Abstract
The intersection of leadership and emotion regulation (ER) has gained scholarly attention, yet remains underexplored in its theoretical and practical implications. We conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review of peer-reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2023 examining ER in leadership contexts (n = 103; English and French). The review maps the research landscape, exploring diverse ER strategies and their application across varied leadership contexts. This study contributes to the field by identifying dominant leadership styles, and evaluating the most studied ER strategies. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of recent trends, methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and outcomes linking leadership and ER, while highlighting emerging areas for future inquiry. Findings show that transformational, ethical, and servant leadership styles frequently employ adaptive ER, notably cognitive reappraisal, enhancing follower engagement, team cohesion, and organizational outcomes. This systematic review offers practical insights for leadership development, prioritizing cognitive reappraisal training to boost well-being and performance while avoiding suppression for authenticity. Organizations should promote adaptive ER via psychological safety policies, with caution for generalizing to underrepresented regions.
Keywords
Introduction
Emotion regulation (ER) is the “processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross, 1998). In Gross’s process model, regulation occurs along five stages, ranging from antecedent-focused strategies (situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, and cognitive change) to response-focused strategies (expressive suppression; Gross, 1998, 2002). In organizational settings, these strategies affect not only employees’ well-being and performance but also the quality of social interactions and relationships at work.
Leadership is a multifaceted and often ambiguous concept that has been characterized by a persistent lack of consensus, reflecting researchers’ individual perspectives on traits, behaviors, influence, interaction patterns, role relationships, and administrative positions (Yukl & Gardner, 2019). Despite the proliferation of definitions, most share the core idea of a process involving intentional influence exerted over others to guide, motivate, and enableprocess them to pursue shared goals and coordinate collective action.
Leadership is inherently an emotional process, requiring leaders to effectively manage both their internal emotional experiences and their external expressions to influence follower attitudes, group dynamics, and overall organizational effectiveness (George, 2000; Humphrey et al., 2016; van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016). Thus, understanding the role of emotion regulation in leadership is essential for explaining how leaders translate influence into positive relational, team, and organizational outcomes.
Scholars with a focused interest in leadership and emotional dynamics have explored the significant impact of emotion management on leadership effectiveness, revealing its critical role in organizational performance (Ashkanasy et al., 2017; Haver et al., 2013; Holman & Niven, 2019; H. P. Madrid et al., 2019; Niven et al., 2019; C. A. Vasquez et al., 2021).
Despite the extensive research on emotions in relation to leadership since the 1990s, this topic continues to captivate scholars, prompting investigations from various perspectives. The mechanisms behind employees’ emotional transformations and the influence of leadership on emotions need more thorough investigations (P. Cheng et al., 2023; Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2020; Faupel & Süß, 2019; Humphrey et al., 2016).
By examining the link between emotion regulation and leadership, this review aims to explore how leaders and employees regulate their emotions in situations and how this affects the effectiveness of leadership.
There is also a notable lack of literature reviews addressing the connection between these two topics. The only review we found on this subject dates back to 2013, leaving a significant gap in the current academic discourse. This study aims to address this gap by reviewing research from the past decade, providing a comprehensive overview of the trends and developments linking these two concepts.
In addition to the newly expanded range of research years covered and in contrast to Haver et al.’s literature review (Haver et al., 2013), which adopted Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) ability-based EI model, we deliberately excluded, in our review, papers that focus predominantly on the broader concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI), as it remains a topic of academic debate with inconsistent findings and lacks broad consensus among scholars (Antonakis et al., 2009; Dasborough et al., 2022). Instead, we focused specifically on the regulation of emotions, setting it apart from the general EI concept.
Emotion regulation plays an important role in leadership benefiting both leaders and their team members. Research has highlighted that regulation strategies like situation modification and cognitive reappraisal positively influence the performance of leaders while suppressing emotions has adverse effects (Torrence & Connelly, 2019).
As the trends in the bibliometric study cited in this literature review indicate, interest in emotional regulation has grown steadily. Recent bibliometric analyses have revealed a significant growth in research on emotion regulation in recent decades (Fernández-Álvarez et al., 2018; Rahaman et al., 2024). This trend also corresponds to the growing interest in emotional regulation according to Gross’s model, as indicated by the bibliometric study referenced in this literature review.
Theoretical Background
Emotion Regulation
This research focuses on emotion regulation’s strategies which involve how individuals handle and oversee their emotions. It includes identifying the emotions felt by a person and deciding how to express them (Gross, 1998). Emotion regulation is a process that impacts one’s well-being, by allowing them to enhance or reduce both positive and negative emotions (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003). Gross’s process model provides a basis for understanding emotion regulation offering insights, into how emotions are affected and displayed in different situations.
Managing emotions is essential, not only to alleviate negative feelings, but also to nurture positive ones. This helps people to face up to external challenges and collaborate better to achieve individual or group objectives. This is particularly important in environments like work settings, where successful emotion management is linked to shaping behavior and supporting the effectiveness and happiness of the organization.
Based on Gross’s (1998) theory of regulating emotions there are five strategies for regulating emotions : situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Two commonly studied strategies are reappraisal or cognitive change, which involves changing how one thinks about a situation, and suppression or response modulation, which involves inhibiting emotional expression (Gross, 2002). These different ways of regulating emotions have varying impacts on psychological well-being and physiological reactions. Reappraisal, or rethinking how one sees a situation, is generally more effective in reducing negative emotions and improving well-being than suppression, or trying to hold back emotions by not showing them (Gross & John, 2003; Richards & Gross, 2000; Robinson et al., 2021).
Published studies have shown that efforts made in the workplace to arouse positive emotions or reduce negative feelings among employees have an impact on the quality of their relationship with colleagues and on their performance, citizenship behavior, and innovation (Little et al., 2016; H. P. Madrid et al., 2019).
Leadership
The essence of leadership lies in a leader’s capacity to influence followers by motivating and mobilizing them toward shared goals (Van Knippenberg, 2012; Yukl & Gardner, 2019). During their daily operations, both leaders and employees encounter various emotionally challenging situations, like deadlines, interpersonal conflicts, unexpected crises, emergencies, or customer dissatisfaction. These scenarios require leaders and followers to regulate their emotions to maintain productivity and boost team spirit (Humphrey et al., 2016; Nesse & Stensaker, 2022; Tanveer et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2020).
Leadership is inherently an emotional process (George, 2000; Humphrey et al., 2016; Pescosolido, 2002; van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016). Leaders are described as needing to manage both the emotions they personally experience and the emotional displays they project to followers (Humphrey et al., 2016; van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016).
Effective leaders are able to control their emotions, express positive affect and tailor their emotional displays to influence follower attitudes, work performance, and overall group dynamics (Gaddis et al., 2004; van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016). This impact is evident, in the attitudes and actions of team members like job satisfaction, organizational commitment and creativity (van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016). Leaders who skillfully manage their emotions and provide support to their team members may also influence how their followers deal with their emotions (Haver et al., 2013; Huang, 2022).
Different leadership styles integrate emotion regulation strategies in distinct ways to enhance leadership effectiveness and foster positive outcomes. Leaders’ use of certain emotional skills is linked to their dominant leadership style, which can be indicative of the levels of effort they devote to their own emotional manifestations (Arnold et al., 2015).
There are many leadership styles that are particularly more relevant than others for emotion regulation (Arnold et al., 2015; Humphrey, 2012). These include transformational, transactional, authentic and servant leadership (Arnold et al., 2015; Bader et al., 2023; P. Cheng et al., 2023).
Aims and Research Questions
While there is growing recognition of the relationship between leadership and emotion regulation there is still a gap in reviews of the literature in this area. This systematic review aims to bridge that gap by exploring the trends in research on the connection between leadership and emotion regulation. The goal is to summarize what we currently know by mapping out the research landscape found in literature and analyze the commonly studied leadership styles and strategies for emotion regulation. This includes examining the research methods used by scholars studying the relationship between leadership and emotion regulation as reviewing the theoretical frameworks explored by researchers studying how different leadership styles affect emotion regulation. Additionally this review aims to compile and discuss findings regarding the link between emotion regulation and leadership while also identifying any limitations found in existing literature on this topic. Lastly we will highlight emerging areas of interest or unexplored territories that researchers are beginning to delve into providing insights into directions for research in this field.
To define the nature of our systematic review question, Boland et al. (2017) shed light for us by illuminating the diverse forms such queries can take, ranging from descriptive, presenting a concept, to normative, exploring preferences, and even to observational or relational, investigating relationships between variables. Echoing this, Tranfield et al. (2003) emphasize the necessity of specifying management research questions clearly, whether they aim to replicate, develop further, or fill a gap in existing studies. This approach aligns with a more systematic literature review process, aiding in the justification or qualification of the research question. With this understanding, the purpose of our systematic review is to evaluate the state of knowledge on our topic by answering this main question: What are the prevailing trends in the research concerning the relationship between leadership and emotion regulation?
Under this principal inquiry, the review is further delineated by the following questions:
This literature review employs bibliometric analysis alongside a systematic review approach to delve into the relationship between leadership and emotion regulation. Utilizing tools like R and VOSviewer, and databases such as PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO, the study not only captures the vast scope of research but also identifies trends, gaps, and collaboration patterns in the field (Donthu et al., 2021). This methodological choice reflects a commitment to comprehensive and impactful research, leveraging the advancements in bibliometric software and cross-disciplinary methodologies to offer a multifaceted overview of the academic landscape.
Simultaneously, the review adheres to the rigorous standards of systematic literature reviews, ensuring a replicable and methodically sound process. Despite limited methodological guidelines in management sciences, this study systematically collects and evaluates evidence against predefined criteria, contributing to the field with clarity and depth (Tranfield et al., 2003). This dual approach not only enhances the review’s academic rigor but also provides a holistic understanding of the intricate dynamics underpinning leadership and emotion regulation, setting a robust foundation for future scholarly inquiries.
Previous Reviews on ER and Leadership
We found only an integrative review, published in 2013, discussing the connection between the two concepts of emotion regulation and leadership and explicitly adopted Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) ability-based on emotion intelligence model (Haver et al., 2013). Another review examining the connection between emotions and school leadership (Gómez-Leal et al., 2022) systematically evaluates emotional intelligence’s impact on effective school leadership.
However, the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) continues to be a highly contested concept in leadership researches. While some studies suggest a correlation, between EI and leader effectiveness and job performance, other studies fail to find any significant impact (Saha et al., 2023). This stands in contrast to the strategy we have elected to employ. Salovey and Mayer’s framework embeds emotion regulation within a wider construct of emotional intelligence, a topic which still spark interesting controversy and academic debate (Antonakis et al., 2009; Dasborough et al., 2022).
Methodology
Purpose and Structure of Review
In carrying out our review we closely followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items, for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines as outlined by Liberati et al. (2009). These guidelines were updated in 2021 (Page et al., 2021). The adoption of the PRISMA protocol is intended to provide a transparent, systematic, and reproducible framework for the review process, minimizing bias through a predefined and standardized reporting structure. By adhering to this widely recognized standard, this study ensures methodological rigor and facilitates the interpretability of the evidence synthesis regarding the intersection of leadership and emotion regulation. The process of selecting articles was divided into four stages : identification, screening, eligibility assessment and final selection (Figure 1).
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases.
The process of searching the literature is designed as an iterative exercise which entails a three-stage approach as mentioned by Joanna Briggs Institute method: (a) We start by determining the initial set of keywords for our search. Then, we examine these initial papers to identify additional terms they use. (b) We thoroughly search through databases. (c) The references of the gathered literature are manually examined.
This literature review employs four electronic databases: Web of Science and Scopus for their wide range of interdisciplinary articles, PsycNet for psychological and mental health perspectives, and EBSCO for insights into behavior and management practices. We opted for a mix of terms appeared in the title, abstract or keywords such as : “Emotion Regulation,”“Emotions Regulation” in association with “leader.” In addition, the following keywords and their synonyms have been required : “Situation selection,”“Situation modification,”“Attentional deployment,”“Cognitive change,”“Cognitive reappraisal,”“Response modulation,”“Expressive suppression,”“manager,”“supervisor.”
In our literature review we have selected tools to assist us in analyzing the bibliographic data. We chose R tool, which makes use of the Biblioshiny package and VOSviewer each chosen for their strengths and capabilities. To further expand our capabilities we also integrated the Bibliometrix package, widely used in research. Additionally we opted for VOSviewer due to its visualization abilities. Together these tools enable a dimensional approach, to mapping information.
This systematic literature review provides an updated synthesis of the relationship between emotion regulation (ER) and leadership, emphasizing the application of Gross’s (1998) process model to explore specific ER strategies and processes over the past decade (2013–2023). It employs PRISMA standards to rigorously assess the methodological quality of 103 studies sourced from four databases, ensuring a robust evidence base. The review identifies also key trends in the scientific literature on leadership and ER, including dominant leadership styles and frequently studied ER strategies. Finally, it advances the field by not only presenting and discussing these findings but also proposing future research directions to address gaps in longitudinal and context-diverse studies, while offering practical guidelines for integrating ER into leadership development.
Search Strategies, Inclusion, and Exclusion Selection Criteria
In conducting this literature review authors of this review acknowledged the inherent subjectivity involved in determining inclusion and exclusion criteria (Tranfield et al., 2003). As a result, all of us actively engaged in this phase of the review to ensure an impartial approach. Independent appraisals of the studies were carried out, and any discrepancies in applying the established inclusion and exclusion criteria were resolved through discussion.
We decided to focus on the papers written in English or French within the last 10 years, specifically from 2013 to 2023 in an indexed peer-reviewed journal and based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria presented in Table 1. We restricted the review to English and French because these are the languages in which the review team has full working proficiency and because they are widely used in the target literature, allowing reliable screening and extraction without translation. Potential language bias is acknowledged as a limitation. This decade has seen substantial progress in understanding leadership dynamics and how emotions are regulated. Our goal is to capture the up-to-date insights and advancements that reflect the state and future direction of the field. We consider also that relevant articles from the preceding decade have certainly been integrated into the previous integrative review of Haver et al. in 2013. A review spanning 10 years strikes also a balance between breadth and depth, allowing us to explore a range of studies while ensuring that the findings remain relevant to practices and theories. Lastly this timeframe is broad enough to include works that have shaped research as well as recent studies indicating emerging trends and potential future directions in the connection between leadership and emotion regulation.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
Screening, Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment
Although we limited our inclusion to studies published in peer-reviewed journals ranked within the first or second quartile, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute (Aromataris & Munn, 2020) Critical Appraisal tools to rigorously evaluate the methodological rigor of each included study, focusing on its approach to minimizing bias in design, conduct, and analysis (Purssell & McCrae, 2020). As Boland et al. argue, publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not inherently guarantee high quality (Boland et al., 2017, p. 238).
All included studies were independently appraised by three reviewers. All three have graduate-level training in organizational psychology and management research, along with prior experience in conducting systematic reviews and both quantitative and qualitative studies. Their specialized expertise encompasses organizational psychology and leadership studies; skills management, entrepreneurship, and innovation; and human resources, leadership, and statistical analysis. Before screening and quality assessment, the team calibrated the coding rules using a pilot set of studies to ensure consistent interpretation. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached.
The critical appraisal highlighted the high quality of the included studies. Among the 105 included studies, 15 were identified as having minor limitations; 13 were ultimately retained, while 2 were excluded.
These limitations primarily impact the generalizability of findings due to specific cultural contexts and the reliance on non-representative sampling methods. In some instances, quantitative analyses were not fully aligned with the studies’ predominantly qualitative aims, potentially compromising methodological coherence (C. Liu & Yu, 2022). Furthermore, consistent with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, the two qualitative studies lacked transparency regarding the researchers’ cultural or theoretical positions, as well as reflections on their influence on the research process (Nguyen et al., 2022; Weinberg et al., 2022). Such omissions, while common in qualitative research, limit the clarity of researcher-participant dynamics and may introduce interpretive biases. Additionally, potential selection bias, lack of response rate data, and response bias in self-reported measures were observed, particularly in studies with smaller sample sizes (Choudhary et al., 2017). In two cases, potential conflicts of interest were identified due to overlaps with authors’ own academic theses, raising concerns about objectivity (Table 2).
Study Type According to Joanna Briggs Institute (Aromataris & Munn, 2020).
Results
Research Landscape of Leadership and Emotion Regulation
Scientific Production
The visual representation and quantitative analysis of the results from this review show a consistent upward publication trend from 2013 to 2023 (Figure 2), with a significant increase in the number of studies published from 2018 onward. This suggests an increasing interest in the research topic, potentially indicating its growing relevance and significance. The highest publication year is 2023, with 21 articles, indicating a peak in research activity.
Annual scientific production.
Geographically, as shown in Table 3, the studies predominantly originate from China (n = 25), the United States (n = 18), and Taiwan (n = 9), highlighting a concentration of research in East Asian and North American contexts. Other notable contributors include Germany (n = 6), the United Kingdom (n = 4), and Australia (n = 3), indicating a relatively diverse but uneven global distribution of research efforts. This geographic pattern suggests that cultural and organizational contexts in these regions may particularly influence the study of leadership and ER, warranting further exploration in underrepresented areas.
Number of Articles Published by Countries (≥3).
Relevant Sources and Cited Publications
The 103 articles were published across 74 journals, reflecting a broad dissemination of research on leadership and ER within organizational psychology and management. Figure 3 highlights the most relevant sources, with “Leadership Quarterly,”“European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,” and “Frontiers in Psychology” each contributing five studies, making them the most prolific journals in the sample. Other notable journals include Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Journal of Business and Psychology and Journal of Management Development, each with three studies.
Most relevant sources.
This distribution underscores the prominence of journals specializing in organizational psychology and leadership, alongside those focusing on specific domains such as education and hospitality management. The Leadership Quarterly stands out as the most influential, with its five studies accumulating 400 citations, representing approximately 23% of the total citations in the sample (Table 4).
Most Cited Publications (≥20).
Relevant Authors
K. Niven is the most productive author with six publications, while C. A. Vasquez, C. P. Lin, and H. P. Madrid each have four publications (Figure 4). Akerjordet K, Haver A, and Moin MF each contributed three studies, while Connelly S, Deshpande AT, and Han Y each published two studies. Niven K, Lin CP, Madrid HP, and Vasquez CA show consistent contributions, primarily between 2018 and 2021, with Lin CP maintaining steady output across this period.
Most relevant authors.
Co-Occurrence Network and Trend Topics
The co-occurrence of keywords (Figure 5) reveals several clusters, each representing distinct but interconnected themes within the research landscape. Generated using VOSviewer from extracted keywords, it reveals three distinct clusters, each representing interconnected themes (Table 5).
Co-occurrence network (from KW).
Thematic Clusters and Top Keywords in Leadership and ER Research.
The red cluster, focuses on the emotional and behavioral aspects of employees in the workplace. The central node “consequences” suggests that this cluster is concerned with the outcomes or effects of various workplace experiences and behaviors and its impact on employee well-being and performance. The blue cluster centers on workplace and organizational factors. The central nodes “emotional regulation” and “leadership” indicate their pivotal role in this cluster. The presence of “job satisfaction” and “organizations” highlights their importance in shaping employee experiences, while “china” may indicate a regional focus, possibly reflecting studies conducted in Chinese workplaces.
The green cluster focuses on human and psychological aspects. This cluster emphasizes broader psychological factors, such as stress, burnout, and motivation, and their influence on behavior in various settings, including educational contexts (indicated by “teacher”) and experimental studies (suggested by “human experiment” and “controlled study”). The inclusion of “male,”“female,” and “adult” suggests that some research explores gender and age differences, adding a demographic dimension to the analysis.
These clusters collectively illustrate the multifaceted nature of research on leadership and ER, spanning individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels, with a strong emphasis on the interplay between ER strategies, leadership behaviors, and workplace outcomes.
Figure 6 positions the keyword clusters generated from the co-occurrence analysis thereby highlighting both established areas of focus and potential opportunities for theoretical extension and future investigation. The landscape is anchored by a mature motor theme—“emotion regulation–leadership–emotions”—. In contrast, the “strategies–China–supervisors” cluster functions as a basic, structurally important theme whose internal elaboration remains limited. At the periphery, “higher education–postgraduate students–professional supervision” emerges as the least developed and least central cluster, signaling a line of inquiry that is either nascent or waning and thus warrants longitudinal monitoring. Finally, the upper-left quadrant hosts two niche yet internally cohesive clusters—“teacher–children/child” and “work engagement–self-regulation–job performance”—whose specialized insights have yet to be fully integrated into the broader discourse.
Thematic Map.
Characteristics of Included Studies
Leadership Context and Emotion Regulation Strategies Studied
The literature reveals a broad spectrum of leadership contexts where emotional regulation plays a critical role. Notably, educational leadership is extensively studied, with research examining how principals, early childhood educators, and doctoral supervisors employ cognitive reframing, empathetic communication, and immersive emotional strategies to foster resilience and trust in diverse educational settings. Similarly, studies on leader-member exchange (LMX) dynamics emphasize the importance of deep acting and authentic emotional displays in cultivating high-quality relationships, which are essential for team cohesion and performance. Transformational and servant leadership contexts also receive significant attention, as these models prioritize inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and the well-being of followers—especially in environments characterized by high stress or crisis.
Complementing these findings, other leadership contexts such as crisis, paternalistic, ethical, and abusive supervision are critically examined for their unique emotional regulation challenges and outcomes. Research in crisis leadership, for instance, highlights the role of empathy-based interventions in mitigating the adverse effects of uncertainty and emotional contagion during critical events. In parallel, investigations into cultural influences reveal that leadership practices are deeply intertwined with contextual norms—illustrating how collectivist and individualist cultural orientations shape leaders’ emotional strategies and affect team dynamics. Additional studies address feedback-seeking, dynamic leadership, and the interplay between emotional labor and creativity, thereby underscoring that while educational leadership, LMX, transformational, and servant leadership are among the most extensively studied contexts, a rich tapestry of other environments further elucidates the multifaceted nature of leadership and emotion regulation (Table 6).
Leadership Styles Examined in More Than One Paper.
Regarding the most frequently studied emotion regulation strategies, cognitive reappraisal stands out as the most prominent. Its widespread investigation likely stems from its generally positive connotations and demonstrated links to improved leadership effectiveness and well-being. The literature highlights its importance in enabling leaders to reframe challenging situations, manage negative emotions, and cultivate positive work environments. Expressive suppression also receives considerable attention, though often with a focus on its potential negative consequences, such as emotional exhaustion. This suggests a scholarly interest in the trade-offs associated with this strategy.
Beyond the two dominant ER strategies (reappraisal and expressive suppression), other process-model families are less frequently operationalized in leadership research and receive comparatively limited attention. Nevertheless, available evidence suggests they may be particularly relevant in specific leadership contexts and therefore warrant more targeted investigation.
Less-Studied Emotion Regulation Strategies
Although Gross’s process model distinguishes five strategies (situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change and response modulation), the leadership-focused evidence base remains heavily concentrated on cognitive change (typically operationalized as reappraisal) and response modulation (typically operationalized as expressive suppression). By contrast, earlier-stage strategies—situation selection and attentional deployment—appear far less frequently and are often captured indirectly, rather than through dedicated measures (e.g., via leader practices that shape exposure to emotional demands, or through mindfulness- and attentional-control constructs). Situation modification is occasionally reflected in behaviors that actively alter emotionally demanding interactions (e.g., structuring conversations, problem-focused responses, or conflict management), but operationalizations vary widely across studies (Table 7). Overall, this distribution suggests that conclusions about leaders’ ER strategies are currently strongest for reappraisal and suppression, whereas evidence for other strategy families remains comparatively underdeveloped and warrants targeted research.
Emotion Regulation Strategies in Leadership Research (Gross’s Process Model).
N* indicates the number of included studies that operationalized the strategy as a measured and/or manipulated variable, based on the extracted evidence from RQ2 (strategy-focused segments) and RQ3 (methods segments). Conceptual mentions without operational details were not counted. A single study may contribute to more than one strategy category. Illustrative studies are exhaustive when N*≤ 11 and selective examples for higher-frequency categories to preserve readability.
Research Methodologies Employed in Studying the Relationship Between Leadership and Emotion Regulation
Scholars have predominantly employed quantitative research methodologies to study the relationship between leadership and emotion regulation. Out of the 103 studies analyzed, 81 utilized a quantitative approach, representing approximately 79.6% of the total sample. These studies often relied on surveys, experiments, and longitudinal designs to collect and analyze data. For instance, many quantitative studies employed cross-sectional surveys to examine the impact of leadership styles on emotion regulation strategies, with some studies incorporating dyadic or multilevel data collection to capture the dynamics between leaders and followers (e.g., Ayoko et al., 2023; Bader et al., 2023). Additionally, experimental designs were used in three studies to manipulate variables such as emotion regulation strategies and measure their effects on leadership outcomes (e.g., Balzarotti et al., 2020; Burk & Wiese, 2021). Qualitative methodologies were employed in 14 studies, accounting for approximately 13.6% of the total sample. These studies often utilized semi-structured interviews, case studies, and thematic analysis to explore the nuanced emotional experiences of leaders and their regulation strategies in various contexts. For example, Arar and Oplatka (2018) conducted semi-structured interviews with assistant principals to understand emotion display and suppression in educational settings, while Han and Xu (2021) explored the emotional dimensions of doctoral supervision through qualitative interviews. Mixed-method approaches were less common, appearing in only five studies (Table 8).
Number of Studies Published by Methodology.
Measurement instruments within this field are well-established and systematically categorized into three primary foci: leadership assessment, emotion regulation, and psychological outcomes. For leadership assessment, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) by Bass and Avolio (1995) stands as the preeminent tool, widely adopted for its ability to measure transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Beyond the MLQ, specialized scales address nuanced leadership constructs: the Ethical Leadership Scale (Brown et al., 2005), Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008), and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX-7) scale (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) assess ethical conduct, authenticity, and dyadic relationship quality, respectively. Context-specific measures, such as those for authoritarian leadership in East Asian settings (Cheng et al., 2000) or servant leadership (Sendjaya et al., 2017), further illustrate the adaptability of instrumentation to diverse cultural and organizational contexts.
In assessing emotion regulation, the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) by Gross and John (2003) emerges as the most frequently employed instrument, focusing on cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Its widespread adoption across survey and diary studies is attributable to its brevity, robust psychometric properties, and relevance to workplace dynamics. Additionally, interpersonal emotion regulation is increasingly explored through scales such as Niven et al.’s Interpersonal Emotion Management Scale, reflecting a growing interest in leaders’ influence on followers’ emotions.
Psychological outcomes are measured through a suite of validated scales targeting job attitudes, engagement, burnout, affect, and organizational behaviors. Job satisfaction (e.g., Brayfield & Rothe scale), work engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale), and burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory) provide insights into employee well-being under varying leadership and emotional conditions. Affective outcomes, assessed via the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), illuminate the emotional consequences of leadership practices, while performance metrics and organizational citizenship behavior scales connect emotion regulation to tangible organizational impacts. These outcome measures collectively enable researchers to establish empirical links between leadership-driven emotion regulation and individual or collective effects.
Methodological trends have evolved over time, transitioning from early reliance on cross-sectional surveys to more dynamic and causal designs. Experimental studies, such as those by Schaefer and Palanski (2014) and Schmodde and Wehner (2023), have introduced controlled manipulations to isolate cause-effect relationships, while longitudinal and experience-sampling methods—exemplified by Kuonath et al.’s (2017) diary study—capture temporal fluctuations in leadership and emotion regulation. Qualitative research maintains a steady presence, particularly in educational contexts (e.g., Arar & Oplatka, 2018), where interviews and case studies reveal culturally specific regulatory strategies. Context also shapes methodology: corporate and military settings favor surveys and experiments, often incorporating multi-source data to mitigate bias, whereas educational leadership studies lean toward observational and qualitative approaches.
Theoretical Frameworks That Studied the Interplay Between Leadership and Emotion Regulation
The Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) emerged as a dominant framework, frequently applied in studies such as Arnold et al. (2015), Chi and Liang (2013), and Goussinsky and Livne (2016) to examine how leadership styles like abusive supervision or transformational leadership deplete or replenish emotional resources, leading to outcomes like burnout and emotional exhaustion. Affective Events Theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) also features prominently, as seen in Adams and Webster (2013) and Bader et al. (2023), highlighting how leadership-triggered workplace events influence followers’ emotional states, mediated by mechanisms such as surface/deep acting and emotional exhaustion, ultimately affecting outcomes like work engagement and distress. Gross’s Process Model of Emotion Regulation (Gross, 1998), utilized in studies like Haver et al. (2014) and J. Wang et al. (2017), further elucidates the specific strategies (e.g., cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression) leaders employ, linking these to outcomes such as resilience, well-being, and employee creativity.
This review also reveals a diversity of theoretical perspectives that enrich the understanding of this interplay, as depicted in Figure 7 through additional antecedents, moderators, mediators, and outcomes. Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and Emotional Intelligence Theory (Goleman, 1995) underpin studies like Chiu et al. (2023) and Choudhary et al. (2017), emphasizing the relational and competency-based aspects of leadership that enhance outcomes like team performance and job satisfaction through emotional regulation. The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model (Van Kleef, 2009), applied in Schmodde and Wehner (2023), highlights how leaders’ emotional displays shape follower perceptions, influencing job engagement and team innovation. Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), as noted in Chu (2014) and Decuypere et al. (2018), underscores how mindfulness interventions and spiritual leadership fulfill followers’ intrinsic needs, enhancing emotion regulation and outcomes like psychological need satisfaction and emotional bonds, as shown in Figure 7. Moderators such as cognitive reappraisal, LMX quality, and cultural context, further contextualize these dynamics, amplifying the effects of leadership on emotion regulation. Collectively, the integration of frameworks like AET, COR, SDT, EI, LMX, and cultural dimensions theory, as visualized in Figure 7, underscores the complexity of this relationship, suggesting that no single theory fully encapsulates its nuances. Future research could integrate these perspectives to develop a more comprehensive model of leadership and emotion regulation, enhancing both theoretical and practical insights (see Figure 7 for a visualization of the network of theoretical frameworks).
Relationships between antecedents, mediators, outcomes, and moderators.
Outcomes and Conclusions That Emerged Regarding the Connection Between Emotion Regulation and Leadership
Emerging research on the intersection of emotion regulation (ER) and leadership reveals several promising avenues for future exploration. A prominent theme is the temporal dynamics of ER, with calls for longitudinal and experimental designs to establish causality between affective events, ER strategies, and leadership outcomes (Khan et al., 2022; Kunst et al., 2023; Troth et al., 2023; C. Vasquez et al., 2020; C. A. Vasquez et al., 2021). Researchers suggest employing advanced statistical techniques like cross-lagged analysis and event-contingent experience sampling to capture the accumulation of emotional experiences and their impact on situational ER (Troth et al., 2023). This includes examining how followers perceive a leader’s use of interpersonal emotion regulation relative to their peers (C. Vasquez et al., 2020; C. A. Vasquez et al., 2021).
Another key area is the role of context, including organizational culture, climate, power dynamics, and industry-specific factors (Hung et al., 2022; K. G. Kafetsios & Gruda, 2018; H. Lee et al., 2021; Wan et al., 2022). Cross-cultural studies are needed to understand how cultural norms and values shape ER strategies and their effectiveness in different leadership settings (Berkovich & Eyal, 2018; Molina & O’Shea, 2020; Richard et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2020). Gender dynamics in ER, particularly in leadership roles, also require further attention (Jiang et al., 2025). Researchers are also encouraged to expand beyond the hospitality industry and explore ER in diverse sectors (Hung et al., 2022).
The complexity of emotional labor and its impact on leaders and followers is another emerging area. The concept of emotional labor needs further exploration in managerial roles, moving beyond its traditional focus on customer-facing positions (Burk & Wiese, 2021).
Leadership styles and their interaction with ER are also gaining prominence. Studies suggest examining also how different leadership styles, such as ethical leadership, transformational leadership, and authentic leadership, interact with ER to influence employee outcomes (Demirtas et al., 2017; Huang, 2022; Wan et al., 2022; Z. Wang & Xie, 2020). This includes exploring how leaders’ ER strategies influence workplace behaviors like knowledge sharing and conflict resolution (Sun et al., 2020).
Methodological rigor is a recurring theme, with many studies advocating for longitudinal, experimental, multi-source, and multi-level research designs to establish causal relationships and overcome limitations of cross-sectional data (M. F. Moin, 2018; Schmodde & Wehner, 2023; C. Vasquez et al., 2020; C. A. Vasquez et al., 2021; J. Wang et al., 2017; Warren et al., 2022; Y. Zhang et al., 2025). Researchers are encouraged to explore ER in diverse organizational contexts, including non-Western cultures and female-dominated industries (Warren et al., 2022).
Finally, several novel areas are emerging, including the role of physiological markers in ER and leadership (Adams & Webster, 2013), the impact of sleep deprivation on leadership effectiveness (Guarana & Barnes, 2017), the role of social support in leadership dynamics (McGovern, 2021), the impact of workplace ostracism on ER (Gu et al., 2024), and the intersection of personality traits and ER (Chiu et al., 2023; Holman & Niven, 2019). The application of ER strategies in high-stress professions like nursing and social work (McGovern, 2021), the exploration of ER in top management teams (Huy & Zott, 2019), and the examination of interpersonal ER and its impact on team innovation (H. Madrid et al., 2018; H. P. Madrid et al., 2019) also represent promising avenues for future research. Furthermore, integrating diverse theoretical lenses, such as social identity theory and attachment theory, into ER and leadership research is encouraged (Lin et al., 2022; L. F. Wang et al., 2022). The exploration of leader-facilitated emotion regulation in multinational and virtual teams, including the impact of language barriers and cultural differences (Siren et al., 2020; Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015), and the effects of emotional contagion in virtual and hybrid work settings (Schaefer & Palanski, 2014) are also identified as important areas for future inquiry.
Discussion
Theoretical Contributions
This systematic literature review (SLR) synthesizes recent research on the interplay between leadership and emotion regulation (ER) and clarifies implications at individual, team, organizational, and cultural levels.
The findings both align with and diverge from the only two, to our knowledge, prior reviews. Consistent with Haver et al. (2013), this SLR confirms ER’s critical role in leadership effectiveness, but it departs from their EI-focused approach by emphasizing Gross’s (1998) process model, offering a more specific lens on regulatory strategies (Gross, 1998). Unlike Gómez-Leal et al.’s (2022) focus on emotional intelligence in school leadership, this review prioritizes ER across diverse contexts. The emphasis on negative outcomes of suppression contrasts with some earlier studies that viewed it as a neutral strategy (e.g., Grandey, 2000), possibly reflecting a shift toward recognizing its long-term costs in modern organizational settings (Arnold et al., 2015). These discrepancies may stem from evolving research priorities, increased methodological rigor, or the inclusion of diverse cultural contexts in recent studies (Richard et al., 2023).
Despite the breadth of the literature, several gaps persist. The heavy focus on cognitive reappraisal and suppression leaves other strategies underexplored, limiting a comprehensive understanding of leaders’ regulatory toolkit (Huang, 2022; Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015). The concentration on specific contexts—education, hospitality, and military—neglects other sectors (Chiu et al., 2023). Moreover, the scarcity of longitudinal studies hinders insights into the temporal dynamics of ER and leadership outcomes (Bader et al., 2023). Finally, the limited exploration of digital or virtual leadership contexts overlooks how ER operates in remote work environments (Thomas et al., 2018). Addressing these gaps could refine theoretical models and enhance practical relevance.
The prominence of Gross’s (1998) process model as a framework underscores its utility in dissecting the specific strategies—such as cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression—that leaders employ to manage emotions (Haver et al., 2014; Torrence & Connelly, 2019). By focusing on ER rather than the broader, contested construct of emotional intelligence (EI), this review provides a granular perspective on how discrete regulatory processes influence leadership effectiveness, aligning with calls for more precise theoretical delineations (Jordan & Lindebaum, 2015). The findings also extend the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) by demonstrating how adaptive ER strategies, such as reappraisal, serve as resource gains that mitigate burnout and enhance leader resilience, while maladaptive strategies like suppression deplete emotional resources (Arnold et al., 2015; Goussinsky & Livne, 2016).
Moreover, the integration of multiple theoretical frameworks—Affective Events Theory (AET), Social Exchange Theory, and the Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model—reveals the dynamic interplay between leadership behaviors, emotional experiences, and follower outcomes (Bader et al., 2023; Schmodde & Wehner, 2023; C. Vasquez et al., 2020). For instance, AET highlights how leadership-triggered events shape followers’ emotional states, mediated by ER strategies, while the EASI model elucidates how leaders’ emotional displays influence team processes and performance (Homan & van Kleef, 2022). This multi-theoretical approach underscores the complexity of ER in leadership contexts and suggests that no single framework fully captures its nuances, supporting calls for integrative models (Lin et al., 2022). Additionally, the review identifies contextual moderators—such as cultural norms and power distance—that enrich theoretical perspectives like Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, highlighting the need to account for situational and cultural variability (Erks et al., 2017; Richard et al., 2023).
The emphasis on transformational, ethical, and servant leadership styles as antecedents of effective ER further refines leadership theory by linking specific behavioral patterns to emotional outcomes (Bader et al., 2023; H. Lee et al., 2021; Y. Zhang et al., 2025). For example, transformational leadership’s focus on inspiration and individualized consideration aligns with adaptive ER strategies, enhancing follower engagement and team creativity (X. Liu et al., 2021; Tsai et al., 2017). This suggests that leadership styles are not merely static traits but dynamic processes shaped by emotional regulation, offering a novel lens for future theoretical development.
Practical Implications
The findings of this SLR offer actionable insights for leadership development and organizational practice. First, the positive association between cognitive reappraisal and leadership effectiveness suggests that training programs should prioritize this strategy (Ayoko et al., 2023; Torrence & Connelly, 2019). Interventions such as mindfulness training and cognitive-behavioral techniques could equip leaders with the skills to reframe challenging situations, fostering resilience and adaptability in high-stress environments (Edelman & van Knippenberg, 2017; Molina & O’Shea, 2020). Conversely, the detrimental effects of expressive suppression and surface acting on leader authenticity and follower trust underscore the need to discourage these strategies in favor of genuine emotional expression and deep acting (M. Moin et al., 2021; Z. Wang & Xie, 2020).
Second, the review highlights the critical role of interpersonal ER in shaping team dynamics and organizational outcomes. Leaders who effectively regulate followers’ emotions—through strategies like extrinsic reappraisal—can enhance job satisfaction, team cohesion, and innovation (Kunst et al., 2023; H. P. Madrid et al., 2019; C. Vasquez et al., 2020). Organizations should therefore integrate ER competencies into leadership assessment and development frameworks, emphasizing skills such as empathy, emotional support, and conflict resolution. This is particularly relevant in contexts like education and healthcare, where emotional demands are high, and supportive leadership can mitigate stress and burnout among followers (Berkovich & Eyal, 2018; Y. Zhang et al., 2025).
Third, the cultural and contextual variability identified in this review suggests that ER training should be tailored to specific organizational and societal contexts. For instance, in collectivist cultures with high power distance, leaders may need to balance authoritative and benevolent behaviors to maintain guanxi harmony while regulating emotions effectively (Wu et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2023). Similarly, in crisis situations, leaders should prioritize empathy-based interventions to manage emotional contagion and sustain team morale (Nesse & Stensaker, 2022; Schmodde & Wehner, 2023). Organizations operating in diverse or multinational settings should adopt culturally sensitive approaches to ER training, ensuring alignment with local norms and values (Richard et al., 2023).
Finally, the findings advocate for fostering organizational climates that support adaptive ER. Policies that promote psychological safety, provide resources for stress management, and encourage feedback-seeking can enhance leaders’ and followers’ emotional regulation capacities (Qian et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2018). By embedding ER into the organizational culture, firms can cultivate healthier work environments, improve employee well-being, and drive sustainable performance outcomes.
The reviewed evidence links leaders’ emotion regulation to important outcomes. However, implications may vary across contexts and should be interpreted cautiously in underrepresented settings.
Limitations
However, this SLR is subject to specific limitations inherent to its design and scope. First, the restriction to articles published in English or French within peer-reviewed journals ranked in the first or second quartile (Q1 or Q2) per the Scimago Journal Rank may have excluded relevant research in other languages or from lower-ranked journals and gray literature, potentially limiting the diversity of perspectives captured (Tranfield et al., 2003). Second, the reliance on four primary databases (PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO) may have missed studies not indexed in these sources, particularly those from interdisciplinary or emerging fields. Third, the search strategy, which required specific keywords in titles, abstracts, or keywords, might have overlooked pertinent studies that address ER and leadership implicitly or use alternative terminology, narrowing the review’s breadth. These constraints reflect deliberate trade-offs to ensure methodological rigor but suggest areas for refinement in future reviews. Fourth, contextual generalizability may be limited, because the included studies are not evenly distributed across geographic regions and work contexts. Conclusions regarding the strength and direction of ER–leadership outcome relationships may not fully generalize to cultural and institutional environments that differ from those most represented in the evidence base. Fifth, design characteristics constrain causal inference. The evidence base is dominated by cross-sectional, self-report designs, with comparatively fewer longitudinal or experimental studies. Accordingly, this review primarily supports conclusions about associations rather than causality.
To address these limitations, future research should employ multi-wave longitudinal designs and within-person diary/experience-sampling (ESM) approaches to examine the temporal dynamics and cumulative effects of emotion regulation in leadership and adopt multi-source research designs incorporating ratings from leaders, followers, and peers to reduce common method bias.
Conclusions
This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to synthesize a decade of research (2013–2023) on the interplay between leadership and emotion regulation (ER). The findings confirm ER as a critical component of leadership effectiveness, influencing leaders’ well-being, follower engagement, team dynamics, and organizational outcomes across varied settings. By centering Gross’s (1998) process model—distinct from the broader emotional intelligence construct—this review elucidates how specific strategies, notably cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression, shape leadership behaviors and their cascading effects.
This study advances the field by providing a comprehensive synthesis of the leadership-ER nexus, highlighting the prominence of transformational, ethical, and servant leadership styles as facilitators of adaptive ER, and identifying cultural and contextual factors as pivotal moderators (Bader et al., 2023; Richard et al., 2023). For researchers, it documents a marked increase in scholarly attention since 2018 and establishes cognitive reappraisal as a linchpin strategy linked to enhanced resilience and performance (Ayoko et al., 2023; Torrence & Connelly, 2019). Practitioners can draw on these insights to design leadership development initiatives that emphasize adaptive ER skills, fostering healthier and more effective organizational environments. Conducted under PRISMA standards, this review ensures transparency and replicability, serving as a robust resource for future inquiry.
Looking ahead, to address the design-related limitations identified above, this review illuminates several promising research trajectories. The scarcity of longitudinal analyses within the field calls for temporal studies using multi-wave longitudinal and multi-source designs, including within-person approaches such as experience sampling, to explore the dynamic evolution of ER in leadership contexts (Troth et al., 2023). The underexplored role of ER in digital and virtual leadership settings, increasingly relevant in hybrid work environments, merits greater attention (Thomas et al., 2018). Expanding beyond the dominant focus on cognitive reappraisal and suppression to encompass strategies like situation selection and interpersonal ER could enrich the understanding of leaders’ regulatory capabilities (Huang, 2022; C. Vasquez et al., 2020). Furthermore, integrating additional theoretical perspectives—such as social identity or attachment theory—with established frameworks like Conservation of Resources and Affective Events Theory may yield a more nuanced model of the ER-leadership relationship (Lin et al., 2022). Investigating physiological markers or the emotional toll of ER on leaders themselves could also deepen insights into its personal and organizational ramifications (Adams & Webster, 2013; Schmodde & Wehner, 2023).
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Research Laboratory in Management (LAREM) at the Higher Institute of Commerce and Business Administration (ISCAE).
Ethical Considerations
Not applicable, as this type of study does not require ethical approval.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable, as this type of study does not require informed consent.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data described in this article were available for download from the journal website or a data repository.