The Third Side of the Coin: Exploring A Tri-Intelligence Leadership Framework for Effective Leadership and High Institutional Impact

The Third Side of the Coin: Exploring A Tri-Intelligence Leadership Framework for Effective Leadership and High Institutional Impact

Njeri Kiaritha

Department of Educational Psychology Moi University Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.914MG00133

Received: 24 July 2025; Accepted: 31 July 2025; Published: 04 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Leadership in the 21st century faces unprecedented complexity, requiring more than just Cognitive Intelligence (CI), with the ability to analyze, strategize, and make logical decisions. While CI remains foundational to organizational performance, recent scholarship has highlighted the increasing importance of Emotional Intelligence (EI), while Moral-Social intelligence (MSI), seem to be the last and almost forgettable anchors of leadership. This study examines how each of these intelligences contributes to institutional productivity, employee morale, ethical practices, trust, and long-term sustainability, both in isolation and in combination. Adopting a qualitative multiple-case study design, data were collected from five institutions spanning in education, health, and business sectors in Kenya. Participants included 15 leaders and 25 employees, selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity of leadership contexts and styles. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and limited observation. Thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke’s framework, was used to extract patterns related to each type of intelligence and its organizational outcomes. The findings reveal that while each form of intelligence contributes uniquely to institutional performance, none is sufficient on its own. However, when CI, EI, and MSI are integrated, institutions benefit from enhanced performance across all dimension, strategic, relational, and ethical growth. Thus, the study proposes The Tri-Intelligence Leadership Framework (TILF), representing the“third side of the coin” which transcends the traditional dualities of leadership and offers a comprehensive lens to understand and cultivate effective institutional leadership.

Keywords: Multidimensional Leadership, Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI), Leadership Effectiveness, Institutional Productivity, Organizational Sustainability, Ethical Leadership, Integrated Leadership Framework, Tri-Intelligence Leadership Framework (TILF)

INTRODUCTION

Effective leadership has traditionally emphasized cognitive competencies, such as strategic planning, data-driven decisions, and problem-solving. However, this approach is increasingly inadequate in a complex, volatile environment. A more holistic approach, incorporating emotional and moral-social intelligences, is essential. This study investigates how each these intelligences, separately, in combination, and fully integrated, affect institutional results. Building on the metaphor of “the third side of the coin,” the study aimed to contribute to both conceptual clarity and practical guidance for effective leadership.

Background of the Study

Binary leadership models such as task vs. Interpersonal dimensions fall short in addressing the multi-dimensional demands of modern organizations (Goleman, 1995, Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007). Emotional intelligence supports relational dynamics (Goleman, 1998), moral intelligence aids ethical stewardship (Lennick & Kiel, 2005), and cognitive intelligence facilitates rational decision-making. This study advances a tripartite model that recognizes integration as essential for institutional impact.

Objectives

• To assess the individual impact of Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI) on institutional
• To examine how dual combinations of leadership intelligences (CI + EI, CI + MSI, EI + MSI) affect institutional
• To evaluate the synergistic impact of integrating CI, EI, and MSI on organizational effectiveness.
• To identify patterns and gaps in leadership intelligence integration across sectors and how these influence key institutional

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored in an integrated theoretical framework that draws from four key leadership theories: Transformational Leadership Theory, Emotional Intelligence Theory, Moral Intelligence Theory, and Complexity Leadership Theory. Each of these frameworks contributed to understanding the multifaceted nature of effective leadership as examined in this study, particularly as it relates to the integration of Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI).

First, Transformational Leadership Theory (Bass, 1985) provides a foundational perspective for examining how visionary leaders inspire, motivate, and influence followers beyond transactional exchanges. Transformational leaders are characterized by four key components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. These elements align with the cognitive dimension of leadership in the current study, particularly in how strategic thinking and visionary planning contribute to institutional productivity and innovation. Bass’s model emphasizes not only task accomplishment but also the development of followers’ potential, offering a basis for evaluating leadership that moves institutions toward higher levels of performance.

Secondly, Emotional Intelligence Theory, as advanced by Goleman (1995), informs the study’s focus on empathy, self-awareness, emotional regulation, and interpersonal relationships. Goleman posited that emotionally intelligent leaders are more effective because they can manage their own emotions and navigate social complexities with sensitivity. This theory supports the study’s examination of the role of emotional intelligence in fostering morale, employee engagement, and relational trust within organizations. Emotional intelligence is particularly critical in people-centred environments, where leadership is expected to connect deeply with human needs while managing diverse teams.

Third, Moral Intelligence Theory, as articulated by Lennick and Kiel (2005), underpins the moral-social dimension of leadership. According to this theory, morally intelligent leaders consistently demonstrate integrity, responsibility, compassion, and forgiveness. Lennick and Kiel argue that these moral competencies are essential for sustainable leadership, especially in environments requiring trust, ethical decision-making, and accountability. In this study, moral-social intelligence is conceptualized as a guiding force that aligns leadership practices with institutional values and societal expectations, ensuring legitimacy and ethical resilience.

Finally, the study draws on Complexity Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007), which provides a systems-level view of leadership as a dynamic, adaptive process. This theory is particularly useful in understanding how leadership operates within complex, changing institutional environments. Complexity Leadership Theory emphasizes the importance of adaptability, learning, distributed influence, and interaction across organizational levels. It complements the integrative approach of this study by highlighting how cognitive, emotional, and moral capacities must work together within nonlinear and evolving systems to foster innovation, resilience, and institutional sustainability. By synthesizing these four theories, the study develops a robust conceptual lens through which the Tri-Intelligence Leadership Framework is analyzed. The integration of visionary leadership (Bass, 1985), emotional competence (Goleman, 1995), ethical grounding (Lennick & Kiel, 2005), and systemic adaptability (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) provides a comprehensive basis for understanding how multidimensional intelligence fosters effective, ethical, and sustainable leadership.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Contemporary leadership scholarship increasingly recognizes that effective leadership extends beyond technical expertise or cognitive acumen. Over the past few decades, researchers have identified multiple forms of intelligence that leaders must possess and integrate to succeed in dynamic, people-centred, and ethically complex environments.

Forms of Intelligence for Leaders

These forms of intelligence go beyond the traditional notion of Intelligence Quotient (IQ),  to encompass Emotional Intelligence (EI), Moral Intelligence (MI), Social Intelligence (SI), and Adaptive Intelligence (AI).

Cognitive Intelligence (CI), often equated with IQ, remains foundational in leadership. It includes analytical thinking, strategic planning, problem-solving, and logical decision-making (Sternberg, 1985). Leaders with high CI are known for clarity of vision, effective goal setting, and execution. However, research indicates that cognitive capacity alone is insufficient for sustained organizational effectiveness, particularly when it lacks emotional or ethical grounding (Stogdill, 1974). Emotional Intelligence (EI), introduced by Goleman (1995), emerged as a critical predictor of leadership effectiveness. EI includes self-awareness, emotional regulation, empathy, and social skills. Numerous studies have linked high EI with enhanced team cohesion, improved morale, and increased employee retention (Goleman, 1998; Boyatzis, 2018). EI enables leaders to navigate interpersonal dynamics, resolve conflict, and create psychologically safe environments that foster trust and collaboration.

Moral Intelligence (MI), as developed by Lennick and Kiel (2005), refers to the ability to distinguish right from wrong and to act accordingly. Leaders high in MI display integrity, responsibility, compassion, and fairness. MI is strongly associated with ethical leadership and values-driven decision-making, both of which are essential for long-term organizational legitimacy (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Social Intelligence (SI) and Adaptive Intelligence have also been identified as vital for modern leadership. SI, explored by Thorndike (1920) and further developed by others, involves the capacity to understand and manage social relationships effectively. It is closely aligned with cultural competence and stakeholder engagement (Albrecht, 2006). Adaptive Intelligence, on the other hand, reflects the leader’s ability to respond to uncertainty, learn quickly, and innovate—skills that are increasingly critical in complex and fast-changing institutional environments (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

These types of intelligences are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Forms of Intelligence for Leaders

The Three Overarching Dimensions of Intelligence

While each of these intelligences offers unique contributions to leadership, scholars have begun to recognize the need for a multidimensional approach. This study classifies these various intelligences into three overarching dimensions. The Cognitive Intelligence (CI) encompasses the traditional IQ and strategic/adaptive thinking, while Emotional Intelligence (EI) focusses on empathy, motivation, and interpersonal awareness. Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI) on the other hand integrates moral reasoning with social competence and cultural sensitivity. This is as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Dimensions of Intelligence

These three categories form the core conceptual pillars of the current study.

Related Studies

Several empirical studies support this integrative view. For instance, Cherniss (2010) found that leaders who combine cognitive and emotional competencies significantly reduce workplace stress and enhance performance. Meanwhile, Brown and Treviño (2006) demonstrated that ethical leadership, rooted in moral intelligence, was a strong predictor of employee commitment and organizational trust. Uhl-Bien et al. (2007), through Complexity Leadership Theory, emphasized the necessity of integrating multiple intelligences to lead adaptively in complex systems.

Taken together, this literature underscores the need for a multidimensional leadership model, that transcends singular frameworks and reflects the reality of modern leadership demands. The “third side of the coin,” as conceptualized in this study, represents the point of intersection and integration among cognitive, emotional, and moral-social intelligences.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopted a qualitative multiple-case study design, deemed appropriate for investigating complex leadership behaviours within real-life institutional contexts. According to Yin (2018), case study research enables a holistic, in-depth exploration of phenomena within their natural settings, particularly when boundaries between context and behaviour are not clearly defined. The multiple-case design also allows for cross-case comparisons, enhancing the transferability and robustness of findings (Stake, 2006). The focus of the study was to understand how different forms—and combinations—of leadership intelligence, namely Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI), influence key institutional outcomes such as productivity, employee morale, ethical climate, and organizational sustainability.

The target population comprised institutional leaders and employees working in various sectors across Kenya, including education, healthcare, and corporate environments. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to identify five institutions that were known for diverse leadership styles and organizational cultures. The institutions selected included two educational institutions, one healthcare facility, and two private-sector corporations. This diversity was intended to enhance the richness of the data and to capture context-specific manifestations of leadership intelligences. Within these institutions, the study purposively selected 15 leaders who were directors, senior managers, and department heads), and 25 employees (subordinates or direct reports) who could offer grounded insights into leadership behaviours and their effects on the workplace. This sampling ensured multiple perspectives from both leaders and those impacted by leadership, increasing the credibility and triangulation of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Data was collected through semistructured interviews, document analysis and non-participant observation. Primary data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with both leaders and employees. The interviews focused on leadership behaviours, decision-making processes, emotional engagement, ethical conduct, and perceived impacts on institutional outcomes such as productivity, morale, and ethical culture. These open-ended questions allowed participants to provide rich, narrative accounts that illuminated the presence and interaction of CI, EI, and MSI in their organizational contexts. To complement and triangulate the interview data, the study reviewed institutional documents including mission and vision statements, leadership evaluation policies, human resource guidelines, and performance appraisal reports. These documents provided formal representations of leadership expectations, values, and outcomes, thereby supporting or challenging the narratives offered in interviews. Where feasible, limited non-participant observation was conducted during leadership-team meetings, briefings, or institutional events. These observations focused on leadership behaviours, interaction patterns, non-verbal cues, and emotional tone. This method provided a real-time lens on how emotional and moral-social dimensions were expressed in practical settings (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

The collected data were analyzed using thematic analysis, following the six-phase model outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). The process began with thorough familiarization with the data through transcription and repeated reading. This was followed by initial coding, using CI, EI, and MSI as sensitizing categories. The researchers then searched for patterns and emergent themes, which were reviewed, defined, and refined to ensure internal coherence and distinctiveness. Themes were mapped onto the three types of intelligence, and analyzed both individually and in combination, to explore their relative and collective influence on institutional productivity, employee morale and engagement, ethical climate and organizational sustainability A cross-case synthesis approach (Yin, 2018) was used to identify recurring leadership patterns and unique sector-specific applications of the three intelligences. This allowed the study to distill context-sensitive insights and to propose a unifying leadership model that transcends sectoral boundaries.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, four key criteria were applied. Credibility was enhanced through triangulation of data sources, including leaders, employees, and institutional documents. Transferability was achieved by providing rich, contextual descriptions of each institutional setting, allowing readers to assess applicability to similar contexts. Dependability was maintained through the consistent use of interview protocols and an audit trail documenting the research process. Confirmability was ensured through reflective memoing and external peer review of coding decisions. Ethical considerations included obtaining ethical clearance from Moi University or an equivalent institutional review board (IRB), securing informed consent from all participants, and safeguarding participant anonymity through the use of codes. All data were securely stored, and culturally sensitive practices were observed throughout data collection to ensure respect and integrity.

RESULTS

Individual Impact of Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI) on Institutional Effectiveness

The findings revealed that when leadership was characterized primarily by Cognitive Intelligence (CI), institutions experienced high levels of productivity, particularly in areas such as strategic planning, performance tracking, and goal execution. However, these gains were often accompanied by low employee morale, limited team cohesion, and notable ethical blind spots. The environment in such cases tended to become mechanistic, frequently leading to staff burnout and a lack of emotional connection. Conversely, leaders who relied predominantly on Emotional Intelligence (EI) were effective in fostering high morale, mutual trust, and strong interpersonal relationships within their teams. Despite these strengths, these environments often lacked strategic direction and operational discipline, which resulted in only moderate levels of productivity and slower implementation of goals. In institutions led mainly by leaders with strong Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI), ethical decision-making, inclusivity, and long-term trust were highly evident. Yet, without the balancing presence of cognitive and emotional intelligence, such leadership was associated with slow responsiveness and moderate productivity. Overall, the analysis confirmed that each type of intelligence contributes a unique strength to institutional leadership—CI enhances productivity, EI supports morale, and MSI ensures ethical resilience. Nevertheless, no single form of intelligence, when applied in isolation, was found to be sufficient for achieving comprehensive and sustainable institutional effectiveness.

Table 3: Summary of Impact of Individual Intelligence on Institutional Effectiveness

Effect of dual combinations of leadership intelligences (CI + EI, CI + MSI, EI + MSI) on Institution’s Effectiveness

The findings further indicated that when leadership combined Cognitive Intelligence (CI) and Emotional Intelligence (EI), institutions benefited from strong productivity and high levels of employee engagement. Leaders in this category were able to make logical, well-informed decisions while remaining emotionally attuned to the needs and dynamics of their teams. However, the absence of Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI) in this combination occasionally led to ethical lapses, particularly during periods of high stress or moral ambiguity, where decisions were not always grounded in shared values or fairness.

In institutions where CI and MSI were the dominant leadership traits, the outcomes showed a strong foundation of ethical integrity alongside effective planning and execution. These organizations operated with clarity of purpose and a commitment to doing what was right. However, a lack of emotional sensitivity and interpersonal engagement often resulted in low staff morale and diminished team cohesion. The leadership culture in such contexts tended to be impersonal, with limited relational depth, which in turn affected internal communication and employee satisfaction.

In cases where leadership drew primarily from EI and MSI, leaders demonstrated a deep capacity for trust-building, empathy, and ethical inclusivity. These organizations fostered safe, supportive, and principled environments, leading to high morale and a strong sense of belonging among staff. However, the absence of cognitive-driven strategy and performance orientation often hindered the institution’s ability to innovate, scale operations, or maintain consistent productivity.

Table 4: Summary of Impact of Dual Intelligence on Institutional Effectiveness

Overall, the results show that dual combinations of leadership intelligences significantly enhance organizational outcomes compared to reliance on a single intelligence. Nevertheless, critical gaps persist when one of the three dimensions is missing, reaffirming the necessity of a fully integrated leadership model that balances cognitive acumen, emotional engagement, and moral grounding for comprehensive institutional effectiveness.

Synergistic Impact of Integrating CI, EI, and MSI on Overall Organizational Effectiveness

The study found out that institutions where all three intelligences were present (CI + EI + MSI) showed the highest outcomes across all indicators of productivity, employee morale and trust, ethical climate, sustainability and innovation. Leaders in this category successfully balanced strategic clarity (CI), human connection (EI), and ethical grounding (MSI), creating a resilient and future-ready leadership culture. Integrated intelligence leadership is essential for achieving sustainable excellence, and notably no single or dual combination matches the synergy of all three.

Table 5: Summary of Impact of Individual Intelligence on Institutional Effectiveness

Patterns and gaps in leadership intelligence integration across sectors and how these influence key institutional outcomes.

Each sector exhibited specific strengths and limitations based on how the three intelligences were emphasized or neglected. These findings suggest the importance of tailored leadership development strategies that address sector-specific needs. However, the study also affirms that the full integration of CI, EI, and MSI—as envisioned in the Third Side of the Coin framework—offers the most holistic and sustainable path to effective leadership across all institutional contexts.

The sectoral findings of the study reveal distinct patterns in the integration and application of leadership intelligences across different institutional contexts. In the corporate sector, leadership was characterized by a strong integration of Cognitive Intelligence (CI) and Emotional Intelligence (EI). This combination contributed to high levels of productivity and employee morale, as leaders demonstrated both strategic clarity and interpersonal effectiveness. However, the absence or underdevelopment of Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI) in many corporate settings occasionally led to ethical lapses—particularly under competitive or high-pressure conditions. This gap exposed vulnerabilities in decision-making where values-based considerations were overlooked in favour of performance.

In contrast, educational institutions tended to prioritize the integration of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI). Leaders in these settings were effective at fostering trust, inclusivity, and ethical conduct. The emotional and moral tone of leadership cultivated psychologically safe environments and values-driven cultures. Nevertheless, many of these institutions struggled with strategic execution and performance metrics, often due to a lack of robust cognitive structures and analytical leadership. The underutilization of CI hindered their ability to align vision with measurable outcomes.

The healthcare sector presented a more balanced integration of CI, EI, and MSI, with leadership demonstrating strategic competence, emotional sensitivity, and ethical clarity. This comprehensive integration translated into consistent performance, high levels of trust and teamwork, and a strong moral compass in decision-making. Leaders in this sector managed to combine technical expertise with compassion and integrity—attributes especially crucial in high-stakes, service-oriented environments.

Table 6: Sectorial Patterns of Intelligence Integration

DISCUSSION

The study’s findings affirm that effective leadership is not the product of any single form of intelligence but rather the integration of Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI). Individually, CI drives performance, EI fosters trust and engagement, and MSI anchors ethics and inclusion. Dual combinations enhance leadership impact but still reveal gaps, particularly under pressure, without full integration. Institutions that demonstrated a balanced application of all three intelligences reported the highest levels of productivity, morale, ethical conduct, and sustainability, echoing Goleman’s (1998) emphasis on emotional intelligence, Brown and Treviño’s (2006) research on ethical leadership, and Uhl-Bien et al.’s (2007) complexity leadership theory which advocates for adaptive, systems-oriented leadership. This synergy, metaphorically described as the “third side of the coin,” represents the integrative edge where logic, compassion, and values intersect—enabling holistic, resilient leadership that sustains institutional excellence.

MSI reflects a leader’s ability to act with integrity, promote inclusion, and prioritize the greater good in decision-making, especially under pressure. For instance, a hospital administrator facing budget cuts may choose to protect patient care and staff well-being by exploring ethical alternatives rather than reducing personnel, demonstrating moral clarity in complex trade-offs. Similarly, a tech leader working to diversify their workforce might implement inclusive hiring practices, mentorship programs, and bias training, not just to meet diversity quotas, but to authentically reshape workplace culture. In times of social unrest, university presidents who acknowledge systemic inequality and follow up with structural reforms, like equity audits and student-centred policy changes, exemplify MSI by aligning institutional actions with societal values. Global business leaders who go beyond compliance to invest in sustainable practices and engage local communities show MSI by prioritizing environmental and social responsibilities over short-term gains. Even in internal conflicts, leaders who resolve disputes through shared values and transparent communication demonstrate the ethical foundation of MSI. In all these scenarios, MSI elevates leadership from tactical success to principled impact, ensuring that actions reflect not only what is effective, but what is right and inclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that each form of intelligence—Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI)—contributes uniquely to leadership effectiveness. While CI enhances productivity, EI builds trust and morale, and MSI fosters ethical behaviour and long-term legitimacy. However, none of these intelligences is sufficient when applied in isolation. Dual combinations, such as CI with EI or EI with MSI, result in partial gains—improving some aspects like morale or ethical conduct—but still fall short of delivering balanced, sustainable leadership outcomes. It is the holistic integration of all three intelligences that enables full-spectrum effectiveness across organizational performance, culture, trust, and innovation. Furthermore, sectoral analysis revealed important contextual variations: corporate settings emphasized CI and EI, educational institutions leaned towards EI and MSI, and healthcare environments showed more balanced integration. These findings underscore the need for context-sensitive leadership development strategies while reinforcing the universal value of integrating cognitive, emotional, and moral-social intelligences in leadership practice. Each intelligence contributes uniquely but is insufficient alone.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings from this study underscore the necessity of integrating Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI) into leadership development and organizational practice. Thus, the proposed Tri-Intelligence Leadership Framework (TILF), as a multidimensional model of effective leadership that integrates three essential forms of intelligence: Cognitive Intelligence (CI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Moral-Social Intelligence (MSI) as shown in Figure 1. Each of these intelligences contributes distinct value. CI enables strategic thinking, analytical reasoning, and goal execution, while EI fosters empathy, emotional regulation, and interpersonal trust, and MSI ensures ethical integrity, fairness, and inclusivity.

Figure 1: Tri- Intelligence Leadership Framework (TILF)

When applied in isolation, each intelligence produces limited or imbalanced leadership outcomes. However, when all three intelligences are integrated, they create a synergistic effect that enhances institutional productivity, morale, ethical climate, and sustainability. This integration represents the “third side” of the leadership coin, not a flat binary of task or relationship, but a holistic edge where logic, compassion, and values meet. The framework emphasizes that leadership effectiveness lies not in choosing between intelligence types, but in strategically combining them to respond to complex, real-world organizational demands. As a result of the application of the model, key outcome areas from the Framework would integrate high productivity, strong employee morale, ethical leadership culture and innovation and sustainability.

Finally, leadership training should move beyond traditional cognitive skill-building to include structured development in emotional and ethical domains. Curricula should be redesigned to incorporate experiential learning, reflective practice, and scenario-based training that foster empathy, ethical reasoning, and inclusive decision-making. Additionally, institutions should embed these principles into policy frameworks by adopting evaluation mechanisms that assess leaders not only on performance metrics but also on their ability to build trust, model integrity, and promote social cohesion. Policies that support mentorship, feedback loops, and ethical accountability structures can further institutionalize the competencies outlined in the TILF. Ultimately, aligning leadership development programs and institutional policies with this integrative model enhances leadership resilience, adaptability, and long-term institutional sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of success. Jossey-Bass.
2. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
3. Boyatzis, R. E. (2018). The competent manager: A model for developing awareness, management skills, and emotional intelligence. Wiley.
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
6. Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 110–126.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
8. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam.
9. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
10. Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2005). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance & leadership success. Wharton School Publishing.
11. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
12. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
13. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
14. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. Free Press.
15. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227–235.
16. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
17. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.