you know, I was, I can't remember now. But I was
74

just thinking of scenarios of what [they] might say, and how [I would] defuse it, and how
to bring it back to [the main topic].
Leader 1009 expressed the importance of reflecting on the barriers they may face and preparing
for resistance or if and how they would deescalate.
Some leaders explained self-reflection practices around how they can do better or have
done something differently in their day. Leader 1005 shared what they think about at the end of
their day, “what did I miss if anything; what needs correcting, or what feedback do I need to
apply?” This leader explained that this is “cleaning up their side of the street” as they explained
meant they have done their part (to correct or change) to ensure their leadership. Their
expression appears to reflect their openness to the team and to become an even better leader.
Leader 1015 shared, “Honestly, I think about ways to get better; not just mentally, but like,
spiritually. Staying grounded in Christ and thankful.” Another leader (1004) shared their end-of-
day reflection:
I think about what I might have said differently in certain situations, or maybe I should
have been more encouraging about something. I think about ‘did I do my best today?’ or
how I could have reacted in certain situations. Did I instill a sense of joy or laughter, like
did we enjoy what we were doing? It was essential to give thought as a leader to consider
and reflect on the day, reactions, and impact on a team.
Summary. In the interviews, each leader recalled how they reflected and unanimously
answered that they do this at the end of the workday, including one frontline leader who shared
how they used self-reflection to prepare for a crucial conversation. Each interviewee had
examples that differed from each other with one leader discussing spiritually centered reflections
to another who used reflection for anticipating the interaction in a meeting for a crucial
75

conversation. They felt being reflexive helped them understand more about themselves and be a
better leader.
Theme 8: Leaders Feel Very Efficacious in Their Job and Supporting Their Teams
While self-efficacy is not a specific EI competency, it was explored as part of this study
as described in the Conceptual Framework section. The survey revealed leaders’ perceptions of
feeling efficacious were associated with their ability to support their team by being hands-on as
work volumes increased and knowing their job duties well. This theme and EI competency
association emerged in the interviews accordingly. The self-ratings that leaders shared around
feeling efficacious yielded insight into how leaders perceived themselves and why they felt
confident as a leader.
Survey Results. Leaders reported high levels of self-efficacy across all 4 question items
(Q. 5, 7, 15, 20). However, two survey question items, 5 and 20, reflected leader self-efficacy
levels were rated very high for ‘pushing through barriers’ and ‘leading a team during difficult
times.’ The results for the two question items are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

76

Figure 12
Leader Self-Efficacy (SE) Perception: One of Two Topt Rated SE Questions

Figure 13
Leader Self-Efficacy (SE) Perception: Two of Two Topt Rated SE Questions

Note. N = 18. Percentages represent response rate.
77

Interview Findings. In one hundred percent of the interviews (n=9), study participants’
average self-rating was an eight out of ten when asked to rate themselves on their effectiveness
as a leader. While this was not originally part of the interview protocol, an initial interviewee
offered their self-rating after answering interview protocol question 10, which asked, “Share
your thoughts about your level of confidence to effectively lead your team.” Subsequent
interviews probed with this same follow-up self-rating question to glean additional insights.
Table 8 summarizes the study participants’ self-ratings and the comments that supported their
reasoning for their rating as feeling confident as a leader. Aspects of self-efficacy were coded in
the transcripts with a frequency of 35. Leader 1017 explained their rating at 10 because “I’ve
been there for so long and feel like I know as much as you [I] really, kind of, should know.”

78

Table 8
Self-Rating Reason Leaders Shared About Their Leader Effectiveness

Note. (n = 9). To preserve anonymity, 5 years is maximum years represented as being a leader.
Interview
participant
Yrs
with
org
Yrs in
leader
role
Number
managed
Leader self-
rating
(scale: 1-10)
Self-rating reason
1001 5 5 30 9 “I know the job well and will fill in
the gaps, plus I work with others
easily and I am willing to help the
team.”
1004

5 5 30 8 “I can discern what the team needs; I
am supportive to them and support
the team’s constant development; I
try to motivate the team.”
1005 3 3 20 8 “I’m good at communication; I’m
empathetic and supportive; the
team will hear the facts from me,
not rumors.”
1007 3 3 20 8 “I know my team well; I will roll up
my sleeves to help because it
motivates the team when they seem
me doing work, too.”
1008 2 2 15 6 “I want to always learn, be more
competent in my role; I always
want to know how to do something
and not question myself.”
1009 5 5 30 8 “I believe there is always room to
grow and learn and am able to
make necessary changes [adapt] as
a leader.”
1015 5 5 30 9 “I don’t have full control of
everything, but I believe in myself,
the staff, and my abilities as a
leader.”
1017 5 2 15 10 “I know my role and do my job well;
I am willing to help the team and
am a support. I also understand the
multicultural dynamics and try to
motivate the team.”
1018 5 5 15 7 “I have been in my role a while and
know the employees’ needs. I
anticipate staff hospital needs.”
79

Summary. Although self-efficacy is not an EI concept, it was examined as part of this
study’s scope as self-efficacy is necessary for feeling confident in applying skills and practices
effectively (Bandura, 1977, 1995, 1997, 2000). Study participants rated their level of confidence
in their leadership effectiveness using a 1-10 rating system (10 being the best or highest rating).
While a numerical rating was not originally planned as part of this study’s interview protocol, the
initial interviewee volunteered this rating, and subsequently it was used with all other
interviewees. Interview question 11 did not elicit thoughts of or discussion about efficacy from
an EI skills perspective among any of the leaders. Instead, discussion ensued about more tactical
day-to-day work activities and their barriers to being accomplished or overcome.
RQ 3: What Is the Self-Perception of Non-Clinical Leaders Regarding Their EI
Competencies?
The self-perceptions of leaders were evaluated using both survey data and interview
transcript coding. The top three EI competencies that appeared or were mentioned most were
self-awareness, self-reflection, and empathy/compassion, as discussed in the section on research
question two. Data saturation was reached by the sixth interview in which interviewee responses
regarding their self-perception overlapped with themes related to research questions one and two.
Additionally, comparing interview notes and survey data found further repeated themes and
saturation.
The interviews afforded deeper probes into the phenomena that highlighted leaders’ self-
perceptions of their EI competencies; however, these conversations did not glean additional data
in the way of opportunities that the leaders perceived of themselves. Their self-perception was
very confident and positive overall, and leaders’ interviews tended towards positive stories
highlighting EI traits they did well rather than discussing interactions they may have perceived as
80

being negative. The overall survey results also lacked variability. As a result, the study data is
reported in response to this research questions, but no additional themes are identified.
Survey Results
All survey participants (N = 18) self-identified that they felt they were very strong in
their EI capabilities. Analysis of the 5-point Likert scale revealed that over 80% of answers
skewed towards “strongly agree” or “agree” or “always” or “most of the time” on all question
items regarding EI skills that would make for an effective leader. The question items targeted
five EI concepts: self-awareness, empathy/compassion, emotional self-regulation, and self-
reflection. Self-efficacy was explored to glean the leaders’ sense of effectiveness in their role.
Interview Findings
All interviewees (n = 9) expressed a high self-perception of their overall abilities related
to EI. This is reflected in the frequency of code co-occurrence especially related to self-
awareness. Figure 14 highlights the frequency of co-occurrences across all nine participants
related to emotional self-regulation, self-perception, self-efficacy, and self-perception with the
common center point being self-awareness. Through the Atlas.ti transcript coding software,
analysis of each of the EI competencies, found individual EI competency overlap with self-
awareness at the foundation.
Leaders voluntarily shared stories about their EI skills, how they believed their EI related
behaviors had been influenced within the organization, by other leaders, or external
environments like family. The interviewees also shared how and why they perceived their level
of effectiveness was highly rated. They explained their rating was tied to their knowledge of their
role and the duties or actions they took to support their team. The overall findings did not matter
if the leader was new in their role (less than 2 years) or was very experienced. Only one outlier
81

was found: Leader 1008 who indicated they felt they were still learning yet had the tools and
skills necessary to be an effective leader with high EI.

Figure 14
Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy Frequency Code Co-Occurrence

Note. Circle sizes represent the frequency of code co-occurrence with self-awareness.

82

Interviews explored areas that related to emotional self-regulation, empathy, and self-
awareness as developmental opportunities the study participants would like to have and from
which they believed they would benefit.
Summary of Leader EI Competencies: Potential Over-Confidence in Their EI Ability
Across both departments, Environmental Services and Food Services & Catering, there is
a collective identity among these two groups that leaders relate to due to their leadership’s
mantra of helping, being supportive, and “rolling up the sleeves.” The perceived level of
confidence does raise the question about how aware the study participants are about their actual
abilities to identify learning opportunities or deficiencies about their EI skills and effectively
apply EI behaviors.
In certain respects, there were examples of EI practices, particularly about empathy, that
were self-reported as strong throughout the data. Leaders shared stories and examples of
empathy or compassion from a personal and organizational value perspective with a sense of
pride and passion in their voices. They felt strongly that their empathy and compassion helped
motivate their teams and engender trust. Simultaneously, leaders rated themselves high in all EI
survey competencies, but they desired and stated they would value EI training. One interviewee
identified specific EI development they needed such as speaking tone, communication style, and
enhanced cultural sensitivity. Overall, all the frontline leaders expressed a positive and strong
sense of EI competencies, leaving little discussion for gaps or opportunities they may have
perceived about their EI development during interviews.
However, all study participants expressed a desire for EI training. Additionally, some
study participants had previously sought out EI training external to the organization while others
were neither aware of nor found training within the organization to support their EI development.
83

Further, the leaders who had mentors also expressed value in the mentorships, though those
relationships were informal and not structured with specific goals outlined. The mentorships did
provide participants with opportunities, as they explained, to learn leadership skills. The
recommendation section will discuss approaches that HSPH can consider for identifying and
developing EI competencies among its leaders.
Discussion and Recommendations for Practice
This mixed method study revealed more from the qualitative data than from the
quantitative data. All of the study participants (N = 18) rated their self-perception of their EI
skills as very high in the Qualtrics (quantitative) online survey. The qualitative data (n = 9)
identified similarities regarding frontline leaders’ levels of confidence in their EI abilities as
shared through their stories. These data (quantitative and qualitative) were compared and cross-
checked to each other to assess credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Realizing it would be
challenging to do follow-up interviews with participants due to COVID-19 surges and time
constraints in healthcare, I used respondent validation during the interview process to verify and
validate my understanding and interpretation of the participants’ answers (Gibbs, 2018). The
following section discusses results and findings as related to prior research. The discussion is
followed by recommendations for practice based on this research and future research
recommendations.
Discussion of Results and Findings
Overall, study participants felt their emotional intelligence skills were demonstrated in
their daily work, their interactions with their staff, and that their leadership practices were
influenced by the organizational culture and values, previous leaders, and family. The EI
competencies being explored included emotional self-regulation, self-awareness,
84

empathy/compassion, and self-reflection. These competencies were explored through the lens of
Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT) (1989, 2005) and the reciprocal triadic influences of the
person, behaviors, and environments. Bandura’s (1989) social cognitive theory discusses the
influences of others from early childhood observations and modelling, often by parents, which
signal what is appropriate and acceptable behavior and what is not.
The study made no a priori claims and was not designed to measure non-clinical frontline
leaders’ level of EI competency (e.g., “highly EI competent” or “not EI competent at all”). There
were four EI competencies of focus, which included emotional self-regulation, self-awareness,
empathy (Goleman, 1997; Mayer et al., 2004; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and self-reflection
(Barley, 2010; Ghaye, 2010). These four EI competencies have been previously studied and
found to yield positive organizational outcomes (Carmeli, 2003; Cherniss & Goleman, 2001)
when leaders effectively apply them in their workplace interactions (Gallup, 2017; Tsui, 1994;
Yukl, 2008). This study found that all participants (N=18; n=9) believed they applied each of the
four EI competencies effectively. Using the mixed method approach, participants’ answers were
evaluated and compared while exploring the elements that influenced their EI behaviors.
Evaluating and comparing the study findings also informed and supported the EI conceptual
framework.
EI Conceptual Framework and the Study’s Alignment
The conceptual framework for this study includes the EI competencies reflecting the
individual (non-clinical, frontline leader) at the center. The framework presumes the personal,
behavioral, and environmental (PBE) influences upon them, which in turn dictate how the leader
responds to people, situations, and circumstances. This PBE framework evolves from Bandura’s
85

SCT (1989, 2005), which theorizes the reciprocal bidirectional influences that PBE have on an
individual.
This study found that participants’ behaviors were influenced by personal, behavioral and
environmental factors as reported by the study participants. The personal factors include
thoughts, feelings, and beliefs (Bandura, 1989) that influenced non-clinical frontline leaders as
explored and shared in their narratives. Study participants indicated individuals who influenced
their behaviors most were other leaders (past or present), mentors, and family. Through
interviews, study participants explained these behaviors as the following: (a) emotional self-
regulation: being able to control one’s own actions or emotions (Goleman, 1995; Sterrett, 2000)
during crucial or tense conversations; (b) self-awareness: consciously being aware of one’s
physiological reactions (Vohs & Baumeister, 2016) and how their behavior affects another; (c)
self-reflection: taking time to have a moment to pause between or reflect on interactions (Barley,
2010; Rodgers, 2002) from the day to do better or behave differently in the future; and (d)
empathy: being able to genuinely understand another’s emotions (Goleman, 1995).
Demonstrating these types of behaviors reflect EI competencies (Cherniss & Goleman, 2001;
Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and are likely to keep teams engaged (Gallup, 2017; Maddocks &
Hughes, 2019) and reduce turnover risk (Gallup, 2016, 2017; Gartner, 2019). Observations were
not part of this study’s design, but participants self-reported their practice of EI competencies
and belief their behaviors help motivate or engage employees. Study participants also explained
they emulated, modelled or observed EI behaviors from other leaders, mentors, or family.
Modelling and seeing behaviors of others similar to one’s self helps for new skills or
competencies to be more easily adopted (Bandura, 1988). Whether participants’ stories included
positive or negative observations of others, study participants reported that they learned various
86

EI related behaviors, which they believed were influential on them and thusly credited their
models for the leader they have become.
The results found that leaders reported that they possess the EI competencies being
explored, but some contradiction emerged in the final analysis. Study participants seemed to
understand how their EI behavior influences others and how their behaviors can motivate a team,
but they could neither share nor recall how or when their behaviors might have had a negative
impact. Additionally, a surprising outcome of the study was the high confidence levels of leader
EI self-perceptions in both the survey and the interviews. In particular was the contrast of leader
self-awareness levels, in the form of lack of awareness of the negative impact to another, while
perceiving one’s self with high EI abilities.
Most of the findings aligned with prior research about EI and demonstrated behaviors and
their influences, while other findings informed new insights not discussed in the prior research.
The sections below discuss leaders’ high EI self-perceptions and affords some insight about why
this phenomenon may exist based on research, and also discusses the importance of developing
leaders’ emotional intelligence.
Leaders Have High EI Self-Perceptions
The survey revealed leaders skewed their EI self-perceptions towards being highly
confident and efficacious; interviews further explored these phenomena, which found that
leaders report feeling confident and efficacious because they believe they are supportive to their
team and know their job well. In short, their sense of confidence in their role and feeling
efficacious is grounded in the belief that they know the tasks required of their job and can
anticipate the hospital or staff’s needs. A sense of confidence and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977,
1997, 2012) is associated with task performance and knowing one can execute the task being
87

given to them. Other narratives by study participants also focused on the positive interactions
they facilitated with their employees, which appeared to foster their high self-perception and
sense of confidence as a leader also.
All study participants, except one, struggled to draw on examples that may put them in a
less than positive frame. This phenomenon, called competence self-perceptions, has been studied
in past research. Marsh et al. (2017) explained a positive self-perception can enhance how
competent a person feels, which impacts how they may behave. Marsh et al. (in Elliot et al.,
2017, pp. 86-89) argued that positive self-perceptions are a function of self-concept, the beliefs
about oneself based on others’ responses, more than self-efficacy because self-concept behaviors
and performance are driven by past performance.
The challenge with high self-efficacy and over confidence, according to a study by
Moores and Chang (2009), is that they can lead an individual to begin to underperform because
the individual also discounts feedback due to their belief in their ability. In contrast, someone
with lower self-efficacy was shown to put forth more effort towards their performance; measures
of performance reflected this in the Moores and Chang study. Mitigating high self-perceptions
and self-efficacy are garnered through feedback by others and both pre- and post-performance
assessments (Elliot et al., 2017) once training has been implemented. The outcomes of feedback
and training help to develop the awareness a leader needs to perform a task, engage a team, and
foster a positive environment. A related recommendation for EI training is discussed later.
Developing Leaders’ Emotional Intelligence
Prior literature reviewed in this study explained the value of developing EI skills and the
opportunity to learn in groups, having in-person interactions, and the ability to learn from others
(Boyatzis et al., 2002; Martin, 2019). This research also aligns with participants’ desires and
88

reasons for formal, interactive workplace learning. The workplace setting, as participants
explained, affords group interactions with peers, sharing stories, and learning from one another’s
experiences as well. This finding aligns with research studies that indicate that learning in groups
and interactive settings (Boyatzis et al., 2002) help learners develop soft skills (Martin, 2019;
Nealy 2005), also referred to as EI, and are a skillset that senior leaders are seeking (Cherniss &
Goleman, 2001) to improve organizational outcomes (Maddocks & Hughes, 2019).
The workplace, as a forum to develop leaders EI, can help learners improve skills such as
exercising critical thinking, identifying solutions both individually and collectively (Cherniss &
Caplan, 2001), obtaining and receiving real-time feedback (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016),
managing through competing priorities of projects, and conflict resolution within teams
(Boyatzis et al., 2011; Maddocks & Hughes, 2019; Martin, 2019). The study revealed that
leaders do put forth effort towards identifying solutions, managing conflicts, and thinking
critically for the needs of staff and the hospital.
Active and interactive learning (Ambrose et al., 2010; Cherniss, 2001) support skill
development. By building self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995, 1997, 2000) and practicing newly
learned skills, leaders can more effectively apply skills in everyday leadership interactions.
Leadership interactions, ideally, provide for feedback and improvement towards a specific goal
(Martin, 2019) and afford the learners, metacognitively to reflect, assess, practice and apply new
skills (Ambrose et al., 2010). Two approaches that can support learning processes are the
following: (1) an interactive workplace EI classroom training solution and (2) a weekly
structured mentorship and EI modelling for leaders (Chen & Lou, 2014). Included in the next
sections are recommendations for practice, an implementation plan applying Kirkpatrick’s
Model, and the discussion of future research considerations.
89

Recommendations for Practice
Based on the results and findings of this study, the following recommendations for
practice are made: (a) provide workplace interactive training, (b) provide structured mentorships
and EI modelling for leaders and, (c) implement a new leader assessment tool for EI skill
development. These recommendations applied consistently for a regular duration, such as six
months, could help develop mastery and automaticity (Ambrose et al., 2010) of non-clinical
frontline leaders’ EI skills. The recommendations discussed are based on this research’s results
and findings and grounded in literature.
Recommendation 1: Provide Workplace Interactive Training to Develop Leader EI Skills
All study participants (N = 18) and interviewees (n = 9) indicated their desire to have
formal and interactive EI training either in person or with virtual groups. Interviewees shared
that they sought training within the organization for specific EI training, but they were
unsuccessful identifying such training. The participants desired learning in a setting where they
could hear stories of their peers as leaders, obtain real-time feedback, and sharing and learning
from other leaders. Feedback will allow for adjustments to be made as soon as identified.
Therefore, interactive workplace training is recommended to support non-clinical frontline
leaders’ EI development.
Active and interactive learning in group, paired, and team type settings allows for
optimal learning opportunities (Boyatzis, 2006b; Martin, 2019; Nealy, 2005). Many
organizations may feel the urge to conduct such training in a self-paced or self-directed learning
approach via virtual platforms; however, unless real-time feedback (Gibb, 2014) can be
provided, this approach misses opportunities to help leaders identify skill gaps or to self-correct
90

by raising self-awareness (Bandura, 1988, 1991) and reflecting in the moment (Barley, 2010;
Ghaye, 2010; Rodgers, 2002).
Training in the workplace, research shows, is one of the best forms of developing new
skills (Ambrose et al., 2010) and enhances self-efficacy of newly acquired skills (Bandura,
2012). Training offerings are not likely to achieve these goals if they lack depth into reinforcing,
integrating, and modelling EI competencies within the organization (Gibb, 2014). From
interviewee accounts, previous leadership training was short on developing EI skills, such as
conflict resolution or handling stress during a crisis; or said EI training was not available. All
interviewees believed this training was important to supporting their EI competencies.
Classroom training to develop EI skills would include educating and recognizing traits
and behaviors of poor EI practices (Boddy, 2011), the implicit costs to the organization for poor
EI (Pearson & Porath, 2010; Schyns & Schilling, 2013), and outcomes when leaders competently
demonstrate EI skills (Castelli, 2016; Porath & Pearson, 2013). Formally, classroom training
would involve role playing, watching videos that explain or demonstrate both effective and
ineffective EI skills (Nealy, 2005), situation judgement or case studies with evaluation (Martin,
2019), and feedback to the frontline leaders (Gibb, 2014).
The trainer needs to be certified in emotional intelligence identification of behaviors to
aid in trainee interactions, question-answer sessions during training, observing role playing for
feedback, and encouraging trainee critical thinking, self-awareness and self-reflection (Wolff,
2005). Additionally, situation judgement discussions and case studies support critical thinking
skills and provides for scenarios or examples from which to learn (Martin, 2019). To reinforce
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2012) of learning and applying EI skills, the
workplace interactive training would require a commitment of three hours once per month for six
91

months (18 hours per leader). Each session would focus on developing a different EI competency
(Wolff, 2005) and include training feedback at each session focused on learning outcomes (Gibb,
2014).
A strength of the workplace training is the ease for accessing the training itself at the
workplace, the opportunity for situation judgement discussion (Martin, 2019), EI and role-
playing feedback in the moment (Gibb, 2014), and EI assessment and training feedback (Wolff,
2005). These components of training allow one to learn and reflect in the moment (Barley, 2010;
Rodgers, 2002) and gain important feedback (Gibb, 2014), which is important to the transfer of
learning (Grossman & Salas, 2011). As with any program there are inherent weaknesses, and this
proposed training approach is no different. The area of weakness for this approach is for those
new and current frontline leaders who might not attend the requisite EI six-month workplace
interactive classroom training. Poor attendance allows for potential gaps in accountability
(Gallup, 2017) for lack of attendance, missed opportunities for applying feedback, and or leader
post-training EI assessment (Gibb, 2014; Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Recommendation 2: Provide Structured Mentorship and EI Modelling for Leaders
Mentorship was discussed by all interviewees (n = 9). Specifically, eight out of nine
interviewees indicated that mentoring had a positive influence on EI behaviors. None of the
interviewees explained how they started their mentorship relationship, and the current
mentorship interactions they reported are not structured and very informal. Studies show that
incorporating mentorship into a training program can help with new or developing employees to
feel supported, learn their role more deeply, and develop key skills such as relationship building
(Marques, 2013). Integrating structured mentorships should be in consideration of senior leaders
who have demonstrated success in their business unit or departments (Chen & Lou, 2014).
92

Within the HSPH organization, successful leaders are identified as those with high
overall engagement scores and low turnover. Therefore, mentors should be those senior leaders
who demonstrate similar departmental outcomes or overall performance indicators such as strong
engagement scores (Gallup, 2016, 2017) and high retention (Chen & Lou, 2014; Gartner, 2019).
Engagement score and survey items that should also be included for review are those leaders
who consistently provide feedback to their team. Providing feedback supports raising awareness
of and developing emotional intelligence competencies among non-clinical frontline and new
leaders. Mentoring aids in providing the EI development opportunity for current and new non-
clinical frontline leaders. The study participants in both qualitative (n = 9) and quantitative (N =
18) formats, indicated mentoring as a desired and valued developmental approach. Studies show
improved engagement and much higher employee retention with mentorship programs in
healthcare (Chen & Lou, 2014). Mentors should possess and demonstrate relationship building
abilities such as being open, friendly, able to provide fair and consistent feedback (Gibb, 2014),
and create safe spaces for communication and learning (Chen & Lou, 2014).
Within this developmental approach, mentorship meetings should be setup as bi-weekly
structured mentorship meetings for new and frontline non-clinical leaders and should be
partnered with or work in tandem with the formal EI workplace interactive training. Specific
goals and measures would also be incorporated to ensure each meeting is focused and identifies
areas for further development while also demonstrating where applications of EI are working.
The structure affords a safe space (Carmeli, 2007; Chen & Lou, 2014) between mentor and
mentee to discuss wins and challenges the new leader may be experiencing, but this approach is
not so structured that conversation and relationship-building is impeded.
93

A “buddy” program is already in place at HSPH for entry level employees who are
partnered with peers. This program has been widely accepted across the organization, and it has
been formalized and received recognition for its success. The buddy program has similar traits to
a mentorship, such as regular meetings, open conversation, focus on challenging areas for the
mentee. However, the mentorship recommendation herein involves partnering new non-clinical
frontline leaders with a tenured (2+ years with the organization) senior leader. Two plus years
with the organization allows for evaluation of engagement scores and retention stability in the
mentor’s area of responsibility. The tenured senior leader would be one who has demonstrated
their strengths via consistently high engagement scores (80
th
“favorable” percentile), low
turnover, and high intent to stay scores among their team(s).
Mentorship meetings need to be consistent, meaningful, and have set goals. Identifying
and meeting goals should be established with follow-up at each meeting on progress towards
those goals to ensure developmental and ultimately organizational change, as an active process
(Boyatzis, 2006). For a structured mentorship approach to be successful, senior leaders and
stakeholders must provide organizational support for holding mentors and mentees accountable
for regular interactions (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Burke, 2018; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003).
Strengths of a mentorship program are the opportunity for safe space and feedback by
senior leaders who have demonstrated they are able to build trust with and among their teams,
influence and motivate others to give extra effort, and improve overall performance outcomes to
the organization (Gudmundsson & Southey, 2011; Martin, 2019). Ambrose et al., (2010)
explained that timely feedback is important in the learning process. Therefore, discussion about
experiences and challenges being faced by the new leader and observation of the mentor and the
mentor’s observation of the mentee can provide valuable feedback and learning opportunities
94

(Chen & Lou, 2014) in developing EI skills. Specific EI developmental areas that should be
considered a focus, and which also were also explored in this study, are those that illuminate
empathic behaviors, emotional self-regulation during stressful periods or crises, feedback, and
clear communication, including managing difficult conversations (Goleman, 1995, 2015).
Developing these EI competencies helps build and foster relationships, trust, and overall
organizational performance outcomes (Goleman, 2015). A drawback to this proposed approach
is the time investment for both leaders; the mentor and the mentee. The most significant burden
in terms of time will need to be invested up front in the training and selection process of mentors.
Additionally, with a structured mentor approach, the initial time investment could pose a barrier
for the design of tools that aid in the consistent interaction and evaluation by each mentor.
Recommendation 3: Implement New Leader Assessment Tool for EI Skill Development
Study results and findings revealed participants had high self-perceptions of their EI
skills and competencies. Interviewees’ self-efficacy ratings also reflected high self-ratings, which
generates further questions about real versus perceived EI skills proficiency. Based on the
consistently strong data skewing towards positive self-perceptions of EI, a third recommendation
proposed is to incorporate a validated EI assessment (psychometric) protocol, such as MSCEIT
(Mayer et al., 2004) or Bar-On (Boyatzis, 2016), for assessing newly hired non-clinical frontline
leaders and developing leaders. Using a post-hire EI assessment allows for early identification of
EI competencies for crafting a training and development program to address EI skill gaps early.
A validated EI assessment can help to uncover areas of proficiency and opportunities for
current and newly hired leaders sooner than later and before there is a negative organizational
impact. Implementing a post-hire validated psychometric EI assessment will help to provide
insights that can ground frontline leaders in recognizing their EI abilities and avoid over-
95

confidence about their competencies. Leaders who express high confidence levels and self-
efficacy help support the notion that EI competency feedback affords for “recalibration of self-
efficacy leading to more accurate self-assessment of abilities” (Moores & Chang, 2009, p. 69).
To ensure success of EI assessments, leaders will need training, timely feedback, including
learning goals based on EI assessment results. Regular feedback (Ambrose et al., 2010) and
having directed goals can help regulate self-efficacy (Moores & Chang, 2009) to support work
performance outcomes.
The goal of the new frontline leader EI assessment tool would be to achieve early insights
of leader EI skills and developmental opportunities (Wolff, 2005) that would help to craft
specific EI training goals (Ambrose et al., 2010). Each goal within the training must address the
EI competency gap. The organization’s stakeholders, working with a credentialed EI consultant,
should support the training goals for identification of EI competencies such as empathy, self-
reflection, emotional self-regulation, (Boyatzis et al., 2002; Cherniss & Goleman, 2001;
Goleman, 2015) help build trust (Harms & Crede, 2010) and foster relationships (Goleman,
2015). These are transformational leader traits (Kumar, 2014; Northouse 2016; Shein 2004)
which the organization supports, and senior leadership espouses and which align with EI
competencies. The benefit of understanding the EI competencies and aligning with
transformational leadership is to further fortify the leader’s EI developmental areas. There is
additional value added to the leader also by understanding not only their EI strengths, but also
their EI developmental opportunities.
Assessing new leader EI developmental strengths and opportunities upon hire would be a
complement to the new leader interactive workplace training. The EI assessment would have to
be a validated EI assessment tool to ensure a level of “internal consistency reliability” (Mayer et
96

al., 2004; Wolff, 2005, p. 9). Additionally, using an expert consultant trained and certified in EI
skills evaluation and training ensures the understanding of a leaders current EI assessment
results, helps to uncover the EI skills needing possible development, and create strategies to
accomplish leader EI development goals. EI consultants are also grounded in the common
environmental factors that may impact EI, they can recognize barriers or procrastination towards
changed behaviors, and they are able to assist with methods or tools for measuring EI
developmental progress (Society of Emotional Intelligence).
Strengths of the protocol are that it will help identify new leaders who may possess EI
strengths and bring value to the teams and the organization sooner. The EI assessment tool would
help explore metacognitive practices of self-reflection (Barley, 2010), and concepts of emotional
self-regulation, self-awareness, and self-perception (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Potential barriers
to this tool’s success include its vulnerability for late implementation with a leader and thusly,
missing the workplace interactive training enrollment and development. Another weakness of the
process in using the tool are delays evaluating the leader EI assessment outcomes carefully that
could lead to oversights in developing already deficient EI skills sooner than later.
Integrated Recommendations: Implementation and Evaluation Using Kirkpatrick’s Model
The Kirkpatrick Model (2006) is used for the implementation and evaluation for the
training and mentorship recommended in this study. A Four Level model, originally founded by
Don Kirkpatrick in 1954, identifies four levels of training evaluation: (1) the reaction of frontline
leaders regarding their thoughts about the training and mentoring experience; (2) their resulting
learning and increased knowledge from the training and mentoring experience; (3) the behavioral
change or improvement after applying newly acquired skills and, (4) results. Attention to results
is important as these tie to goals and key performance indicators (KPIs) of the organization. Such
97

KPIs include improving frontline leader EI competency, which is informed from the EI validated
assessment tool and aligning training modules accordingly; increased employee engagement
scores or stability in scores that are within an acceptable score range; and reduced turnover in a
single year by a specified percentage that meets targets. In order to achieve the desired outcomes
or goals, the initiatives must include accountability measures (Benjamin, 2008) through regular
assessments or evaluations (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
The Kirkpatrick Model emphasizes learner-centered pre- and post-training evaluations to
ascertain learning transfer and understanding and application (Kirkpatrick, 2006). In this case,
training is focused on developing leaders’ EI skills. Where mentorship evaluations are involved,
these assessments would ascertain how well the mentee is learning from the mentor as well as
assessment of behavioral changes, and knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs). A focus on set
goals helps identify whether training, mentorships, and organizational objectives are staying on
course or need modifying to improve leader skills by identifying and addressing developmental
weaknesses (Lakos & Phipps, 2004).
Mentorships and modelling appropriate behaviors are valuable but do not go far enough
if they lack depth into reinforcing and modelling EI competencies for the organization or its new
leaders (Gibb, 2014). Therefore, leader accountability, assessment, and training follow-up and
feedback (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Kirkpatrick, 2006) between mentor and mentee is
important to be consistent and timely. Timely feedback is important as part of the learning
process (Ambrose et al., 2010; Kirkpatrick, 2006); consequently, structured interactions between
a mentor and mentee can provide valuable learning opportunities. Incorporating a structured
mentorship can help as part of an interactive training for frontline leaders and raises awareness of
and develops emotional intelligence (Chen & Lou, 2014) by providing the opportunity for new
98

leaders to add more organizational value (Marques, 2013). Table 9 presents the example outline
of the program using the Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluation Model (2006). Specific EI
competencies are derived from research studies (Gibb, 2014; Harms & Crede, 2010; Mayer et al.,
2004) and reports (Gartner, 2019; Sears et al., 2017) that have shown to be impactful towards
organizational performance outcomes, such as improved employee engagement, retention, and
higher productivity, when leaders demonstrate them (Madanchian et al., 2017; Skinner &
Spurgeon, 2005).

Table 9
EI Training Program Evaluation—Kirkpatrick Model Example
Learning
and
evaluation
format
Learning
assessment
example(s)
Delivery
mode
Evaluation
timing
KSA
EI-targeted training/skill
development
Objectives Learning outcomes
Surveys,
quizzes,
tests
Multiple
choice,
True/False,
Likert
scale
survey,
short
answer
Web,
portable
device
reply
system,
verbal
Pre/Post-
training,
during
training at
specified
intervals
K
Self-regulation:
maintaining composure
EI skill gap
awareness
and
strengths
Begin identifying,
recognizing,
explaining how EI
related behaviors
impact people,
settings and
performance
Self-awareness and
communication:
recognize emotional
influences impede
communication

Perception
and
feedback
Surveys,
Essay,
Mentor-
ship
feedback
Web,
portable
device
reply
system,
verbal
Pre/Post-
training,
during
training at
specified
intervals
A Self-regulation: practice
accurate and measured
written and oral
communication; apply
and align responses to
teams
EI skill gap
awareness
and
strengths
Able to receive
constructive feedback
and recognize EI
competency or
opportunity to
develop

Problem/
situation
judgement
exercises
Group
exercise,
case
studies,
case
scenarios
Live or
online
group,
verbal,
Slide
shows,
videos
Pre/Post-
training
KSA Self-regulation:
maintaining composure
under various
conditions;
communicate
effectively and
inclusively;
Identifying
conditions
and related
problems,
explain how
EI related
behaviors
Apply EI skills
acquired through
training and
mentoring; add value
by building
relationships and
99
100

Learning
and
evaluation
format
Learning
assessment
example(s)
Delivery
mode
Evaluation
timing
KSA
EI-targeted training/skill
development
Objectives Learning outcomes
(i.e.,
TedTalk)
Self-awareness:
recognizes emotional
influences that may
impede communication
impact
people,
settings, and
performance
employing relative
expertise of others

Performance
based
activities
Role-playing Live or
real-time
Pre/Post-
training;
during
training at
specified
intervals
KS Self-regulation:
maintaining composure
under crises conditions
Understands
others'
emotions
and
behaviors
that have
impact;
showing
empathy;
being of
support for
those with
emotional
health needs
Listening; distinguishes
personal signs of
emotional distress,
stress; respecting
diversity and
demonstrates cross-
cultural
communication
principles - justice,
equity and fairness
Self-awareness:
recognizes emotional
influences on others
Compassion: exhibit
understanding of
emotions or behaviors
that impact others; self-
reflection: Introspective
practices
Self-reflection:
introspective practices

Note. (K)nowledge, (S)kills, (A)bilities
100
101

Recommendations for Future Research
Due to the low sample size (N=18), no inferential statistical analyses were run (Salkind,
2000). The survey results revealed non-clinical frontline leaders had a high self-perception of
their EI abilities. Additionally, all interviewees (n=9) rated themselves highly at leader
effectiveness on a self-rating scale of one to 10 (10 being best or highest). Participants gave high
self-ratings based on their reported perception of knowing their role well and a willingness to
help the team. None of the interviewees shared or could recall instances where they behaved in a
way or communicated in a manner that was ever unkind, unfair, unjust, or negatively impacted a
staff member (Goleman, 1995). These behaviors associate with poor emotional intelligence,
including a lack of self-awareness (Church, 1997; Goleman, 1995, 2015). There was little prior
research found related to EI or soft skill behaviors or practices for healthcare organizations and
non-clinical frontline leaders. While there was vast research on clinical staff and soft skills,
empathy, or EI practices, their work experiences differ due to potential life-altering impacts;
therefore, clinical staff have different stressors that modify their behaviors differently than a non-
clinical professional.
The findings revealed that study participants desired EI training. Future research that
consists of a longitudinal study of new frontline non-clinical leaders during and after completing
interactive EI training would provide valuable data. Longitudinal studies evaluate trends over a
specified period of time with a specific group of participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Such
data might include evaluating trends in organizational or departmental performance outcomes
and related EI development impacts of newly hired and EI trained leaders.
The current study could also be extended to explore or assess the phenomena of self-
awareness and its co-occurrences with self-efficacy. Although self-awareness was found to be
102

coded (connected) to self-reflection, emotional self-regulation, and self-efficacy, it was least
coded with self-efficacy. Given the high self-efficacy leader self-ratings, new insights might be
gleaned by exploring perceptions or phenomena of non-clinical leader self-awareness in relation
to self-efficacy. This future research, however, would benefit with a larger sample size to test for
possible statistically significant correlations (Salkind, 2000). Finally, future research would
benefit from exploring employees’ perceptions of their leaders’ emotional intelligence. Study
participants expressed an interest in this information as well. This insight could glean similarities
and differences in an employees’ EI perceptions of their leader and leader EI self-perceptions
and provide for further opportunities for leader EI development and understanding. The future
research study of EI perceptions and self-perceptions of leaders could also lend further to the
study’s credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell & Creswell, (2018).
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to evaluate and explore non-clinical frontline leader’s
EI skills and EI self-perceptions. Through survey questions and interviews, the study explored
how the environment influences a leader’s role in applying emotional intelligence in their role as
a leader, their self-reported EI-aligned practices, and leader self-perception of their EI
competencies. The social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1988) helped to form the basis of the
conceptual framework around bi-directional reciprocal influences of the person, behavior, and
the environment.
Overall, the frontline leaders revealed their behaviors and practices were influenced and
shaped by various environmental factors. The factors were the organizational culture and values,
their personal values and upbringing, and professional interactions and experiences with senior
leaders. Additionally, study participants explained mentors were also a valued resource and
103

influence. The high degree of self-perception lead to the recommendation for EI training. Leader
training in EI competencies done first, and then administering an EI self-assessment might yield
more realistic self-perceptions of the leader’s EI skills. It could be considered that EI training
would help non-clinical frontline leaders self-report more in the middle of a Likert scale or with
more variability (Wolff, 2005), as they recognize certain of the complexities of their behaviors,
the environmental influences, and the interactions between themselves and others that are
impactful (Bandura, 1989). Training frontline leaders in EI competencies could mitigate the high
degree of self-ratings and EI self-perceptions.
Based on the results and findings, a proactive approach to the recommendation to develop
frontline non-clinical leaders’ EI skills must be one that is accountable, is trustworthy in process,
and centered around the transformational leadership focus to support the organizational culture.
Further, to advance leader development, there must be clear goals and expectations (Boyatzis,
2006b) that must be supported by senior leaders for programmatic acceptance and success
(Lewis, 2019). These requirements apply to the EI development recommendations of this study.
The program’s design should be able to address, disrupt few, if any, assumptions that leaders
come to a role or the organization fully prepared for the various challenges they will face
(Elmore, 2005). Therefore, developing effective non-clinical frontline leadership in the frame of
EI skill development, is best implemented using an evaluative style with assessment and
feedback loops (Kirkpatrick, 2006, 2016) using a multi-pronged approach. This approach
includes the following components: (a) assessment of new leader’s EI skills using a validated
psychometric tool (i.e., MSCEIT, EQi-2.0, or Bar-On), (b) incorporating structured mentorship
and modelling of EI practices, and (c) using the EI assessment data. The objective is to identify
the gaps to train and develop while following the Kirkpatrick Model (2006). Finally, leaders
104

must practice using the newly acquired EI skills and applying a structured and regular feedback
loop for accountability to sustain change in behavior and ultimately ensure positive
organizational performance outcomes.

105

References
Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional
intelligence? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006
Badea, L. & Pana, N. A. (2010). The Role of Empathy in Developing the Leader’s Emotional
Intelligence. Theoretical and Applied Economics, XVII(2).
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Six
theories of child development (pp. 1-60). JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. Oxford University Press.
106

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Barley, M. (2010). Learning from reflective practice and metacognition – an anesthetist’s
perspective. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 271–280.
Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Account Space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit
practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201-223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764007301288
Boddy, C., (2011). Bullying and Unfair Supervision in the Workplace. Journal of Business
Ethics. 100(3), 367 – 379.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 5: Qualitative data. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5
th
ed.). pp. 160-172. Allyn &
Bacon.
Bolden-Barrett, V. (2017). Avoidable turnover costing employers big. New York: SourceMedia.
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1927328425
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership; (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bordens, K., & Abbott, B. (2008). Research design and methods: A process approach (7th ed.).
McGraw-Hill.
Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (1999). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence:
Insights from the emotional competence inventory. Handbook of emotional
intelligence. (pp. 1-36). Jossey Bass.
107

Boyatzis, R.E., Stubbs, E.C., & Taylor, S.N. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional
intelligence competencies through graduate management education. Academy of
Management Journal on Learning and Education, 1(2). 150-162.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2006b). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence and cognitive
competencies to predict financial performance of leaders. Psicothema, 18 Suppl, 124.
Boyatzis, R. E., Sharma, R. R., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2011). Managerial and leadership
competencies: A behavioral approach to emotional, social and cognitive
intelligence. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 15(2), 91-100. https://
doi.org/10.1177/097226291101500202
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for
personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 5(1), 88-103.
California department of public health
(CDPH). https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHCQ/HAI/Pages/HAIProgramHome.aspx
Carblis, P. (2008). Assessing emotional intelligence. Cambria Press. http://www.fachportal-
paedagogik.de/fis_bildung/suche/fis_set.html?FId=912336
Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving organizational
performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217–232.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 18(8), 788-813. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940310511881
108

Chen, C., & Lou, M. (2014). The effectiveness and application of mentorship programmes for
recently registered nurses: a systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(4),
433-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12102
Cherniss, C., & Caplan, R. D. (2001). A case study in implementing emotional intelligence
programs in organizations. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(1), 73-85.
https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.1121
Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for,
measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and
organizations (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Church, A. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.82.2.281
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clement Santiago, A. (2020). Differences between clinical and non-clinical medical
jobs. https://www.verywellhealth.com/clinical-versus-non-clinical-jobs-1736349
Conner, C. (2018). How better communication prevents painful turnover. Forbes Magazine.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
109

Dufek, K. (2018). In Falletta S., Chavez, J. and Combs, W. (Eds.), Incivility in the workplace: A
phenomenological study conducted in Northern California. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2003). Leadership at the top: The need for emotional intelligence in
organizations. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 193-210.
https:// doi.org/10.1108/eb028971
Elliott, A. J., Dweck, C.S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation.
Guilford Press.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984677
Emotional intelligence: Assessment questions and key points to consider when assessing
answers. (2009). Unknown author. 1-66.
Erickson, A., Shaw, B., Murray, J., & Branch, S. (2015). Destructive leadership: Causes,
Consequences and Countermeasures. Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 266-272.
Feldman, D. (1999). The Handbook of Emotionally Intelligent Leadership: Inspiring others to
Achieve Results.
Gallup. (2017). State of the American Workplace. 1-214.
Gallup. (2016). How to prevent employee burnout.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/313160/preventing-and-dealing-with-employee-
burnout.aspx
Gartner. (2019). Trends in employee turnover and staffing.
Gentry, W., Weber, T., & Sadri, G. (2016). The Importance of Empathy in the Workplace Why
Empathy in the Workplace Matters. 1-11. https://cclinnovation.org/wp-
110

content/uploads/2020/03/empathyintheworkplace.pdf?webSyncID=ad6bb898-6504-
d9d6-864e-323e8518c838&sessionGUID=386b04cc-b559-b06b-b455-9661b067ddd1
Ghaye, T. (2010). “In what ways can reflective practices enhance human flourishing?” Reflective
Practice, 11(1), 1–7.
Gibb, S. (2014). Soft skills assessment: Theory development and the research
agenda. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(4), 455-471.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.867546
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Goleman, D., PhD. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam
Books.
Goleman, D. (2015). What makes a leader. In HBR's (Ed.), 10 must reads on emotional
intelligence. (pp. 1-21). Harvard Business Review Press.
Gross, J. (2014). Handbook of emotion regulation. Guilford Press.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-118.
Gudmundsson, A., & Southey, G. (2011). Leadership and the rise of the corporate psychopath:
What can business schools do about the 'snakes inside'? E-Journal of Social &
Behavioural Research in Business, 2(2), 18-27.
Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5-
17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894
Harold, C., & Holtz, B. (2015). The effects of passive leadership on workplace incivility.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 16.
111

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hirayappa, B. (2008). Dynamics of managerial leadership. Organizational behavior (pp. 197-
228). New Age International.
Hollis, L. P. (2015). Bully university? the cost of workplace bullying and employee
disengagement in American higher education. SAGE Open, 5(2).
Holm, K., Torkelson, E., & Backstrom, M. (2015). Models of workplace incivility: The
relationships to instigated incivility and negative outcomes. BioMed Research
International, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/920239
Joint commission. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training and
Evaluation. ATD.
Kirkpatrick, D., PhD. (2006). Seven Keys to Unlock the Four Levels of Evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45, 1-8. www.ispi.org
Korn Ferry Institute. (2018). The power of EI: The "soft" skills the sharpest leaders use. Korn
Ferry Hay Group. 1-13.
Krishnaveni, R. (2016). Identifying the drivers for developing and sustaining engagement among
employees. 1-13. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/pages/sustainingemployeeengagement.aspx
Kumar, S. (2014). Establishing linkages between emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 23(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-
6748.144934
112

Lakos, A., & Phipps, S. E. (2004). Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for
organizational change. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2004.0052
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational Change: Creating change through strategic
communication. (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Lewis, P., & Malecha, A. (2011). The Impact of Workplace Incivility on the Work Environment,
Manager Skill, and Productivity. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(1), 41–47.
https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0b013e3182002a4c
Madanchian, M., Hussein, N., Noordin, F., & Taherdoost, H. (2017). Leadership Effectiveness
Measurement and Its Effect on Organization Outcomes. Procedia Engineering, 181,
1043–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.505
Maddocks, J., & Hughes, D. (2019). The impact of emotional intelligence in the workplace: An
evidenced based review. 3- 40. United Kingdom. https://www.psionline/talent
Marques, J. (2013). Understanding the strength of gentleness: Soft-skilled leadership on the rise.
Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 163-171.
Martin, T. (2019). Review of student soft skills development using the 5Ws/H approach resulting
in a realistic, experiential, applied, active learning and teaching pedagogical
classroom. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 19(1), 41-57.
May, D., Wesche, J., Heinitz, K., & Kerschreiter, R. (2014). Coping with destructive leadership
putting forward an integrated theoretical framework for the interaction process between
leaders and followers. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology; Z.Psychol.-
J.Psychol., 222(4), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000187
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and
implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215.
113

Medina, EdD, M., Castleberry, PharmD, MA, Ed, A., & Persky, PhD, A. (2017). Strategies for
improving learner metacognition in health professional education. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 84(4), 1-10.
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative Research. A guide to design and implementation.
4
th
ed. Jossey-Bass.
Moores, T. T., & Chang, J. C. (2009). Self-efficacy, overconfidence, and the negative effect on
subsequent performance: A field study. Information & Management, 46(2), 69-
76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.11.006
Nealy, C. (2005). Integrating soft skills through active learning in the management
classroom. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 2(4), 1-6.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
Otto, Nick. (2017). Avoidable turnover costing employers big. SourceMedia.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1927328425
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-380). Sage.
Pearson, C. & Porath, C. (2010). The cost of bad behavior. American Management Association.
Perloff, R., Goleman, D., & Perloff, R. (1997). Daniel Goleman’s emotional intelligence: Why it
can matter more than IQ. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0095822
Popli, S., & Rizvi, I. A. (2016). Drivers of employee engagement: The role of leadership
style. Global Business Review, 17(4), 965-979. https://10.1177/0972150916645701
Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 114-
121.
Robinson, S. & Leonard, K. (2019). Designing Quality Survey Questions. SAGE.
114

Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today's
workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 453-465.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Voices Inside Schools - Seeing Student Learning: Teacher Change and
the Role of Reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-255.
Ross, P.T., & Bibler Zaidi, N.L. Limited by our limitations. Perspectives in Medical
Education, 8, 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
Salkind, N. J. (2000). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition, and
personality, 9, 185-211.
Schein, E. (2004). How leaders embed and transmit culture. Organizational culture and
Leadership. (3
rd
ed.) Jossey-Bass.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158.
Sears, PhD., L., Nelms, D., & Mahan, PhD, T. (2017). Retention report: Trends, reasons,
recommendations. 1-31.
workinstitute.com. https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/478187/2017%20Retention%20Report
%20Campaign/Work%20Institute%202017%20-
Retention%20Report.pdf?__hssc=163589856.1.1593710998374&__hstc=163589856.624
86ddee4c4413dd59c54129da8d78a.1593710998373.1593710998373.1593710998373.1&
__hsfp=2820522066&hsCtaTracking=05469671-5605-483d-a6d1-
774bb9f011c9%7C05585d67-df2d-4aa2-a7f7-1534bbf92f6d
115

Shojaei, M. R., & Siuki, M. E. (2014). A study of relationship between emotional intelligence
and innovative work behavior of managers. Management Science Letters, 4(7), 1449-
1454. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2014.6.021
Sinclair, S., Beamer, K., Hack, T. F., McClement, S., Raffin Bouchal, S., Chochinov, H. M., &
Hagen, N. A. (2017). Sympathy, empathy, and compassion: A grounded theory study of
palliative care patients’ understandings, experiences, and preferences. Palliat Med, 31(5),
437-447. 10.1177/0269216316663499
Skinner, C., & Spurgeon, P. (2005). Valuing empathy and emotional intelligence in health
leadership: A study of empathy, leadership behaviour and outcome effectiveness. Health
Serv Manage Res, 18(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1258/0951484053051924
Simons, T. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89-104.
Society of Emotional Intelligence. https://www.societyofei.org/training-and-certification
Sterrett, E. A. (2000). The manager's pocket guide to emotional intelligence from management to
leadership. HRD Press.
Thoroughgood, C., Tate, B., Sawyer, K., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the Bone: Defining and
Measuring Destructive Leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
19(2), 230-255.
Tsui, A., & Ashford, S. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial
effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20(1), 93-121.
Urhan Torun, B., Dr. (2018). Soft skills: Making the use of the human nature to have a job in the
age of technology. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(28), 6298-6304.
http://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.1113
116

Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Handbook of self-regulation. http://bvbr.bib-
bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=0
29117942&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&servic
e_type=MEDIA
Watson, G., & Papamarcos, S. Social Capital and Organizational Commitment. (2002). Journal
of Business and Psychology 16, 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015498101372
Wolff, Steven B., DBA. (2005). Emotional Competence Inventory Technical Manual (ECI). Hay
Group, McClelland Center for Research and
Innovation. https://www.societyofei.org/training-and-certification
Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243-
274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1
Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 6(4), 414-440.
Yukl G. (1989). Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of
Management. 15(2), 251-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500207
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(6), 708-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.008

117

Appendix A: Definitions
Throughout the study, key terms and concepts are used surrounding leadership, emotional
intelligence, soft skills, and incivility. The general definitions of these terms are provided to
assist in the understanding within the context of this study although definitions of the terms vary
among researchers making it challenging to isolate a general and acceptable set of terms.
Leadership is defined as or includes traits that include building and managing
relationships, influencing others, and having followers or stakeholders. In addition, a leader is
often given responsibilities and accountabilities that aim to achieve organizational objectives
(Bolman & Deal, 2017; Harold & Holtz, 2015; Thoroughgood et al., 2012; Yukl, 1989).
Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a cognitive concept studied and defined over several years
by many social science and neuroscience researchers. EI is one’s awareness of their and others’
emotions in each moment, including having the ability to modulate their emotions (i.e., anger,
sadness, frustration) particularly in social settings (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Shojaei & Siuki,
2014).
Soft Skills is a term that is often an interchangeable for emotional intelligence. It also
refers to an individual’s ability to manage theirs and others’ emotions and research shows being
proficient in it leads to or effects improved organizational and individual performance outcomes
(Boyatzis, 2011; Korn Ferry Institute, 2018; Mayer et al., 2004; Robles, 2012; Shojaei & Siuki,
2014).
Incivility is a term that is found to describe leaders who lack EI or soft skills. More
specifically it is seated with intent to harm another through aggression and disrespect (Holm et
al., 2015). Other associated behaviors include belittling others or subordinates, demonstrating a
118

lack of self-awareness, empathy, and poor relationship management (Erickson et al., 2015;
Kaiser, 2017; Thoroughgood et al., 2012; Pearson & Porath; 2010).

119

Appendix B: Ethics and Role of The Researcher
As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explain, ethics and confidentiality are of paramount
importance in a study for the protection of the participants’ and their rights. Safeguards were in
place to protect participants' rights and goals of the study outlined where possible without
compromising or exposing the full purpose of the study. Notice of the study was emailed to the
departments targeted for the study once approval for such posting and recruitment has been
granted. COVID-19 restrictions did not allow for visiting locations and posting on site.
Participants expressed interest confidentially via email to a designated email set specifically for
the study. The request for voluntary participants was open for a period of 30 days. Those who
then consented to participate, were provided instructions of the process. Consent issues
considered were that of invitees receiving timely emails of survey links and timely consent
replies to participate in the study to ensure a quality participant pool.
Underlying Ethics and Study Goals
This study was designed to serve the interests of organizational executives, change
management experts as well as human resources and learning and development professionals or
consultants. Organizational leaders benefit from the research in this study as it elucidates
emotional intelligence correlates (or null) among emerging leaders, perceptions of EI, education
levels, performance outcomes in the organization with leaders of poor EI or soft skills, and tools
or measures that may aid in identifying and developing leaders who lack emotional intelligence.
Both survey and interview questions were carefully designed and adapted from other
validated assessment tools (Appendices E, F). Specific, correlated organizational performance
outcomes and measures from third-party agency data were evaluated also. These assessments
120

and measures helped to inform about organizational performance impacts or outcomes most
affected by leaders’ emotional intelligence.
Ethics and Assessment Tools
Ethical consideration was given regarding the assessment and interview tools, their
adaptation, and their measures for future use of the data for organizational leaders to understand
effects of emotional intelligence opportunities to the staff and overall organizational
performance. Identifying these via credible means will require further attention for possible
competency development among leaders lacking EI. The outcomes are not designed to identify
who is or is not emotionally intelligent rather they aid in reflection of the self-perceptions of EI
of the leaders themselves and facilitate in-depth interviews about these perceptions with the
researcher.
Participant Confidentiality
Maintaining confidentiality by the researcher was explained to the interview participants;
however, risks to confidentiality were participants who were invited to take part in an in-depth
interview could speak to one another about the study or their participation. The researcher
explained this risk to the study participants. Participants gave consent before engaging in the
interview which considered and offered anonymity. Privacy and anonymity options proposed
between the participant and the interviewer included doing video (Zoom type) using audio only
or phone interviews while affording recording capabilities with prior consent (Patton, 2002)
(COVID-19 prevented in-person interviews due to social distancing requirements). Additional
explanations were provided about the process for encrypting any online data gathered from the
study participants and the subsequent destruction of research materials after the study was
concluded in order to ensure confidentiality and privacy (Patton, 2002).
121

Appendix C: The Researcher
Being biracial, I relate with those who do not always feel they belong or that their
abilities are somehow less than others. These feelings have been influenced resulting from being
excluded by leaders or overlooked for roles that I would have obtained had I been Caucasian. I
have seen countless others of my white peers advance in their careers with less education and
experience than me. I understand aspects of feeling marginalized by leaders and “quasi” leaders,
as a woman, a minority, and a human resource professional.
My positionality has, in some ways, become more closed and in others, has become more
open over the years. Professionally, as I have recognized my feelings of marginalization and
women who experience these phenomena, I pay attention to leaders who exert or abuse their
power in their role (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My biases are not top of mind all the time, but I
realize they exist, and I use them to listen to and see the biases in others through their words and
behaviors. My profession in human resources affords opportunities to guide leaders whose
actions can cost the organization, and coach them to reflect on these actions to help recognize
how they affect others. With a master’s degree in conflict resolution, years of facilitating difficult
conversations, and defusing hostile employee communication, I am skilled in being the type of
professional who demonstrates and model’s respect. I strive to carefully and ethically mitigate
between the employee and the organization maintaining a delicate balance between the two and
being mindful of my personal and professional values.

122

Appendix D: Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations exist in all studies. They are areas of weakness that can
influence the research findings and their interpretation (Ross & Bibler Zaidi, 2019). Limitations
are those which the researcher cannot control. Delimitations are those elements within the
researchers control and are reflected in the choices and design of the study by the researcher
which can limit findings and results (Ross & Bibler Zaidi, 2019).
Limitations
The onset of this work assumed all study participants of the target department would be
available to have an opportunity to participate. However, some limitations to the study were
imposed due to COVID -19, causing impacts to the organization and to the study participant
population. This study design began before and subsequently evolved during the COVID-19
pandemic. As a researcher of a healthcare organization, the limitations to the study were impacts
to the size of the population of study participants, which became reduced as the organization
looked critically at operations and where resources could be reduced while preserving healthcare
to the community. Thus, the target departments did have some impacts that affected the breadth
of the study participant population. Other impacts to the study were due to the accessibility of
study participants or schedule encumbrances to achieve surveys and interviews due to COVID-
19 impacts.
The influence of the pandemic on interviewees’ perceptions, attitude, or health at the time
of the interview was a factor. Post-holiday and New Year COVID-19 surges impacted healthcare
organizations; frontline non-clinical leaders and staff were impacted, which reduced the
availability of potential participants to participate in the study. Interviewees’ personal factors at
the time of the interview may also have influenced their response to the questions, in addition to
123

the information or stories they chose to share that described their lived experiences (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Another limitation involves the risk of leaders’ self-reporting or self-rating of their
emotional intelligence with high self-ratings often due to a leader’s self-concept or self-
perception (Elliott et al., 2017). Self-concept (Elliott et al., 2017) is comprised of a person’s
sense of competence and can influence their self-perception towards positive outcomes (p. 86).
This study involves capturing leaders’ answers at a specific moment in time which may be
influenced by events for the day or time of the survey or interview during the study participants
evaluation of their emotional intelligence.
Other limitations are that emotional intelligence is not a hard data set that can be easily be
measured, quantified and analyzed. Variables are sometimes difficult to ensure they are aligned
across EI competency assessment measures (Antonakis, 2009; Brackett et al., 2011).
Nonetheless, EI assessments do elucidate competencies such as empathy, listening, self-
awareness, emotional self-regulation, and motivation that one may have or need to develop
(Sterrett, 2000).
Another limitation of this study involved the participants and how they perceive
themselves as they self-report their EI competencies and behaviors using a survey instrument.
This type of self-reported survey tool could be a limiting factor as it is only one dimensional and
lends to a respondent’s desire to provide answers to make themselves appear more competent
and confident (Brackett et al., 2011). Further, this type of tool relies on respondents answering
honestly particularly if they perceived a question as sensitive (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Lastly, a final limitation of the study was the literature’s varying terminology, measures,
and constructs for emotional intelligence competencies or attributes. Mayer et al. (2003) have
124

designed a tool (MSCEIT) for assessing EI traits; however, time, continued use, and future
research are identified as factors needed to validate the tool and its measures further and more
confidently. Additionally, the updated Ability Model by Mayer et al. (2016) broadly categorizes
EI in four branch areas. The four branches are: (1) perceiving, (2) facilitating, (3) understanding,
and (4) managing emotions and adding in Reasoning made for additional complexity to
understanding EI terms and constructs and assessing EI. Other researchers, such as Boyatzis et
al. (1999) and Goleman (1995), add to the body of work to understand EI, but there is not a
singular set of terms, measures, or constructs to help create a unified perspective and
understanding of EI.
Delimitations
The study’s focus on non-clinical frontline leaders in environmental and food services
department in healthcare is, in part, due to the limited study or research information not readily
available in these non-clinical areas. Additionally, expanding the study’s reach to two healthcare
sites was a researcher decision to aid in participant reach and ensure target participation rates as
opposed to a focus on one healthcare site which might limit the ability to capture the necessary
participation rate and data for validity or generalizability (Creswell & Miller, 2000).
Lacking a set of unified terms, measures, or constructs proved a challenge and a
delimitation to the study. There were challenges to define terms, ensure study measures were tied
to EI constructs, and identify constructs that would be meaningful for the study. Due to the
varying EI terms and constructs, those common to performance and organizational outcomes i.e.,
engagement and retention (Gallup, 2016; Gartner 2019) were specifically chosen for the study
rather than employing a specific set of conventionally accepted terms or constructs of a validated
EI theory or model.
125

Appendix E: Leader Interview Protocol Questions
(adapted from Emotional Intelligence: Assessment Questions and Key Points to Consider, 2009)
INTRO: This interview will be recorded for research study purposes. All your identifying
information will be confidential, and your answers will not be shared with anyone. Do you give
your permission / consent to be recorded? Are you comfortable with the interview being
conducted in English only? Thank you for your time today. I am interviewing you today to gain
some additional insight about emotional intelligence and how it influences leadership behaviors.
You can decide to end this interview at any point in time. You also can choose not to answer any
questions you prefer not to answer.
BACKGROUND/DEMOGRAPHICS
1. How long have you been a supervisor or frontline leader?
2. What department do you lead/help lead?
3. How many organizations have you worked in this type of role? How long have you been
in this type of role?
4. How many people do you manage during your shift in your department?
INTERVIEW START
5. How would you describe your leadership style? (RQ2 - perception; RQ3-efficacy)
Probe: What or who (if anyone or anything) shaped or influenced your management or
leadership style (RQ1; environment)
a) Probe for EI traits.
b) How so?
c) Why was that person or experience so influential to you? What stood out?
6. In what ways do you feel your leadership style aligns, if at all, with the organization
mission and values and why? (RQ1; environment)
7. Given your experience in a leadership role, in what ways, if any, do you think the
organization’s culture influences your leadership style? (RQ1; environment; RQ2;
perception) Why do you feel this way?
8. When you think of a good leader, what behaviors come to mind? (RQ2- perception;
RQ3- self-reflection) Why do you think these behaviors are important?
126

9. Share your thoughts about your level of confidence to effectively lead your team? (RQ2 -
perception; RQ3 - efficacy) Why do you feel this way?
a) What would you change about how you lead your team, if anything?
10. Let’s shift our attention to your workday. Tell me about interactions you have at work
that make your workday difficult. (RQ3 - awareness)
a) What about these interactions makes them difficult for you?
b) How do you handle these situations when they arise?
11. When you have a difficult day, what makes you feel most effective /ineffective as a
leader? [difficult could mean constant interruptions, employee complaints, issues
delegated but left incomplete, missing important deadlines]. (RQ 3 -awareness)
a) What makes you feel ineffective during a difficult day?
12. In what ways does your communication change with your team when you experience a
difficult workday? If it changes at all. (RQ3 -awareness)
a) Do you find that your team approaches you differently at these times?
13. Tell me about a time you believed your mood or attitude influenced someone’s workday.
How did it influence or affect them? (RQ3 - awareness)
14. Tell me how, if at all, you reflect on your own behavior as a leader when you are away
from the workplace. (RQ3-reflection)
a) What do you think about?
15. Walk me through how you would handle a situation of an employee whose performance
is starting to suffer. (RQ3 - reflection)
a) How do you prepare for the conversation?
b) How do you handle the situation if the employee becomes angry?
c) How do you handle the situation if the employee begins to cry?
19. What sort of work-related resources does the organization have to learn about managing
others’ emotions or your own, if any? (RQ1 – environment)
a) If the org has not supported your development in this area, how does that impact
your ability to feel confident about your leadership?
20. Is there anything you would like to add?
127

Appendix F: Survey Instrument
When answering the questions below, please reflect on a scenario AT WORK only. Please
choose one answer per question that most represents your reaction or behavior.
1. I am aware of my physical reactions (anger, happiness, sadness, flush, tingling) associated
with emotional changes.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

2. I admit my mistakes and apologize.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

3. Based on non-verbal cues, I have a general idea of how another person perceives me during
a particular interaction.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)
4. I am aware of my biases and adjust my assessment accordingly when observing a situation.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)
5. Despite obstacles or barriers, I am able to keep going on a project.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

6. I am able to engage in an interaction with another and understand that person’s mood based
on non-verbal signals.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

7. Others feel encouraged after talking to me when they have felt frustrated with work projects
or tasks.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

8. I am able to ensure I have a clear mind before I make important decisions.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

9. When I feel a strong impulse to do something, I usually pause to reflect before I take on the
task or project.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

10. I can calmly and effectively handle the emotional displays of others.
128

Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

11. I can identify the emotion I am feeling at any given moment.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

12. I am able to explain how I feel without getting others upset.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

13. I am able to show empathy and match my feelings with those of another person.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

14. I think about the emotions behind my actions.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

15. I can effectively influence others to adopt my point of view.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

16. I observe others’ non-verbal cues to understand which of my own behaviors are effective
and which are not.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

17. When something negative personally happens to me, I refrain from bringing negative
emotions to work.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

18. It’s easy for me to understand why other people feel the way they do.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

19. My leadership behaviors are influenced by the organizational practices I see modelled by
senior leaders.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

20. The organizational culture influences the way I behave as a leader.
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

21.When I feel upset, I am able to stay composed.
129

Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) Always (5)

22. Overall, how confident are you with your ability to lead a team during tight deadlines? (Lead
= keep team informed, delegate tasks, encourage motivation)
Not Confident (1) Somewhat Confident (2) Confident (3) Very Confident (4)

23. How much would you value the opportunity for training to develop your soft skills (EI) as a
leader?
Not valued (1) Somewhat value (2) Moderately Value (3) Very Valued (4)

24. The organization supports my professional soft skill (EI) development.
Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2) Somewhat Agree (3) Agree (4)

25. At work, do you have a mentor or leader who models leadership soft skill behaviors you
would like to develop? Yes No

Note. Adapted from Emily A. Sterrett, Ph. D., in The Manager’s Pocket Guide to Emotional
Intelligence, 2000, HRD Press: Amherst, MA and from Emotional Intelligence: Assessment
Questions to Consider when Assessing Answers, 2009, author unknown.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Your soft skills are showing: organizational efforts to develop soft skills

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Preparing for the future of work: exploring worker perceptions of the impact of automation

PDF

Perceptions of U.S. Army first-line supervisors on first-term soldier attrition

PDF

Stress and burnout: a qualitative study of the influences on female leaders' decision to leave

PDF

Improving the representation of female executives in a large utility provider: a modified KMO framework

PDF

Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs

PDF

Intelligent Learning Quotient

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

Enhancing transfer of harassment prevention training into practice

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

Industry 4.0 impacts on U.S. food industry executive self-directed learning

PDF

Understanding burnout in non-denominational clergy: a social cognitive approach

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Bagby, Lisa Renee (author)

Core Title Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/23/2021

Defense Date 06/21/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag emotional intelligence,incivility,OAI-PMH Harvest,social cognitive theory,soft skills

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email lbagby@usc.edu,lbagby923@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15618609

Unique identifier UC15618609

Legacy Identifier etd-BagbyLisaR-9835

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Bagby, Lisa Renee

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu