I will provide the winning bidder with (5) peer-reviewed journals to read. After reading the journals then write a 250 word, 4-5 sentence, summary for each of the journals. 

* I will provide the sources (after winning bid)

** I will provide the word document template

*** I expect well written, college-level of work. 

BAD WORK WILL BE DISPUTED AND I WILL INSTANTLY ASK ADMIN FOR A FULL REFUND.

Annotated Reference Page

Brooks, J. K. (2003). Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level (Order No. 3073312). Available from Retrieved from:

https://nuls.idm.oclc.org/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2F

www.proquest.com%2Fdissertations-theses%2Femotional-competencies-leaders-comparison%2Fdocview%2F305313268%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D25320

(Insert 200 word Summery Here)

Khalili, A. (2012). The role of emotional intelligence in the workplace: A literature review. International Journal of Management, 29(3), 355-370. Retrieved from https://nuls.idm.oclc.org/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2F www.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Frole-emotional-intelligence-workplace-literature%2Fdocview%2F1040715974%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D25320

(Insert 200 word Summery Here)

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and work attitudes. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 90(2), 177–202.

https://doi-org.nuls.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/joop.12167

(Insert 200 word Summery Here)

Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE WORKPLACE: EXPLORING ITS EFFECTS ON OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 327-342. Retrieved from

https://nuls.idm.oclc.org/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Femotional-intelligence-workplace-exploring%2Fdocview%2F198703266%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D25320

(Insert 200 word Summery Here)

Tischler, L., Biberman, J., & McKeage, R. (2002). Linking emotional intelligence, spirituality and workplace performance: Definitions, models and ideas for research. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 203-218. doi:http://dx.doi.org.nuls.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/02683940210423114

(Insert 200 word Summery Here)

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2017), 90,

177

–202

© 2016 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Ameta-analysis of emotional intelligence andwork
attitudes

Chao Miao1*, Ronald H. Humphrey2 and Shanshan Qian3

1Finance, Accounting and Management Department, Jay S. Sidhu School of Business &

Leadership, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, USA
2Department of Leadership and Management, Lancaster University Management

School, Lancaster, UK
3Department ofManagement,College of Business and Economics, TowsonUniversity,
Towson, Maryland, USA

Ourmeta-analysis of emotional intelligence (EI) demonstrates that: First, all three types of

EI are significantly related to job satisfaction (ability EI: q̂ = .08; self-report EI: q̂ = .32; and
mixed EI: q̂ = .39). Second, both self-report EI and mixed EI exhibit modest yet
statistically significant incremental validity (DR2 = .03 for self-report EI andDR2 = .06 for
mixed EI) and large relative importance (31.3% for self-report EI and 42.8% formixed EI) in

the presence of cognitive ability and personality when predicting job satisfaction. Third,

we foundmixed support for themoderator effects (i.e., emotional labour demand of jobs)

for the relationship between EI and job satisfaction. Fourth, the relationships between all

three types of EI and job satisfaction are mediated by state affect and job performance.

Fifth, EI significantly relates to organizational commitment (self-report EI: q̂ = .43; mixed
EI: q̂ = .43) and turnover intentions (self-report EI: q̂ = �.33). Sixth, after controls, both
self-report EI and mixed EI demonstrate incremental validity and relative importance

(46.9% for self-report EI; 44.2% for mixed EI) in predicting organizational commitment.

Seventh, self-report EI demonstrates incremental validity and relative importance (60.9%)

in predicting turnover intentions.

Practitioner points

� Employees with higher emotional intelligence (EI) have higher job satisfaction, higher organizational
commitment, and lower turnover intentions.

� Adding EI measures to the set of personality and cognitive measures currently being used can improve
the ability to assess employee job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and turnover intentions.

� EI improves job satisfaction by helping employees reduce negative feelings, by increasing positive
feelings, and/or by improving job performance.

� To produce productive and satisfied workers, organizations should incorporate EI in employee
recruitment, training, and development programmes.

Emotional intelligence (EI; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) is

defined ‘as the set of abilities (verbal and non-verbal) that enable a person to generate,

recognize, express, understand, and evaluate their own, and others’, emotions in order

*Correspondence should be addressed to Chao Miao, Finance, Accounting and Management Department, Jay S. Sidhu School of
Business & Leadership, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18766, USA (email: chao.miao@wilkes.edu).

DOI:10.1111/joop.12167

177

to guide thinking and action that successfully cope with environmental demands and

pressures’ (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004, p. 72). There is a large volume of evidence

both confirming the predictive validity of EI and indicating that EI predicts outcomes

such as academic performance, emotional labour, job performance, organizational
citizenship behaviour, workplace deviance, leadership, life satisfaction, stress, trust,

team process effectiveness, and work–family conflict (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002; Bar-On,
2000; Gooty, Connelly, Griffith, & Gupta, 2010; Humphrey, 2002, 2013; Jordan,

Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, 2002; Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006; Kluemper,

DeGroot, & Choi, 2013; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011; Winkel,

Wyland, Shaffer, & Clason, 2011). However, the relationships between EI and work

attitudes remain indeterminate and unclear. Differences in effect sizes between primary

studies also suggest a need to meta-analyse the relationships between EI and work
attitudes. It is also important to understand how EI influences work attitudes, and so we

unpack its relationship with job satisfaction by evaluating mediating and moderating

factors in this relationship. Finally, as organizations consider developing the EI of their

employees, it is important to understand how this variance affects worker attitudes.

In this study, we performed a meta-analysis on the relationships between EI and three

important work attitudes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover

intentions. EI may influence work attitudes in a variety of ways. Job satisfaction reflects

appraisal-based reactions towards one’s job, meaning that favourable evaluations of work
characteristics produce job satisfaction and unfavourable appraisals of work character-

istics engender job dissatisfaction (Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2009; Weiss,

2002). EI may have a considerable influence on howpeople appraise their jobs because EI

consists, in part, of the ability to reason effectively about events that produce positive or

negative emotions. Consequently, EI may have a strong influence on how employees

interpret and react to work events.

Job performance is a key work event, and to the extent that employees find that

performing well at work helps them meet their personal goals, then high jo

b

performance should increase job satisfaction (Locke, 1969) and other work attitudes.

Thus, it is not only the level of the performance, but the employees’ perceptual

processes and personal goals that determine whether job performance increases job

satisfaction (Munyon, Hochwarter, Perrew�e, & Ferris, 2010). EI may be a characteristic
that predisposes employees to see job performance in a light that enhances job

satisfaction. Although many models of attitudes and behaviours assume that attitudes

cause behaviours, self-perception theory (Bem, 1967) suggests that people also observe

their behaviours in order to infer their own attitudes. There is considerable evidence that
job performance can influence attitudes (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Locke

& Latham, 2002). Prior meta-analyses have established that EI is positively related to job

performance (O’Boyle et al., 2011). Thus, EI should have an indirect path through job

performance to job satisfaction.

These same processes may also occur when employees observe their other work

behaviours (i.e., besides their direct job performance) and the other aspects of their work

environment. In other words, EI may help cast a rosy glow over a wide variety of work

events and help employees interpret them in a positive light, one that promotes positive
affect and diminishes negative affect. Employees who then observe their positive mood

and a positive workplace will naturally then infer that they have high job satisfaction.

Because positive affect and negative affect are important mediators according to Affective

Events Theory (AET;Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), EI’s effects onwork attitudes should be

at least partially mediated by positive and negative state affect.

178 Chao Miao et al.

Our research has several key purposes. No prior meta-analyses have examined EI

and work attitudes, so the following relationships have not been tested using meta-

analytic techniques for establishing the most accurate estimates of effects sizes,

incremental validity, moderators, and mediator effects. We have addressed this by
first using meta-analysis to more accurately determine the overall size of the

relationships between EI and work attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and turnover intentions). Second, we use meta-analyses to control

for personality and cognitive intelligence and to test for EI’s incremental

predictability and relative importance when predicting work attitudes. Third, we

test for an important moderator of the EI–job satisfaction relationship. Fourth, we
examine whether the EI–job satisfaction relationship is mediated by state affect and
by job performance.

Theory and hypotheses

Employee EI and work attitudes

The classification of EI. The construct of EI has received substantial attention from

researchers in the fields of psychology andmanagement (Joseph&Newman, 2010;Kellett
et al., 2006; Kluemper et al., 2013;Mayer et al., 2008). EI is argued to be apredictor of job

performance (Goleman, 1995) and effective leadership (Walter & Bruch, 2009; Walter,

Cole, & Humphrey, 2011). To make sense of this considerable research, Ashkanasy and

Daus (2005, p. 441) categorized EI research into three streams. These have become

known as ability EI (stream 1), self-report EI (stream 2), and mixed EI (stream 3). To show

that EI measures can satisfy the traditional criteria for intelligence measures by having

objective right and wrong answers, Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2003)

developed and refined their measure – MSCEIT V2.0. MSCEIT V2.0 is a representative
ability EI measure. Researchers have found that subscales of the MSCEIT V2.0 have

predictive ability for importantwork-related variables evenwhen controlling for cognitive

intelligence and the Big Five personality traits (Kluemper et al., 2013). Abilitymeasures of

EI have also been shown to be related to emotion-focused coping,which in turn facilitates

performance (Gooty, Gavin, Ashkanasy, & Thomas, 2014). Other researchers believe that

self-reports are an excellent way to assess EI because intrapersonal processes, such as an

awareness of one’s emotions, are most easily measured by self-assessments of internal

states (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). These researchers often conceptualize EI as a trait
rather than as an ability (Petrides, 2009a, 2009b; Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Represen-

tativemeasures in the stream2 self-reports category include theAssessing Emotions Scales

(Schutte et al., 1998), theWorkgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (Jordan et al., 2002),

and the Wong & Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wong & Law, 2002). Representative

mixed EI measures include the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 2000) and

the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (Boyatzis, Brizz, & Godwin, 2011). Like

the stream 2 self-reports, mixed EI measures use self-report measures; however, they

include a broader set of variables and competencies as well as traits.
It is noted that these three streams of EI are related yet still distinct from each

other in a number of ways. O’Boyle and his colleagues demonstrated that ‘Because

stream 3 measures overlap both in their measurement method and in the content of

their questions, while stream 2 measures only overlap with regard to the use of self-

reports, stream 3 measures should show higher relationships with personality factors

than stream 2 measures. . …stream 3 measures, unlike stream 2, include measures of

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 179

personality factors not directly related to EI, so it is likely that these measures will

overlap more with similar personality measures’ (2011, p. 793). It is worthwhile to

point out that some overlap between EI and other constructs is reasonable and is

indicative of construct validity because EI should be related to personality variables
such as emotional stability (O’Boyle et al., 2011). Their meta-analytic results

confirmed this prediction and showed that corrected correlations between personality

and both stream 1 ability EI and stream 2 self-report EI range from weak to moderate,

whereas the corrected correlations between personality and stream 3 mixed EI range

from moderate to strong.

Meta-analytic findings of EI. There are multiple meta-analytic reviews that investigated
the relationship between EI and job performance. Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004)

performed a meta-analysis and reported a .23 operational validity of EI in predicting

performance; they concluded that EI is indeed a valuable predictor of performance. They

also found that overall EI has small to moderate corrected correlations with personality

traits and a small corrected correlationwith cognitive ability. Joseph and Newman (2010)

meta-analytically integrated the research on EI and job performance, and proposed

a

cascading model of EI with emotional labour as a moderator. O’Boyle et al. (2011)

performed ameta-analysis of EI and contributed to the cumulative scientific knowledge by
improving the two aforementioned meta-analyses. For instance, O’Boyle and his

colleagues included more studies and examined how each type of EI measure correlated

with Big Five personality measures and cognitive ability. They employed dominance

analysis to assess the relative importance of each EI stream in predicting job performance.

They found that all three streamsof EI correlatedwith jobperformance and that self-report

EI andmixed EI exhibited incremental validities over and above cognitive intelligence and

the five factor model (FFM) of personality in predicting job performance. Dominance

analyses also demonstrated that all three streams of EI showed meaningful relative
importance for the prediction of job performance in the presence of the FFM and

cognitive intelligence.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is one of the most influential, important, and popular

constructs in the area of organizational psychology because it is a predictor of many

critical behavioural, attitudinal, and health-related outcomes, such as organizational

citizenship behaviour, counterproductive work behaviour, task performance, organiza-
tional commitment, turnover intention, turnover, withdrawal cognitions and behaviours,

and physical and psychological health outcomes (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012;

Schleicher, Hansen, & Fox, 2011). There exist multiple definitions of job satisfaction.

Weiss (2002) pointed out that the attitudinal approach to defining job satisfaction is the

most accepted one in the literature. This approach conceptualizes job satisfaction as

having both affective (emotional) and cognitive (belief) bases (Fisher, 2000; Weiss, 2002;

Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999). The affective base of job satisfaction refers to one’s

feelings about an attitude object, whereas the cognitive base of job satisfaction refers to
one’s beliefs about an attitude object (Schleicher et al., 2011). This conceptualization of

job satisfaction dovetails with goal setting theory, which suggests that job satisfaction, at

its core, reflects goal achievement at work because both affective and cognitive bases of

job satisfaction are influenced by one’s progress towards goal achievement (Diener, Suh,

Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Locke, 1969, 1976; Locke, Cartledge, &Knerr, 1970). Goals serve as

180 Chao Miao et al.

the reference criteria for satisfaction versus dissatisfaction, meaning that for any given

trial, the achievement of goals produces satisfaction and failure to reach goals creates

dissatisfaction (Locke & Latham, 2002). Across trials, the more goals one reaches, the

higher one’s satisfaction is.

EI – job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. Emo-
tional intelligence should positively relate to job satisfaction and organizational commit-

ment, and be negatively related to turnover intentions. Emotionally intelligent individuals

are able to regulate their emotions,meaning they are less likely to leave an organization due

to emotional shocks and so may have reduced turnover intentions and greater

organizational embeddedness (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001; Mitchell
& Lee, 2001). Similarly, we would expect EI to positively predict organizational

commitment, as employees view work as instrumental in achieving their work-related

goals. As previously mentioned, job satisfaction consists of job appraisals, such that

satisfactory assessments of work characteristics produce job satisfaction and negative

judgements of work characteristics create job dissatisfaction (Breaux et al., 2009; Weiss,

2002). EI encompasses the ability to reason productively about positive and negative

workplace events and thus shouldhave a strong influenceonhowemployees interpret and

respond towork events.Whenhigh job performance helps employeesmeet their personal
goals, it should increase job satisfaction (Locke, 1969; Locke & Latham, 2002) and

organizational commitment and thereby reduce turnover intentions. Because EI improves

job performance (O’Boyle et al., 2011), it should indirectly influence job satisfaction.

Emotionally savvy individuals are inclined to interpret their jobs as more satisfying and

rewarding rather than threatening and hostile (Fox & Spector, 2000; Kong & Zhao, 2013;

Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003; Walter & Bruch, 2009). This is

because emotionally intelligent individuals are more resilient, are more likely to bounce

back from negative feelings, and are more adept at evaluating and regulating their own
emotions (Sy, Tram, & O’Hara, 2006). Emotionally intelligent individuals have a greater

understanding of the causes of stress. Consequently, they know how to craft effective

plans to deal with negative outcomes in order to maintain positive feelings and high job

satisfaction. This may be one reason why people high on EI have better physical and

mental health, according to twometa-analyses (Martins, Ramalho,&Morin, 2010; Schutte,

Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007). In addition, people with high EI can

accurately read others’ emotions, and reading others’ emotions helps people understand

how to respond to others and how to act in appropriate ways in a variety of social
situations (Byron, 2007). As a result, employees with high EI should have positive social

relationshipswith others in theworkplace, and this should result in higher

job satisfaction

and organizational commitment (Goleman, 1995; Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008).

Empirical findings support links between EI and overall job satisfaction (Kafetsios &

Zampetakis, 2008; Sy et al., 2006;Wong& Law, 2002) and between EI and organizational

commitment and turnover intentions (Jordan & Troth, 2011).

Hypothesis 1: EI should positively relate to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and EI

should negatively relate to turnover intentions.

Incremental validity and relative importance of EI. Emotional intelligence denotes
variation in the extent to which people can resolve a set of problems involving emotions,

thus differentiating EI from other intelligence factors that primarily centre on cognitive

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 181

processes (Côt�e, 2014; Côt�e & Miners, 2006; Mayer et al., 2008). EI refers to a general
intelligence in the realm of emotions, whereas cognitive intelligence refers to a general

intelligence in the realmof cognition (Côt�e, 2014; Côt�e&Miners, 2006). As such, EI differs
from cognitive intelligence due to its unique representation of intelligence in the domain
of emotion. EI differs from personality as well, because personality does not reflect one’s

ability/intelligence, whereas EI does (Joseph & Newman, 2010). Due to these reasons, EI

has unique content and has often displayed incremental validity in predicting outcomes

over othermeasures of intelligence, socio-emotional traits, and personality factors, which

has already been supported by meta-analytic findings (Côt�e, 2014; Mayer et al., 2008).
Meta-analytic findings have demonstrated that the overlap between all three types of EI

and cognitive ability is weak tomoderate and the overlap between all three types of EI and

FFM is weak to moderate in general (O’Boyle et al., 2011). It is worthwhile to point out
that someoverlap is reasonable and is indicative of construct validity, because EI should be

related to personality variables such as emotional stability (O’Boyle et al., 2011). EI should

also relate to cognitive ability because it is a form of intelligence (Côt�e, 2014).
Taken altogether, despite the overlap between EI and cognitive ability and personality,

there is still much unique variance in EI that cannot be explained by personality and

cognitive ability, and this unique variance may predict job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and turnover intentions above and beyond personality and cognitive ability

(Côt�e, 2014; O’Boyle et al., 2011; Sy et al., 2006). We accordingly offer the following
hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: EI should contribute incremental validity and relative importance in the presence of

the FFM and cognitive ability when predicting job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and turnover intentions.

Differential validity of EI. Personality is a good predictor of job satisfaction because

personality traits reflect one’s affective disposition and influence one’s interpretation of

job characteristics and one’s mood at work (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). On the other

hand, cognitive ability is a weak predictor of job satisfaction because cognitive ability is a

cognitive trait, whereas job satisfaction is primarily determined by affective dispositions,

such as personality traits like extraversion and neuroticism (Ganzach, 1998; Staw, Bell, &

Clausen, 1986). To support these arguments, meta-analytic findings have demonstrated

that personality is a good predictor of job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002), whereas
cognitive ability is a weak predictor of job satisfaction (Gonzalez-Mul�e, Carter, & Mount,
2014).

Mixed EI has the highest correlation with personality, self-report EI the next highest,

and ability EI the lowest correlation with personality (O’Boyle et al., 2011). In addition,

ability EI has the highest correlation with cognitive ability, while self-report EI and mixed

EI have small correlations with cognitive ability. Overall, this suggests that

ability EI

measures may be similar to cognitive intelligence measures in their impact on job

satisfaction and thus have fairly small correlations with job satisfaction. In a similar vein,
mixed EI measures have the highest associations with personality measures and thus

should have the largest correlation with job satisfaction. We thus propose the following

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Mixed EIwill show the strongest relationshipwith job satisfaction, self-report EI the

next strongest, and ability EI the weakest relationship with job satisfaction.

182 Chao Miao et al.

The mediating role of affect

Emotional intelligence may be a characteristic that inclines employees to view a wide

variety of organizational events in amanner that augments positive affect. Consistentwith

self-perception theory (Bem, 1967), employeesmay observe their positivemoods at work
and infer that they have high job satisfaction. This is consistent with AET Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996),which also provides explanations for the positive link between EI and

job satisfaction through state affect. State affect refers to ‘what one is feeling at any given

moment in time’ (Thoresen et al., 2003, p. 915). State positive affect (SPA) refers to

pleasant emotions such as feeling active, alert, and energetic at any givenmoment in time,

whereas state negative affect (SNA) refers to the momentary experience of anger, fear,

nervousness, and other negative emotions at any given moment in time (Watson, 2000;

Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Meta-analytic findings have indicated that SPA is
positively related to job satisfaction and personal accomplishment and negatively related

to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, whereas SNA is negatively related to job

satisfaction and personal accomplishment and positively related to emotional exhaustion

and depersonalization (Thoresen et al., 2003).

Affective Events Theory suggests that each individual should have an average affective

mood level and that somepeople tend tobeon thepositive half,whereas others tend to be on

the negative half. Further, responding to discrete ‘affective events’ in the workplace will

influence affective responses, thus leading to affective, attitudinal, andbehavioural outcomes;
as such, this average mood level can be either diminished or raised by negative or positive

events at work. Hence, affective reactions generated byworkplace events (i.e., SPA and SNA)

create ebb and flow in job satisfaction (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011; Humphrey, 2013;

Johnson, 2009; Walter & Bruch, 2009; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Weiss et al., 1999).

Building onAET,we argue that there are twoprominent categories of reasonswhy EI is

associated with job satisfaction – enhancement of SPA and reduction in SNA. Job
satisfaction has an affective (i.e., feeling) component (Weiss, 2002; Weiss et al., 1999).

We propose that EI may contribute to the affective base of job satisfaction by increasing
SPA and decreasing SNA. Emotionally intelligent individuals are able to identify and

interpret cues that activate self-regulatory action in order to cultivate SPA and circumvent

SNA (Karim, 2009; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). High EI individuals are better at handling

affective processes because they can accurately perceive and monitor their own feelings

and precisely process emotional information in order to effectively respond to their

feelings. This allows them to develop appropriate strategies to regulate SNA andmaintain

SPA (Dong, Seo, & Bartol, 2013). They are sensitive and reactive to positive emotion-

invoking experiences at work, thus making them feel more positive (more SPA) and less
negative (less SNA) at work (De Clercq, Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Matsyborska, 2014). As

SPA is positively related to job satisfaction, whereas SNA is negatively related to job

satisfaction (Thoresen et al., 2003), high EI persons can increase their job satisfaction by

regulating their emotions to experience more intense SPA and less SNA.

A considerable number of studies have examined EI and job satisfaction, and the ample

number of studies has allowed us to test for mediators and moderators. However, fewer

studies have been conducted on the relationships between EI and organizational

commitment and turnover intentions, sowecould not examinemediators andmoderators
for these outcome variables. We advance the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: SPA mediates the relationship between EI and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5: SNA mediates the relationship between EI and job satisfaction.

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 183

Goal setting theory and the mediating role of job performance

Prior meta-analytic evidence has confirmed a positive relationship between EI and job

performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011). EI may increase job

performance because emotionally intelligent individuals are able to regulate their
emotions in order to experience positive emotions. Positive emotions widen employees’

behavioural repertoires, increase their behavioural flexibility, and boost their attentional

scope, thus resulting in increased job performance (Judge & Kammeyer-Muellar, 2008).

In line with goal setting theory, job satisfaction is an outcome of goal-directed

performance, because one’s progress towards goal accomplishment (i.e., goal-directed

performance) influences job satisfaction (Locke, 1969; Locke & Latham, 2002). Across

trials, the better one performs, the more goals one accomplishes and the higher job

satisfaction one has. Judge et al. (2001) pointed out that if effective job performance
supports the accomplishment of major goals in work, individuals should have higher job

satisfaction as a result.

Taken altogether, we propose that job performance should mediate the relationship

between EI and job satisfaction because EI enables one to attain one’s performance goals,

and obtaining goals increases job satisfaction (Locke, 1976). Consistent with self-

perception theory, employees observe their level of performance and perceive a

corresponding level of job satisfaction (Bem, 1967). Emotionally savvy individuals have a

better understanding of themselves, and this increases both their ability to set self-
motivating goals and their chances of achieving performance goals that lead to job

satisfaction (Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Spence, Oades, &

Caputi, 2004;Wong & Law, 2002). For example, emotionally intelligent individuals know

how to recognize their supervisors’ attitudes from emotional cues; moreover, they know

how to regulate their own emotion to act and communicate in ways that foster better

social relationshipswith their supervisors (Wong& Law, 2002),which in turn should lead

to higher performance appraisals and job satisfaction.

Emotionally intelligent individuals also regulate their emotions to deter the draining of
resources that cause burnout, to quickly bounce back from negative feelings, and to

maintain positive feelings so that they can preserve and replenish cognitive and emotional

resources. According to the job demands–resources model, conserving these cognitive
resources should enable employees tomore effectively accomplish theperformance goals

that lead to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;

Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010; Hobfoll, 2001). We suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Job performance mediates the relationship between EI and job satisfaction.

Moderator

Emotional labour. Emotional labour refers to ‘the management of feeling to create a

publicly observable facial and bodily display’ (Hochschild, 1983, p. 7). Jobs that involve

emotional labour include face-to-face or voice-to-voice contact with the public, produce

an emotional state in another person, and allow employers to exercise a degree of control

over the emotional activities of employees (Hochschild, 1983). Thus, emotional labour

requires the act of both displaying the appropriate emotion (i.e., conforming to a display

rule) and regulating both feelings and expressions to forward organizational goals

(Ashforth&Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2000).Meta-analysis has related emotional labour
to employee well-being, job satisfaction, and organizational attachment (Hulsheger &

Schewe, 2011).

184 Chao Miao et al.

It is likely that the association between EI and job satisfaction is conditioned by work

contexts (Côt�e, 2014). One such contextual variable is the emotional labour demand of
jobs. Prior findings indicate that EI should predict criteria more strongly in jobs that

involve high emotional labour, because these jobs require employees to regulate their
emotional expressions, and thus involve a high level of emotional regulation (Humphrey,

Ashforth, &Diefendorff, 2015; Johnson & Spector, 2007; Joseph&Newman, 2010;Wong

& Law, 2002). Ameta-analysis found that people high on EI aremore likely to use themost

effective form of emotional labour (Wang, Seibert, & Boles, 2011). The choice of

emotional labour demand as a contextual variable is consistent with trait activation

theory, which suggests that traits should more strongly predict outcomes when a context

has trait-relevant cues that activate the expression of traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett &

Guterman, 2000).
We have predicted that the relationship between EI and job satisfaction will be

strongerwhen a job requires high levels of emotional labour.Whena job requires frequent

customer/interpersonal interaction (i.e., high emotional labour demand), the expression

of EI should be activated because employees need to relymore on their EI to regulate their

emotions in order to prevent emotional and cognitive resources from being drained, and

to effectively maintain and enhance job satisfaction. Where there is infrequent customer/

interpersonal interactions (i.e., low emotional labour demand), the expression of EI may

be suppressed because this job does not demand the use of EI to handle interpersonal
interactions. Thus, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 7: Emotional labour demand moderates the relationship between EI and job

satisfaction such that the relationship becomes stronger when emotional labour

demand is high.

Method

Literature search

We applied several search techniques tomaximize the likelihood of capturing all relevant

studies. We set the range of dates starting from the earliest date of each database, journal,

and conference to year 2014. We used a list of keywords (and several variations in them)

for search, such as emotional intelligence, emotional competency, emotional ability, job
satisfaction, work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover

intention.

First, we searched electronic databases, such as ABI/INFORM, EBSCO Host (e.g.,

Academic Search Complete and Business Source Complete), Google, Google Scholar,

JSTOR, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, PsycNET (e.g., PsycInfo and PsycArticles), and

Social Science Citation Index. Second, major journals in psychology and management

were also searched, such as Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

Organization Science, and Personnel Psychology. Third, we searched major management

conferences, such as the Academy of Management, the SouthernManagement Association,

and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. We contacted scholars who

have published in the EI domain to ask for unpublished manuscripts, correlation matrices,

and rawdata, andwe completed our search inOctober 2014.Weused the English language

to search for relevant studies. Our search returned a few articles written in foreign

languages that had English titles and abstracts. Two authors of this paper are bilingual and

were able to read some of these articles. Our search yielded 1,036 articles.

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 185

Inclusion criteria

A study was deemed eligible for being included in the present meta-analysis if it met the

following criteria. First, primary studies had to be empirical and quantitative. All

qualitative studies were excluded. Second, primary studies had to report the correlation
coefficients for the relationships between EI and job satisfaction, between EI and

organizational commitment, between EI and turnover intentions, and/or between EI and

state affect. When no such information existed in primary studies, sufficient statistics

needed to be provided in such studies to allow the conversion into effect sizes (we

employed Lipsey andWilson’s (2001) as well as Peterson and Brown’s (2005) methods to

perform effect size conversions). Third, primary studies had to use real employee samples

in their research design. Studies based on non-employee samples (e.g., student samples)

were eliminated from our meta-analysis. Fourth, a study had to use scales designed to
measure EI. Studies that used proxy measures of EI (e.g., self-monitoring scales) were not

eligible. When the above criteria were applied to screen the articles, it resulted in 119

studies. A list of tables describing the included studies and a list of references of the studies

included in the present meta-analytic review were uploaded as online supplemental

materials (see Tables S3–S10 in supplemental materials).

Coding procedures
We coded different categories of EI (i.e., ability EI, self-report EI, and mixed EI) based on

Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) and O’Boyle et al. (2011). We coded emotional labour

demands according to the methods developed by Joseph and Newman (2010). The

occupations where there are frequent customer/interpersonal interactions that require

emotion regulation were coded as high emotional labour demand jobs. The occupations

where there are infrequent interpersonal/customer interactions that demand less

emotion regulation were coded as low emotional labour demand jobs. Joseph and

Newman (2010) categorized 191 jobs into high versus low emotional labour demand and
we used their categorization to code the emotional labour demand of the studies that we

found.We adhered to the coding rules developed by Thoresen et al. (2003) to code state-

based affect (i.e., SPA and SNA). The studies where respondents were asked to rate their

experiences of positive affect and negative affect over the previous week (or less) were

coded as state affect. As argued by Thoresen et al. (2003), this one-week rule was in line

with Watson’s (2000) definition of state affect.

Two coders participated in coding and independently coded each sample. The initial

coding agreement was 95%. Coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
Another author of this paper was invited to join the discussion to solve any remaining

coding disagreement when two coders could not reach consensus after discussion. All

codingdisagreementwashandled and resolved, and a100%consensuswasfinally achieved.

Meta-analytic procedures

We performed psychometric meta-analysis by using the procedures developed by Hunter

and Schmidt (2004) to synthesize collected data. Statistical artefacts can have systematic
downward bias effects on effect sizes, and one source of statistical artefacts ismeasurement

error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). We thereby corrected for measurement errors in both

independent and dependent variables for each individual correlation. We noted that some

primary studies did not report the reliability. Thus, we imputed the missing reliability for

both independent and dependent variables by using the mean of reliabilities of the studies

186 Chao Miao et al.

that reported reliability information (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; also see supplements for

more details). We presented corrected sample-size-weighted mean correlation (q̂) as the
estimate of populationmean correlation.Wecalculated corrected 95%confidence intervals

to determine the statistical significance of effect sizes. Effect sizes are considered to be
statistically significant when corrected 95% confidence intervals do not include zero. We

performedmoderator analyses by usingHunter and Schmidt’s (1990) approach (i.e., z-test).

This test allows the examination of the statistical significance of between-group effect size

difference.We computed Varart%, 80% credibility intervals, andQ statistic to determine the

potential existence of moderators. Varart% denotes the percentage of the variance in q̂
explained by statistical artefacts. Hunter and Schmidt (2004) suggested that moderators

may exist if statistical artefacts explain less than 75% of the variance in the meta-analytic

correlations. We also reported corrected 80% credibility intervals to explore the potential
existence of moderators because Whitener (1990) recommended that a wide 80

%

credibility interval indicates the possible existence of moderators. In addition, a statistically

significant Q statistic suggests that heterogeneity exists in effect size distribution (i.e., the

potential existence of moderators).

We createdmeta-analytically derived corrected correlationmatrices (see Tables S11(a)

to S12 in supplementalmaterials) and performed hierarchicalmultiple regression, relative

weight analyses, and meta-analytic structural equation modelling (Johnson, 2000;

Johnson & LeBreton, 2004; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). Along with all effect sizes
derived from the present study, we also used corrected effect sizes from prior meta-

analytic reviews to complete the input correlation matrices for these three analyses. We

computed harmonic mean sample size (Viswesvaran &Ones, 1995) because sample sizes

differed across the cells in the correlationmatrices. Harmonicmean sample size produces

more conservative estimates because lessweight is given to large samples (Colquitt, Scott,

& LePine, 2007).

Results

Main and moderator effects

Because of limited sample sizes for ability EImeasures,wewere not able to examine ability

EI’s relationships with either turnover intentions or organizational commitment.

Likewise, there were not enough studies to allow us to perform meta-analysis on the

mixed EI–turnover intentions relationship. In the following sections, we will provide the
results for EImeasures onlywhen the number of studies and sample sizes are large enough

to justify them. Table 1 contains the results of the relationships between EI and job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions based on psychometric

meta-analysis. The relationship between ability EI and job satisfaction (k = 13,N = 1,927)
was positive and statistically significant (q̂ = .08) because the corrected 95% confidence
interval spanned from .01 to .15 and did not include zero. The effect sizes for the

relationships between the other two types of EI and job satisfaction (q̂ = .32 for self-report
EI and q̂ = .39 for mixed EI) show similar patterns of results. We repeated the same
procedures and found that self-report EI positively relates to organizational commitment

(q̂ = .43) and negatively relates to turnover intentions (q̂ = �.33). In addition, mixed EI
positively relates to organizational commitment (q̂ = .43). As such, Hypothesis 1, which
proposed that EI should positively relate to job satisfaction and organizational commit-

ment and negatively relate to turnover intentions, is supported.

We observed that there were substantial variations across effect sizes for three major

distributions for the relationship betweenEI and job satisfaction, because far less than75%

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 187

T
a
b
le

1
.
P
sy
ch
o
m
e
tr
ic
m
e
ta
-a
n
al
ys
is
re
su
lt
s

k
N

� r o
SD

r
q̂

SD
q

V
ar

a
rt
%

C
o
rr
e
ct
e
d

9
5
%
C
I

C
o
rr
e
ct
e
d

8
0
%
C
R

Q

Si
gn
ifi
ca
n
t

d
iff
e
re
n
ce

x
.
A
b
il
it
y

E
I

–
jo
b
sa
ti
sf
a
c
ti
o
n

1
3

1
,9
2
7

.0
7

.1
2

.0
8

.

1
0

4
9

.0
1

to

.1
5

�.
0
5
to

.

2
0

2
7
.9
0
**

y
,
z

E
m
o
ti
o
n
al
la
b
o
u
r

a.
H
ig
h

5
6
0
9

.1
0

.1
6

.1
3

.1
5

3
2

.0
6

to

.2
0

�.
0
7

to

.

3
3

1
7

.0
8
**

–

b
.
L
o
w

4
4
9
6

.0
7
.1
2

.0
9

.1
0

5
3

.0
3
to

.

1
4

�.
0
4
to

.2
1

7

.6
4

†

–

A
b
ili
ty

E
I
–
st
at
e
p
o
si
ti
ve

af
fe
ct

2
3
7
3

�.
0
6

.

1
1

�.
0
7
.0
9

4
5

�.
1
8

to

.0
5

�.
1
9

to

.0
5

4

.3
9

*

A
b
ili
ty

E
I
–
st
at
e
n
e
ga
ti
ve

af
fe
ct
2
3
7
3

�.
3
2

.0
6

�.
3
9

.0
0

1
0
0

�.
4
2

to

�.
3
5

�.
3
9
to

�.
3
9

1
.6
3

y
.

S
e
lf
-r
e
p
o
rt

E
I
–
jo
b
sa
ti
sf
a
c
ti
o
n

6
6

2
0
,1
1
6

.2
8

.1
1

.3
2

.1
1

2
4

.

2
9

to

.3
5

.1
8

to

.4
7

3
5
0
.6
2
**
*

x
,
z
†

E
m
o
ti
o
n
al
la
b
o
u
r
a.
H
ig
h

3
4

1
1
,5
1
6

.3
1

.0
9
.3
5
.0
8
3
3

.3
2
to

.3
9

.2
5

to

.4
6

1
0
8
.8
1
**
*

b
b
.
L
o
w
1
0

2
,4
9
7

.1
7

.1
3
.2
1
.1
4
2
4

.1
6
to

.

2
6

.0
4
to

.3
8

4
8

.2
5
**
*

a
S
e
lf
-r
e
p
o
rt

E
I
–
o
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
a
l

c
o
m
m
it
m
e
n
t

3
0

7
,6
7
5

.3
6

.1
7

.4
3

.1
7
1
3

.3
8
to

.4
8

.2
2

to

.6
4

2
5
9
.5
3
**
*

S
e
lf
-r
e
p
o
rt

E
I
–
tu
rn

o
v
e
r
in
te
n
ti
o
n
s

1
7

5
,0
0
4

�.
2
8

.2
1

�.
3
3

.2
5

6
�.

4
0
to

�.
2
5

�.
6
4
to

�.
0
1

3
2
3
.7
7
**
*

Se
lf-
re
p
o
rt
E
I

–
st
at
e
p
o
si
ti
ve

af
fe
ct

3
8
8
9

.4
2

.1
1
.4
7
.1
1
2
0

.4
0
to

.5
4

.3
3

to

.6
0

1

5
.7

9
**
*

Se
lf-
re
p
o
rt
E
I
–
st
at
e
n
e
ga
ti
ve

af
fe
ct
3
8
8
9

�.
3
6

.1
7
�.
4
2
.1
8
1
0

�.
5
1
to

�.
3
2
�.
6
4
to
�.
1
9

4
2

.5
8

**
*

z
.

M
ix
e
d
E
I

–
Jo
b
S
a
ti
sf
a
c
ti
o
n

4
1

7
,0
7
6

.3
3

.2
3

.3
9

.2
7

8

.3
1
to

.4
8

.0
5
to

.7
3

1
3
5
1
.2
5
**
*

x
,
y
†

E
m
o
ti
o
n
al
la
b
o
u
r
a.
H
ig
h
2
0

3
,7
2
7

.3
3
.1
2
.3
9
.1
2
2
9

.3
4
to

.4
4

.2
3
to

.5
5

7
7
.6
6
**
*

–
b
.
L
o
w

1
4

2
,2
6
4

.3
9
.3
2
.4
6

.3
7

4
.3
3
to

.5
8

�.
0
2

to

.9
3

9
3

3
.9

6
**
*

–
M
ix
e
d
E
I
–
o
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
it
m
e
n
t

2
6

3
,8
6
7

.3
6
.2
2
.4
3

.2
4

1
1

.3
5
to

.5
1

.1
2
to

.7
4

5
0
0
.4
1
**
*

M
ix
e
d
E
I
–
st
at
e
p
o
si
ti
ve

af
fe
ct

1
4
7
5

.2
3
.0
0
.3
1
.0
0

N
A

.3
1
to
.3
1
.3
1
to
.3
1
N
A

M
ix
e
d
E
I
–
st
at
e
n
e
ga
ti
ve

af
fe
ct
1
4
7
5
�.
1
8
.0
0

�.
2
4

.0
0
N
A

�.
2
4
to

�.
2
4
�.
2
4
to
�.
2
4
N
A

N
ot
es
.
K
,
n
u
m
b
er

o
f
in
d
ep
e
n
d
en
t
sa
m
p
le
s;
N
,
sa
m
p
le
si
ze
;
� r o
,
u
n
co
rr
e
ct
ed

sa
m
p
le
-s
iz
e-
w
ei
gh
te
d
m
ea
n
co
rr
e
la
ti
o
n
;
SD

r,
sa
m
p
le
-s
iz
e-
w
ei
gh
te
d
st
an
d
ar
d
d
ev
ia
ti
o
n
o
f

o
b
se
rv
ed

m
ea
n
co
rr
el
at
io
n
s;
q̂,

co
rr
ec
te
d
sa
m
p
le
-s
iz
e-
w
e
ig
h
te
d
m
ea
n
co
rr
el
at
io
n
;
SD

q
,
sa
m
p
le
-s
iz
e-
w
ei
gh
te
d
st
an
d
ar
d
d
e
vi
at
io
n
o
f
co
rr
ec
te
d
m
e
an

co
rr
e
la
ti
o
n
s;

V
ar

ar
t%
,p
er
ce
n
ta
ge

o
fv
ar
ia
n
ce

in
q̂
ex
p
la
in
e
d
b
y
st
at
is
ti
ca
la
rt
ef
ac
ts
;c
o
rr
e
ct
e
d
9
5
%
C
I,
co
rr
ec
te
d
9
5
%
co
n
fi
d
e
n
ce

in
te
rv
al
;c
o
rr
ec
te
d
8
0
%
C
R
,c
o
rr
e
ct
e
d
8
0
%
cr
ed
ib
ili
ty

in
te
rv
al
;Q

,a
st
at
is
ti
c
u
se
d
to

as
se
ss
th
e
h
et
er
o
ge
n
ei
ty
in
ef
fe
ct
si
ze
s
ac
ro
ss
st
u
d
ie
s;
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
t
d
iff
er
en
ce

=
le
tt
er
s
in
th
is
co
lu
m
n
co
rr
es
p
o
n
d
to

th
e
le
tt
er
s
in
ro
w
s
an
d

in
d
ic
at
e
th
at
ef
fe
ct
si
ze
s
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tl
y
d
iff
er

fr
o
m
o
n
e
an
o
th
er

at
.0
5
le
ve
l.
T
h
e
le
tt
e
rs
w
it
h
Ԡ
’d
en
o
te
th
e
st
at
is
ti
ca
ls
ig
n
ifi
ca
n
ce

at
.1
0
le
ve
l.
T
h
e
si
gn

‘–
’s
u
gg
es
ts
th
er
e
is
n
o

si
gn
ifi
ca
n
t
b
et
w
e
en
-g
ro
u
p
d
iff
er
en
ce
.z
-t
es
t
is
u
se
d
to

ev
al
u
at
e
th
e
st
at
is
ti
ca
ls
ig
n
ifi
ca
n
ce

o
fb
et
w
ee
n
-g
ro
u
p
d
iff
er
en
ce

in
ef
fe
ct
si
ze
s.
E
I,
e
m
o
ti
o
n
al
in
te
lli
ge
n
ce
.F
o
r
cl
ar
it
y

o
f
re
p
o
rt
in
g,
th
e
m
et
a-
an
al
yt
ic
d
is
tr
ib
u
ti
o
n
s
th
at

re
fe
r
to

th
e
m
ai
n
ef
fe
ct

o
f
ea
ch

st
re
am

o
f
E
I
o
n
ea
ch

w
o
rk

at
ti
tu
d
e
w
er
e
in
d
ic
at
ed

in
b
o
ld
ch
ar
ac
te
rs
.

†
p
< .1 0 ;* p < .0 5 ;* *p

< .0 1 ;* ** p < .0 0 1 .

188 Chao Miao et al.

of the variance in q̂ (Varart%) was explained by statistical artefacts. This met Hunter and
Schmidt’s (2004) 75% rule for indicating the potential existence ofmoderators.Q statistics

were significant as well, which further confirmed our conclusion that effect size

distributions were heterogeneous for all three types of EI. Therefore, performing further
moderator analyses was justified.

The results of the effect size differences among different types of EI are shown in the

last column of Table 1. This column also displays the results of all other moderator

analyses as well. We performed z-tests to determine the statistical significance of the

between-group differences. Our results indicate that ability EI has the lowest relationship

with job satisfaction compared to the other two types of EI (self-report EI vs. ability EI,

Dq̂ = .24, p < .05; mixed EI vs. ability EI, Dq̂ = .31, p < .05). The relationship between mixed EI and job satisfaction is marginally significantly larger than the relationship between self-report EI and job satisfaction (Dq̂ = .07, p < .1). We therefore concluded that Hypothesis 3 is supported (see Table 2).

Emotional labour was a significant moderator only for the self-report EI–job
satisfaction relationship. Thus, there was mixed support for Hypothesis 7.

Incremental validity, relative weight analyses, and meta-analytic structural

equation modelling

Incremental validity analysis

Table 3 displays the results of incremental validity analysis based on the hierarchical

multiple regression analysis.When thedependent variable is job satisfaction, the firstmodel
demonstrates that cognitive ability and the FFM in combination account for 15% (p < .001) of the variance in job satisfaction. The second, third, and fourth models illustrate the

incremental validity of each type of EI in the presence of cognitive ability and the FFM. The

second model shows that ability EI contributes no incremental validity (p = ns) in the

Table 2. Summary of results for all hypotheses

Hypotheses Results

Hypothesis 1: EI should positively relate to job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, and EI should negatively relate to

turnover intentions

Supported

Hypothesis 2: EI should contribute incremental validity and relative

importance in the presence of the FFM and cognitive ability

when predicting job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

and turnover intentions

Supported

for self-report EI

and mixed EI, but not for

ability EI

Hypothesis 3: Mixed EI will show the strongest relationship with

job satisfaction, self-report EI the next strongest, and ability EI

the weakest relationship with job satisfaction

Supported

Hypothesis 4: SPA mediates the relationship between EI and

job satisfaction
Supported

Hypothesis 5: SNA mediates the relationship between EI and

job satisfaction
Supported

Hypothesis 6: Job performance mediates the relationship between

EI and job satisfaction

Supported

Hypothesis 7: Emotional labour demand moderates the relationship

between EI and job satisfaction such that the relationship becomes

stronger when emotional labour demand is high

Supported only

for self-report EI

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 189

presence of cognitive ability and the FFM. On the other hand, the third and the fourth

models show that both self-report EI and mixed EI contribute an additional 3% (p < .001) and6%(p < .001) of variance, respectively, aboveandbeyondcognitive ability and theFFM.

When the dependent variable is organizational commitment, self-report EI and mixed
EI contribute an additional 9% (p < .001) and 8% (p < .001) of variance, respectively, above and beyond cognitive ability and the FFM.When the dependent variable is turnover

intentions, self-report EI contributes an additional 8% (p < .001) of variance above and beyond cognitive ability and the FFM.

Relative weight analysis

Because the predictors in our regression model are correlated, we performed relative
weight analysis to determine the relative importance of each predictor in predicting

employee job satisfaction. Table 3 displays the results of relative weight analysis for all

three types of EI in the last two columns of eachmodel. Ability EI only contributed 1.3% of

the explained variance, alongwith aR2 contribution of .00 inModel 2. It failed tomeet our

threshold for a small effect (see the section of supplemental notes in supplemental

materials for details about how we determined the criteria of small, medium, and large

effects). Further, ability EI demonstrated the least relative importance compared to all

other predictors in Model 2.
Unlike ability EI, self-report EI andmixed EI all demonstrated relative importance in the

presence of the FFM and cognitive ability. Self-report EI is the most dominant predictor in

Model 3, capturing 31.3% of the explained variance along with an R2 contribution of .06.

The second most dominant predictor in Model 3 was extraversion (RW% = 23.2;
R2 = .04), and the least dominant predictor was cognitive ability (RW% = 1.4; R2 = .00).
Mixed EI is themost dominant predictor relative to the FFM and cognitive ability in Model

4, contributing 42.8% of the explained variance as well as a R2 contribution of .09. The

secondmost dominant predictor was extraversion (RW% = 17.2; R2 = .04), and the least
dominant predictor was cognitive ability (RW% = 1.5; R2 = .00). Mixed EI hadmore than
twice the relative importance of the second most dominant predictor (i.e., extraversion).

With regard to organizational commitment, self-report EI and mixed EI demonstrated

impressive relative importance of 46.9% (R2 = .12) and 44.2% (R2 = .11), respectively.
When the dependent variablewas turnover intentions, self-report EI showed large relative

importance of 60.9% (R2 = .09). Because of the large effects for both self-report andmixed
EI, we hold that Hypothesis 2 is supported, but note that there is scale-based moderation

with regard to ability measures.

Meta-analytic structural equation modelling

We performed meta-analytic structural equation modelling to test the hypotheses related

tomediation.Mediationwould exist if the testwere to showa significant indirect path.We

separated mixed EI from both ability EI and self-report EI when performing mediation

testing, because mixed EI has moderate and high multicollinearity with ability EI and self-

report EI, respectively. The presence of multicollinearity would inflate standard errors,
reduce statistical power, cause the issues of bouncing betas, and produce uninterpretable

results (Schwab, 2005). We still kept ability EI and self-report EI together when testing

mediation, because the correlation between ability EI and self-report EI was just .12,

which did not cause multicollinearity issues.

190 Chao Miao et al.

T
a
b
le

3
.
H
ie
ra
rc
h
ic
al
m
u
lt
ip
le
re
gr
e
ss
io
n
an
d
re
la
ti
ve

w
e
ig
h
t

an
al
ys
e
s
fo
r
al
l
th
re
e
st
re
am

s
o
f
E
I
in
p
re
d
ic
ti
n
g
JS
,O

C
,a
n
d
T
I

D
V
=
JS

M

o
d
e
l1

M
o
d
e
l2

M
o
d
e
l3

M
o
d
e
l4

b

R
W

R
W

%
b

R
W
R
W
%
b
R
W
R
W
%
b
R
W
R
W
%

C
o
gn
it
iv
e
ab
ili
ty

.0
7
**
*

.0
0
3

2
.0

.0
6
**
*

.0
0
3

1
.7

.0
6
**
*
.0
0
3

1
.4

.0
7
**
*
.0
0
3

1
.5

N
e
u
ro
ti
ci
sm

�.
1
8
**
*

.0
4
6

3
0
.3

�.
1
8
**
*
.0
4
6

3
0
.0

�.
1
4
**
*

.0
3
6

1
9
.7

�.
0
7
**
*

.0
3
1

1

4
.8

E
x
tr
av
e
rs
io
n

.2
5
**
*

.0
5
1

3
3
.5

.2
5
**
*
.0
5
1

3

3
.3

.2
2
**
*

.0
4
3

2
3
.2

.1
6
**
*

.0
3
6

1
7
.2

O
p
e
n
n
e
ss

�.
1
6
**
*

.0
0
7

4
.8
�.
1
6
**
*
.0
0
7

4
.9

�.
1
9
**
*

.0
1
1

5
.7

�.
2
1
**
*

.0
1
4

6
.6

A
gr
e
e
ab
le
n
e
ss

.0
0

.0
0
9

5
.9

�.
0
0

.0
0
8

5
.6

�.
0
0
.0
0
8

4
.1

�.
0
3

*

.0
0
7

3
.4

C
o
n
sc
ie
n
ti
o
u
sn
e
ss

.1
4
**
*

.0
3
6

2
3
.4

.1
4
**
*

.0
3
5

2
3
.2

.0
9
**
*

.0
2

7

1
4
.6

.1
1
**
*

.0
2
8

1
3
.7

A
b
ili
ty
E
I
.0
2

.0
0
2

1
.3

Se
lf-
re
p
o
rt
E
I

.2
1
**
*

.0
5
8

3
1
.3

M
ix
e
d
E
I

.3
2
**
*

.0
8
9

4
2
.8

R
2

.1
5
**
*

.1
5
**
*

.1
8
**
*

.2
1
**
*

D
R
2

.0
0

.0
3
**
*

.0
6
**
*

H
ar
m
o
n
ic
m
e
an

N
6
,6
8
1

5
,5
8
9

6
,0
1
1

6
,5
4
1

D
V
=
O
C

M
o
d
e
l1
M
o
d
e
l2
M
o
d
e
l3

b
R
W

R
W
%
b
R
W
R
W
%
b
R
W
R
W
%
C
o
gn
it
iv
e
ab
ili
ty

�.
1
5
**
*

.0
2
0

1
1
.7

�.
1
6
**
*

.0
2
2

8
.5

�.
1
4
**
*
.0
2
0

8
.1

N
e
u
ro
ti
ci
sm
.0
1
.0
1
1

6
.4

.0
8
**
*

.0
0
9
3
.3
.1
4
**
*
.0
1
1

4
.7

E
x
tr
av
e
rs
io
n
.1
8
**
*
.0
4
6

2
6
.8

.1
3
**
*

.0
3
5
1
3
.7
.0
7
**
*
.0
3
1

1

2
.6

O
p
e
n
n
e
ss

.1
0
**
*

.0
1
8

1
0
.7

.0
4
**

.0
1
3

5
.0

.0
3
*

.0
1
3

5
.3

A
gr
e
e
ab
le
n
e
ss
.1
0
**
*

.0
2
5

1
4
.8

.0
9
**
*
.0
2
2
8
.5
.0
6
**
*
.0
2
0

8
.2

C
o
n
sc
ie
n
ti
o
u
sn
e
ss
.2
1
**
*

.0
5
0

2
9
.6

.1
3
**
*
.0
3
6

1
4
.1

.1
7
**
*

.0
4
2

1
6
.9

Se
lf-
re
p
o
rt
E
I

.3
5
**
*

.1
2
1

4
6
.9

M
ix
e
d
E
I

.3
8
**
*

.1
0
8

4
4
.2

R
2
.1
7
**
*

.2
6
**
*

.2
5
**
*
D
R
2
.0
9
**
*
.0
8
**
*
H
ar
m
o
n
ic
m
e
an

N
4
,0
2
2

4
,1
0
7

4
,3
2
3

C
on
tin
ue
d

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 191

T
a
b
le

3
.
(C
on
tin
ue
d)

D
V
=
T
I

M
o
d
e
l1
M
o
d
e
l2
b
R
W
R
W
%
b
R
W
R
W
%
C
o
gn
it
iv
e
ab
ili
ty
.0
6
**
*

.0
0
4

5
.9
.0
7
**
*

.0
0
5

3
.4
N
e
u
ro
ti
ci
sm

.2
0
**
*

.0
3
7

5
6
.6

.1
4
**
*

.0
2
7

1
9
.4

E
x
tr
av
e
rs
io
n

�.
0
6
**

.0
0
5

7
.3

�.
0
1
.0
0
4
2
.6
O
p
e
n
n
e
ss
.0
7
**
*
.0
0
2
3
.4

.1
2
**
*

.0
0
6

4
.5

A
gr
e
e
ab
le
n
e
ss
�.
0
3
.0
0
7

1
0
.1

�.
0
2
.0
0
6
3
.9
C
o
n
sc
ie
n
ti
o
u
sn
e
ss

�.
0
4
†

.0
1
1

1
6
.7

.0
4
†

.0
0
7

5
.2

Se
lf-
re
p
o
rt
E
I

�.
3
2
**
*

.0
8
6

6
0
.9

R
2
.0
7
**
*
.1
4
**
*
D
R
2
.0
8
**
*
H
ar
m
o
n
ic
m
e
an

N
3
,6
3
3

3
,7
6
1

N
ot
es
.
b,

st
an
d
ar
d
iz
e
d
re
gr
e
ss
io
n
w
e
ig
h
ts
;
D
V
,
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
va
ri
ab
le
;
E
I,
e
m
o
ti
o
n
al
in
te
lli
ge
n
ce
;
JS
,
jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
;
O
C
,
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
co
m
m
it
m
e
n
t;
T
I,
tu
rn
o
ve
r

in
te
n
ti
o
n
s;
h
ar
m
o
n
ic
m
e
an

N
,h
ar
m
o
n
ic
m
e
an

sa
m
p
le
si
ze
;R

W
,r
e
la
ti
ve

w
e
ig
h
t;
R
W

%
,p
e
rc
e
n
ta
ge

o
fr
e
la
ti
ve

w
e
ig
h
t
(c
o
m
p
u
te
d
b
y
d
iv
id
in
g
in
d
iv
id
u
al
re
la
ti
ve

w
e
ig
h
t

b
y
th
e
su
m
o
fi
n
d
iv
id
u
al
re
la
ti
ve

w
e
ig
h
t
an
d
m
u
lt
ip
ly
in
g
b
y
1
0
0
);
R
2
,m

u
lt
ip
le
co
rr
e
la
ti
o
n
s;
D
R
2
,i
n
cr
e
m
e
n
ta
lc
h
an
ge

in
R
2
.I
t
is
n
o
te
d
fr
o
m
T
ab
le
S1
1
(a
)
th
at
at

b
iv
ar
ia
te

le
ve
l,
o
p
e
n
n
e
ss
is
n
o
t
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tl
y

re
la
te
d
to

jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
(q̂

=
.0
2
)
an
d
ag
re
e
ab
le
n
e
ss
is
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tl
y
an
d
p
o
si
ti
ve
ly
re
la
te
d
to

jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
(q̂

=
.1
7
).
H
o
w
e
ve
r,
as

d
e
m
o
n
st
ra
te
d
in
T
ab
le

3
,M

o
d
e
l1

sh
o
w
s
th
at
o
p
e
n
n
e
ss
is
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tl
y
an
d
n
e
ga
ti
ve
ly
re
la
te
d
to

jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
(b

=
�.
1
6
),
w
h
e
re
as
ag
re
e
ab
le
n
e
ss
is
n
o
t
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tl
y

re
la
te
d
to
jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
(b

=
.0
0
).
O
u
r
re
su
lt
s
ar
e
co
n
si
st
e
n
t
w
it
h

Ju
d
ge

et
al
.’s

(2
0
0
2
)
m
e
ta
-a
n
al
yt
ic
fi
n
d
in
gs
,
w
h
ic
h
al
so

sh
o
w
e
d
so
m
e
in
co
n
si
st
e
n
ci
e
s
b
e
tw

e
e
n

b
iv
ar
ia
te

an
d
m
u
lt
iv
ar
ia
te

re
su
lt
s
o
fo
p
e
n
n
e
ss
an
d
ag
re
e
ab
le
n
e
ss
.A

cc
o
rd
in
g
to

Ju
d
ge

et
al
.(
2
0
0
2
),
o
p
e
n
n
e
ss
is
d
e
sc
ri
b
e
d
as

a
‘d
o
u
b
le
-e
d
ge
d
sw

o
rd
’t
h
at
m
ay

p
ro
m
p
t

in
d
iv
id
u
al
s
to

se
n
se

b
o
th

th
e
go
o
d
an
d
th
e
b
ad

m
o
re

d
e
e
p
ly
.
A
lt
h
o
u
gh

ag
re
e
ab
le
in
d
iv
id
u
al
s
sh
o
u
ld

e
x
p
e
ri
e
n
ce

h
ig
h
e
r
jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
d
u
e
to

th
e
ir
m
o
ti
va
ti
o
n
to

ac
h
ie
ve

in
te
rp
e
rs
o
n
al
in
ti
m
ac
y,
it
m
ay

o
n
ly
b
e
a
gr
e
at

p
re
d
ic
to
r
o
f
jo
b
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
in
so
ci
al
o
cc
u
p
at
io
n
s
w
h
e
re

tr
ai
t
ag
re
e
ab
le
n
e
ss

is
m
o
re

re
le
va
n
t.

†
p
< .1 0 ;* p < .0 5 ;* *p < .0 1 ;* ** p < .0 0 1 .

192 Chao Miao et al.

We used meta-analytic structural equation modelling to compare a list of alternative

models (see Table S14 in supplemental materials). For Test 1 in Table S14, we assessed

how state affect and job performance mediate the relationships between ability EI, self-

report EI, and job satisfaction. We compared all the other models with Model 1 – a partial
mediationmodelwith direct paths fromboth ability EI and self-report EI to job satisfaction.

v2 difference test showed that the differences between all three alternative models and
Model 1 are consistently not statistically significant, meaning that making themodel more

parsimonious does not worsen model fit. We chose Model 4 (full mediation model)

because it is themost parsimonious one among all fourmodels and it also fits the data very

well, v2(2) = 3.53 (p = .17), CFI = 1.00, NFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, SRMR = .01.
We applied the same method for Test 2 in Table S14, where we assessed how SPA,

SNA, and job performance mediate the relationship between mixed EI and job
satisfaction. Although v2 difference test showed that partial mediation model (Model 1)
demonstrates better model fit than full mediation model (Model 2; Dv2[1] = 88.26), we
still decided to choose full mediation model (Model 2) due to three reasons. First,

sample size greatly influences the v2 difference and our meta-analytic sample size was
large (Kline, 2011). Therefore, even a negligible difference between models may still

have produced a statistically significant v2 statistic in the present study (Berry,
Lelchook, & Clark, 2012). Second, partial mediation model (Model 1) is a saturated

model and we cannot derive any conclusion from this model. As such, Model 2, a non-
saturated model, is more preferable relative to Model 1. Third, full mediation (Model 2)

not only displays acceptable model fit (CFI = .92, NFI = .92, GFI = .98, SRMR = .05),
but is also more parsimonious than Model 1. Hence, we opted to choose Model 2 in

Test 2 due to the aforementioned reasons. Both chosen models based on the results of

model comparison were indicated with bold characters in Table S14.

Figure 1 presents the results of the examination of mediation, along with all

standardized path coefficients for all chosen models. Figure 1a corresponds to Model 4

under Test 1 in Table S14. Figure 1b corresponds to Model 2 under Test 2 in Table S14.
With regard to Figure 1a, we assessed how SPA, SNA, and job performance mediated

the relationship between ability EI and self-report EI and job satisfaction. We performed

three sets of mediation tests – Sobel test, Aroian test, and Goodman test. For instance, the
indirect paths from self-report EI to job satisfaction through SPA (b = .15) and SNA
(b = .08) were statistically significant. Similarly, the indirect effect from self-report EI to
job satisfaction through job performance (b = .04)was statistically significant aswell.We
repeated the same procedures for all the other models in Figure 1. We found that all

indirect paths were statistically significant. As such, all mediation hypotheses (Hypothe-
ses 4–6; see Table 2 for specific hypotheses) are supported. The results of mediation
examination are shown directly below each figure.

Publication bias analyses

Weperformed three different types of publication bias analyses and found no evidence of

publication bias inflating reported effect sizes (see supplemental materials for details).

Discussion

Emotion is an integral part of organizational life and is often functional for the

organization, and the proper management of emotions can lead to increased job

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 193

satisfaction (Ashforth &Humphrey, 1995).We presented the first meta-analytic review of

the relationship between employee EI and employee job satisfaction and found a positive

and significant relationship between all three types of EI and job satisfaction. In addition,

EI is also positively related to organizational commitment and negatively related to

turnover intentions. Thus, emotionally savvy individuals are not only high-performing

(O’Boyle et al., 2011) but are also more satisfied with their jobs.

Theoretical implications

Although the relationship between EI and job satisfaction is positive and statistically

significant, the variation in effect sizes across studies is substantial (according to Hunter

and Schmidt’s 75% rule and Q statistic) for the relationships between all three types of EI

and job satisfaction. We found that the relationship between self-report EI and job

satisfaction is higher when emotional labour demand is high. This coincides with Joseph

and Newman’s (2010) findings, suggesting that when a job involves frequent customer/
interpersonal interaction (i.e., high emotional labour demand) it requires employees to

use their EI to regulate their emotions. However, emotional labour was not a moderator

for either ability EI or mixed EI. This may be because recent research suggests that

emotional labour is used in a wide variety of jobs (Humphrey et al., 2015). These mixed

findings warrant more research on the EI–emotional labour relationship.
The pattern of results upholds the categorization of EI measures into three streams/

types (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; O’Boyle et al., 2011). Due to differential relationships

with cognitive ability and personality, we found that mixed EI has the highest association
with employee job satisfaction (q̂ = .39), self-report EI the next highest (q̂ = .32), and
ability EI the lowest relationship with employee job satisfaction (q̂ = .08). These results
are consistent with our expectation because ability EI is more cognitively loaded and thus

should have the lowest relationship with job satisfaction, because cognitive ability is a

AEI: Mediation effect of SPA –.128[.026] × .311[.029] = –.04***
AEI: Sobel Test: –4.47; Aroian test = –4.46; Goodman test = –4.49
AEI: Mediation effect of SNA –.345[.025] × –.222[.028] = .08 ***
AEI: Sobel Test: 6.87; Aroian test = 6.86; Goodman test = 6.89
AEI: Mediation effect of JP .207[.028] × .155[.027] = .03***
AEI: Sobel Test: 4.53; Aroian test = 4.51; Goodman test = 4.56
SEI: Mediation effect of SPA .485[.026] × .311[.029] = .15***
SEI: Sobel Test: 9.30; Aroian test = 9.29; Goodman test = 9.31
SEI: Mediation effect of SNA –.379[.025] × –.222 [.028] = .08***
SEI: Sobel Test: 7.03; Aroian test = 7.01; Goodman test = 7.04
SEI: Mediation effect of JP .275[.028] × .155[.027] = .04***
SEI: Sobel Test: 4.96; Aroian test = 4.94; Goodman test = 4.98

Mediation effect of SPA .310[.026] × .311[.026] = .10***
Sobel Test: 8.44; Aroian test = 8.43; Goodman test = 8.46
Mediation effect of SNA –.240[.026] × –.222[.025] = .05***
Sobel Test: 6.40; Aroian test = 6.38; Goodman test = 6.42
Mediation effect of JP .280[.026] × .155[.025] = .04***
Sobel Test: 5.37; Aroian test = 5.36; Goodman test = 5.39

AEI

SEI

SPA

SNA JS

MEI

SPA
SNA JS

–.13***

JP
JP

–.34***

.21***

.49***

–.38***

.28***

.31***

–.22***

.16***

.31***

–.24***

.28***
.31***
–.22***
.16***

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Path models of the mediating roles of state affect and job performance in the relationship

between emotional intelligence (EI) and job satisfaction. Note. Standardized path coefficients are

reported. Standard errors are reported in brackets. AEI, ability EI; SEI, self-report EI; MEI, mixed EI; JS, job

satisfaction; SPA, state positive affect; SNA, state negative affect; JP, job performance. (a) Model 4 under

Test 1 in Table S14. (b) Model 2 under Test 2 in Table S14. Fit indices for each model are reported in

Table S14. We omitted covariance for clarity of reporting. ***p < .001.

194 Chao Miao et al.

weak predictor of job satisfaction (Gonzalez-Mul�e et al., 2014). Mixed EI has the largest
relationship with other personality traits and should thus have the strongest relationship

with job satisfaction because personality is amuch better predictor of job satisfaction than

cognitive ability (Judge et al., 2002).
Our results indicate that both self-report EI and mixed EI not only display incremental

validity above and beyond cognitive ability and the FFM, but that they also show large

relative importance (31.3% relative importance for self-report EI and 42.8% relative

importance formixed EI) in the explained variance in job satisfaction. In particular,mixed

EI alone impressively accounts for nearly half of the explained variance in job satisfaction

compared to cognitive ability (1.5% relative importance) and the FFM (55.7% relative

importance for five personality traits as a whole set). We found similar effects for the

incremental validity and relative importance of EI with regard to organizational
commitment and turnover intentions. These findings are consistent with – and add to
priormeta-analytic findings on –howEI contributes relative importancewith regard to job
performance (O’Boyle et al., 2011).

Our study also explored the theoretical mechanisms through which EI influences job

satisfaction. Building on goal setting theory and self-perception theory (Bem, 1967; Locke,

1976), we found that the relationship between EI and job satisfaction is mediated by both

state affect and job performance. EI may be a characteristic that causes employees to see

both their work performance and their job in a rosy light, one which promotes positive
affect. Employees high on EI may then observe their positive affect at work and deduce

that they have high job satisfaction. Building on goal setting theory and self-perception

theory (Bem, 1967; Locke, 1976), we weaved prior meta-analytic findings on EI–job
performance relationships into our mediation model and found that job performance

mediates the relationship between EI and job satisfaction. This shows EI’s relevance to the

goal setting literature and indicates that EI helps employees to reach their performance

goals. Employeesmay thendeduce their own level of job satisfaction from their level of job

performance. These findings open multiple avenues for future research on EI, goals, and
work criteria. Locke and Latham (2002) suggested a set of moderators (e.g., goal

importance, goal commitment, and task complexity), and future researchers may

consider developing models that include these additional moderators in order to derive a

more thorough picture of the interrelationships among EI, goals, and work criteria.

Limitations and future directions

First, there were a small number of samples for some of our meta-analytic distributions,
which makes the results subject to second-order sampling error. For the same reason, we

were not able to analyse some moderators for some types of EI. Therefore, we encourage

readers to exercise caution when interpreting our results based on a small number of

samples, and we acknowledge that the results based on a small number of samples are

preliminary. This partly explains why the results of our moderator analyses are

inconsistent across three EI types. Moderator testing in meta-analysis is a low power

test (Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002). Therefore, if the number of samples across

different levels of moderators is small (ability EI distributions in particular), then the
results of moderation can hardly be significant, which is why we identified some

inconsistencies in our results across three types of EI. We thus encourage readers to

interpret the results of moderator analyses based on a small number of samples with

caution.

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 195

Second, the present meta-analytic review was dominated by the studies using cross-

sectional design. Future studies should use longitudinal designs and conduct advanced

analyses, such as latent growthmodelling (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002), to draw robust causal

inferences.
Third, at bivariate level, we found a significant moderator effect of the emotional

labour demand of jobs on the relationship between self-report EI and job satisfaction. We

suspect that this moderator may also function in our mediation model in such a way that

people under high emotional labour demands may have high job satisfaction with high EI

through affect or job performance. This moderated mediation model may help us better

integrate our variables. However, we cannot use meta-analysis to test this model because

moderated mediation models have to be tested based on raw data, whereas ours – like all
other meta-analyses – is also based on correlation matrices without raw data. For this
reason, we encourage future studies to collect primary data to assess the moderated

mediation model described here.

Practical implications

Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions are important

attitudes related tomany criticalworkplace outcomes, such as jobperformance, turnover,

profits, and psychological well-being. Our investigations provide insights and evidence
regarding the importance of employees’ EI in determining employees’ work attitudes. To

produce satisfied and productive workers, organizations can incorporate EI in employee

education, training, and development (Walter et al., 2011).

Job satisfaction is a very important form of employee job attitude in organizations,

because job satisfaction is known to improve physical andpsychological health outcomes,

to be positively related to organizational commitment, organizational citizenship

behaviour, and task performance, and to be negatively related to turnover intention,

turnover, and withdrawal cognitions and behaviours (Schleicher et al., 2011). Impor-
tantly, our research findings suggest a low-cost, yet effective, way to staff an organization

with satisfied employees, which is to hire emotionally intelligent people. Incorporating a

measure of EI during the selection process would help an organization to find satisfied

employees because emotionally intelligent employees aremore satisfied, according to our

research findings. Nonetheless, hiring people high in EI does not mean that organizations

are free of their obligations to reduce workplace stress and strain and to improve overall

working conditions. Organizations with good values can increase employees’ organiza-

tional commitment and reduce turnover intentions (Abbott, White, & Charles, 2005).
Equally importantly, organizations that are perceived to support their employees have

employees who are more committed (Loi, Hang-Yue, & Foley, 2006).

Although ability EI tests did not show incremental validity, they may still have

considerable practical importance. Their objective nature means that they are not

susceptible to test takers’ self-serving biases, so they may be useful when hiring new

employees, and also for giving feedback to current employees who are resistant to advice

from their peers (O’Boyle et al., 2011; Walter et al., 2011). For practitioners who care

little about the overlap between self-report and mixed EI and other psychological
constructs, our results suggest that one should consider utilizing self-report/peer-report EI

measures, because the validity of both self-report EI and mixed EI in predicting job

satisfaction ismuch larger than that of ability EI.We also recommend the use ofmixed EI as

a shorthand alternative to a lengthy battery of a few traditional personnel tests, because

mixed EI captures a compound of different constructs and demonstrates reasonable

196 Chao Miao et al.

criterion-related validity. Because self-report measures and mixed measures show

incremental validity over cognitive ability and personality measures, organizations that

have lengthy batteries of such measures can still increase their ability to predict job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions by incorporating self-
report and/or mixed EI measures.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Associate Editor Tim Munyon and the anonymous reviewers for their

knowledgeable advice and guidance. They helped with theory development, statistical

analysis, and presentation andwriting. Tim’s advice was invaluable, and the article’s focus and

clarity was much improved with his help. In addition, Editor Sharon Clarke also made useful

suggestions that made the paper more focused and concise. Thanks to all for their help.

References

Abbott, G.N.,White, F. A.,&Charles,M.A. (2005). Linking values andorganizational commitment: A

correlational and experimental investigation in twoorganizations. Journal ofOccupational and

Organizational Psychology, 78, 531–551. doi:10.1348/096317905X26174
Ashforth, B. E., &Humphrey, R.H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity.

Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.3997508
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human

Relations, 48, 97–125. doi:10.1177/001872679504800201
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in theworkplace: The new challenge formanagers.

Academy of Management Executive, 16, 76–86. doi:10.5465/AME.2002.6640191
Ashkanasy,N.M.,&Daus,C. S. (2005). Rumors of thedeath of emotional intelligence in organizational

behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior,26, 441–452. doi:10.1002/
job.320

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Current emotion research in organizational behavior.

Emotion Review, 3, 214–224. doi:10.1177/1754073910391684
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotions and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional quotient inventory.

In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory,

development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 363–
388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance

phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200. doi:10.1037/h0024835
Berry, C.M., Lelchook, A.M.,&Clark,M.A. (2012). Ameta-analysis of the interrelationships between

employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 678–699. doi:10.1002/job.778
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model

building, testing, and illustrations.Organizational ResearchMethods,5, 362–387. doi:10.1177/
109442802237116

Boyatzis, R., Brizz, T., & Godwin, L. (2011). The effect of religious leaders’ emotional and social

competencies on improving parish vibrancy. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies,

18, 192–206. doi:10.1177/1548051810369676
Breaux, D.M.,Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter,W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as amoderator of the

accountability – Job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three studies. Journal of
Management, 35, 307–326. doi:10.1177/0149206308318621

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 197

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26174

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1993.3997508

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800201

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.2002.6640191

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.320

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.320

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1754073910391684

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0024835

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.778

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442802237116

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442802237116

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051810369676

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318621

Byron, K. (2007). Male and female managers’ ability to read emotions: Relationships with

supervisors’ performance ratings and subordinates’ satisfaction ratings. Journal of Occupa-

tional and Organizational Psychology, 80, 713–733. doi:10.1348/096317907X174349
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A

meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Côt�e, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational

Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 459–488. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
031413-091233

Côt�e, S., &Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1–28. doi:10.2189/asqu.51.1.1

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee

engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95, 834–848. doi:10.1037/a0019364
De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Unpacking the goal

congruence–organizational deviance relationship: The roles ofwork engagement and emotional
intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 695–711. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1902-0

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of

progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Dong, Y., Seo, M. G., & Bartol, K. (2013). No pain, no gain: An affect-based model of developmental

job experience and the buffering effects of emotional intelligence. Academy of Management

Journal, 57, 1056–1077. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0687
Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185–202. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<185:: AID-JOB34>3.0.CO;2-M

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general

intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It’s not all just ‘G’. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 203–220. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<203::AID- JOB38>3.0.CO;2-Z

Ganzach, Y. (1998). Intelligence and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 526–
539. doi:10.2307/256940

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY:

Bantam Books.

Gonzalez-Mul�e, E., Carter, K., & Mount, M. K. (2014). Is ignorance really bliss? A meta-analysis of
the relationship between general mental ability and attitudes. Working Paper.

Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., &Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of the

science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 979–1004. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.005
Gooty, J., Gavin, M. B., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Thomas, J. S. (2014). The wisdom of letting go and

performance: The moderating role of emotional intelligence and discrete emotions. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 392–413. doi:10.1111/joop.12053
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in theworkplace: A newway to conceptualize emotional

labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:

Advancing conservation of resources theory.Applied Psychology: An International Review,50,

337–370. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feelings. Berkeley,

CA: University of California

Press.

Hulsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-

analysis of three decades of research. Journal ofOccupationalHealth Psychology,16, 361–389.
doi:10.1037/a0022876

Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,

493–504. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00140-6

198 Chao Miao et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317907X174349

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091233

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091233

http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.1.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1902-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0687

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<185::AID-JOB34>3.0.CO;2-M

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<185::AID-JOB34>3.0.CO;2-M

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<203::AID-JOB38>3.0.CO;2-Z

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<203::AID-JOB38>3.0.CO;2-Z

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256940

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12053

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022876

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00140-6

Humphrey, R. H. (2013). Effective leadership: Theory, cases, and applications. Los Angeles, CA:

Sage.

Humphrey, R. H., Ashforth, B. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). The bright side of emotional labor.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 749–769. doi:10.1002/job.2019
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in

research findings. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in

research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables

in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19. doi:10.1207/S15327906
MBR3501_1

Johnson, S. K. (2009). Do you feel what I feel? Mood contagion and leadership outcomes. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20, 814–827. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.012
Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238–257. doi:10.1177/1094428
104266510

Johnson, H. A. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Service with a smile: Do emotional intelligence, gender,

and autonomy moderate the emotional labor process? Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 12, 319. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.4.319

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional

intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus.

Human Resource Management Review, 12, 195–214. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00046-3
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. (2011). Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange: The

relationship with employee turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 32, 260–280. doi:10.1108/01437731111123915
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and

cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286
Judge, T. A., Heller,D.,&Mount,M.K. (2002). Five-factormodel of personality and job satisfaction: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Muellar, J. D. (2008). Affect, satisfaction, and performance. In N. M.

Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations (pp. 136–
151). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63,

341–367. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance

relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

Kafetsios, K., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing the

mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and Individual Differences,

44, 712–722. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.004
Karim, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence and psychological distress: Testing the mediatory role of

affectivity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 5, 20–39. doi:10.5964/ejop.v5i4.238
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of task and

relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 146–162. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.003
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:

Guilford.

Kluemper, D. H., DeGroot, T., & Choi, S. (2013). Emotion management ability: Predicting task

performance, citizenship, and deviance. Journal of Management, 39, 878–905. doi:10.1177/
0149206311407326

Kong, F., & Zhao, J. (2013). Affective mediators of the relationship between trait emotional

intelligence and life satisfaction in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 54,

197–201. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.028
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 199

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2019

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.012

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.4.319

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00046-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111123915

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017286

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.004

http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v5i4.238

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407326

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407326

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.028

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

4, 309–336. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. InM. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C. S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between satisfaction,

goal-setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 135–
158. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(70)90011-5

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task

motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
57.9.705

Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N., & Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational

commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 101–120. doi:10.1348/
096317905X39657

Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship

between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 554–
564. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence.Annual

Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997).What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey &D. J. Sluyter (Eds.),

Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–25).
New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with

the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using

job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover.Academy ofManagement Journal, 44, 1102–
1121. doi:10.2307/3069391

Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). 5. The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and job

embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 23, 189–246. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23006-8
Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter,W. A., Perrew�e, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Optimism and the nonlinear

citizenshipbehavior – Job satisfaction relationship in three studies. Journal ofManagement,36,
1505–1528. doi:10.1177/0149206309350085

O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation

between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 32, 788–818. doi:10.1002/job.714
Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90, 175–181. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
Petrides, K. V. (2009a). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire

(TEIQue). InC. Stough,D.H. Saklofske& J. D. A. Parker (Eds.),Assessing emotional intelligence:

Theory, research, and applications (pp. 85–101). New York, NY: Springer Science.
Petrides, K. V. (2009b). Technical manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire

(TEIQue). London, UK: London Psychometric Laboratory.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two

studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of

Personality, 17, 39–57. doi:10.1002/per.466
Schleicher, D. J., Hansen, S. D., & Fox, K. E. (2011). Job attitudes andwork values. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),

APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3: Maintaining, expanding,

and contracting the organization. APA handbooks in psychology (pp. 137–189).Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L.

(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and

Individual Differences, 25, 167–177. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4

200 Chao Miao et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(70)90011-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X39657

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X39657

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069391

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23006-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350085

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.714

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.466

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007). Ameta-analytic

investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and

Individual Differences, 42, 921–933. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003
Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research methods for organizational studies. New York, NY: Psychology

Press.

Spence, G., Oades, L. G., & Caputi, P. (2004). Trait emotional intelligence and goal self-integration:

Important predictors of emotional well-being? Personality and Individual Differences, 37,

449–461. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.001
Staw, B.M., Bell, N. E., &Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime

longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77. doi:10.2307/2392766
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation

techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.87.1.96

Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee andmanager emotional intelligence to

job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 461–473. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2005.10.003

Tett, R. P.,&Burnett, D.D. (2003). Apersonality trait-based interactionistmodel of jobperformance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
Tett, R. P., &Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational

consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–
423. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective

underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration.

Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investiga-

tion of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71–95.
doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and

structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.
1995.tb01784.x

Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A

review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35, 1428–
1452. doi:10.1177/0149206309342468

Walter, F., Cole, M. S., &Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership

or folderol? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 45–59. doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.
59198449

Wang,G., Seibert, S. E., &Boles, T. L. (2011). Synthesizingwhatwe knowand looking ahead: Ameta-

analytical review of 30 years of emotional labor research. Research on Emotion in

Organizations, 7, 15–43. doi:10.1108/S1746-9791(2011)0000007006
Watson, D. (2000).Mood and temperament. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective

experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822
(02)00045-1

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the

structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective

experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1–24. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.
2824

Emotional intelligence and work attitudes 201

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392766

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309342468

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2011.59198449

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2011.59198449

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1746-9791(2011)0000007006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2824

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2824

Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315
Winkel, D. E., Wyland, R. L., Shaffer, M. A., & Clason, P. (2011). A new perspective on psychological

resources: Unanticipated consequences of impulsivity and emotional intelligence. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 78–94. doi:10.1348/2044-8325.002001
Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on

performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1

Received 13 October 2015; revised version received 26 November 2016

Supporting Information

The following supporting informationmay be found in the online edition of the article:

Table S1. Dimensions/facets represented by three types of EI.
Table S2. Job satisfaction measures.
Table S3. Main codes for the studies included in the EI – JS meta-analysis.
Table S4. Main codes for the studies included in the EI – OC meta-analysis.
Table S5. Main codes for the studies included in the EI – TI meta-analysis.
Table S6. Main codes for the studies included in the MSCEIT dimensions – JS meta-
analysis.

Table S7. Main codes for the studies included in the WLEIS dimensions – JS meta-
analysis.

Table S8. Main codes for the studies included in the EQ-i Dimensions – JS meta-
analysis.

Table S9. Main codes for the studies included in the EI – job satisfaction dimensions
meta-analysis.

Table S10. Main codes for the studies included in the EI – state affect meta-analysis.
Table S11. (a) Meta-analytically derived corrected intercorrelation matrix for
hierarchical multiple regression and relative weight analyses for predicting job

satisfaction. (b) Meta-analytically derived corrected intercorrelation matrix for

hierarchical multiple regression and relative weight analyses for predicting organiza-
tional commitment. (c) Meta-analytically derived corrected intercorrelation matrix for

hierarchical multiple regression and relative weight analyses for predicting turnover

intention.

Table S12. Meta-analytically derived corrected intercorrelation matrix for Figure 1 (a)
and (b).

Table S13. Supplemental psychometric meta-analysis results.
Table S14. Comparison of the fit of the alternative models.
Appendix S1. Supplemental notes.

202 Chao Miao et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/2044-8325.002001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1

Copyright of Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 355

The Role of Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace:

A Literature Review
Ashkan Khalili
Multimedia University, Malaysia

Emotional intelligence has become a familiar issue between educators, counselors and
business leaders due to a considerable role in the workplace. Namely, accurate self-
assessment together with conflict management are just some significant influences of
emotional intelligence within organisations that would result in increasing organisational
effectiveness. Hence the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive
literature review on the emergence of emotional intelligence in the workplace as well
as discussing main theories of emotional intelligence, based on the relevant literature
and previous empirical studies.

Emotional Intelligence (EI) in the Workplace

Traditionally, negligence (Eriksson, 2004), avoidance (Turnbull, 1999), irrational and
negation (Fineman, 1993), weakness and inability to control oneself have been viewed in
emotional themes within organisational life. Recently, role of emotions in the workplace
have started to exert positively through organisational scholars (Fineman, 1997;
Domagalski, 1999; Turnbull 1999; Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Brief and Weiss, 2002;
Jordan and Troth, 2002). “texture” of organizing (Fineman, 1993) and also enterprise
impacts on individual’s thought, feeling in the workplace (Brief & Weiss, 2002), belong to
emotion supposition (Fineman, 1993). Excellent organisations are places where feelings
are managed, matured or removed. Feelings are perceived as irrelevant to job activity
but emotions get in the way of effective performance (Fineman, 1996).

Many researches that have concentrated on emotion in the workplaces have asserted
that organisations are “emotional places” (Armstrong, 2000), “incubators of emotions”
(Muchinsky, 2000) or “emotional arenas” (Fineman, 2000) and it always stimulates
doubt and commotion (French, 2001). That is to say, few researches have concentrated
on how emotions are experimented in the workplace (Pekrun & Frese, 1992), comprising
organisation psychic pressure and stress (Fineman, 2000). Since emotions and feelings are
at the core of the human experiment (Muchinsky, 2000), very nature of the “organisation”
of work pertain to what individuals do with their sensations (Fineman, 1993).

One important aspect of work performance is work affect (Kafetsios & Zampetakis,
2008). Muchinsky (2000) claimed that emotions have many differences which cover
from pleasurable experiments of our existence which are positive experiences to the
negative ones that are the most noxious. Individual’s job-related behaviour is reflected
from affective or emotional experiments in the work place that generate cognition (Weiss
& Cropanzano, 1996).

Brief and Weiss (2002) proposed that while firms can impact on one’s feelings, thoughts
and actions, individual’s feelings, thoughts and actions likewise can impress the enterprise

356 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

which they are employed. Indeed, work environment is an emotion-eliciting place;
therefore individuals are required to employ “emotional labor”.

Hochschild (1983) identified emotional labor as “the management of feeling to create
a publicly observable facial and bodily display for a wage”. Certainly, emotion in
the organisation is such a communicable phenomenon that impact on other workers’
emotions. Sanchez-Burks and Huy (2007) claimed that due to emotional contagion
which is an automatic, non-conscious psychological process, people experiment shared
thrills. In other words, interaction in the workplace causes spreading or transferring
thrills from an individual to others (Eriksson, 2004). Goleman et al. (2001) stated that
when the group is more uninterrupted, emotions shared are stronger.

Therefore, the rising testimony of this emotional side of work exhibits one of the
fundamental motives of growth makes it worth looking into the concept of emotional
intelligence (EI).

Indeed, emotional intelligence plays a considerable role in the workplace. Within the
past 30 years research investigating factors that contribute to success in workplace
have resulted in distinguishing factors that are affiliated to workplace intelligence.
These researches used quantified data on performance from countless organisations
and industries and have contributed to the knowledge base in emotional intelligence
(Lynn, 2002).

Moreover, The 1990s showed increasing attention on the part of researchers and
practitioners on the construct of emotional intelligence. This interest reflects the theoretical
proposition that individuals who are high in emotional intelligence are seemingly more
successful in work-related and non-work aspects of life than low-emotionally intelligent
ones. Wolfe and Caruso (2004, p.3) asserted emotions include essential information that
assists us “to be better at what we do”. In 1998, Goleman reviewed analyses of studies
of about 500 organisations around the world, “point to the paramount place of emotional
intelligence in excellence on the job—in virtually any job” (Goleman, 1998, p. 6). He
indicates organisations become leaders and rise to the top position while they have the
highest emotional intelligence measure. Another significant finding that he discovered
during reviewing these studies is star employees have more emotional intelligence (EI)
than other employees. He found emotional intelligence is important twice as much as
analytic and technical skill for those organisations.

Emotional intelligence has been investigated since early 1990s, but solely in recent years
become pertinent to the workplace. Weisinger (1998) proposed the existence of a direct
linkage between emotional intelligence and success at work. In accord with Bridget
Murray (1998), individuals who are at the top of their field are not only good at their
works. This means that, emotional intelligence (EI) takes more than intelligence quotient
(IQ) to achieve success at workplace (Goleman, 1995). That is to say, besides bosses and
corporate leaders, employees also need high portion of emotional intelligence, because
they present the organisation to the public. Cherniss (2000) found several scholars
suggested that there is a positive and direct relationship between the level of emotional
intelligence (EI) and workplace performance. Cooper (1997) claimed that well managed

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 357

emotions can assist ones to extend trust, loyalty and commitment, with their selves, their
groups and their firms.

Various occupations call for different types of emotional intelligence. For instance,
success in sales requires the empathic competency to identify the mood of the customer
and the interpersonal skill to make a decision when to present a product and when to
keep quiet. And also, success in painting or professional tennis demands a more one
form of self-discipline and motivation. Thus emotional intelligence affects just about
everything you do at work. “Even when you work in a solitary setting, how well you
work has a lot to do with how well you discipline and motivate yourself” (Goleman, as
cited in Murray, 1998, p. 3).

In 1993, Spencer and Spencer managed an analysis at L’Oreal Company and discovered
that sales agents who were elected dependent on their emotional competencies sold
significantly more than agents who were selected using standard recruitment techniques.
The study exhibited that sales agents who were selected based on emotional ability sold
an average of $91,370 more than those in the control group annually. Continually, the
research also showed that salespeople selected based upon emotional competence had
63% less turnovers in the first year than those selected in a typical way (Spencer &
Spencer, 1993).

Another issue that must be considered in emotional intelligence and workplace is gender
differences and acquisition of emotional intelligence which found interesting results.
Goleman (1998, p. 285) claimed that “men and women seem equally able to increase
their emotional intelligence”. In a study by Steven Stein (as cited in Murray, 1998), 4,500
men and 3,200 women were assessed for their emotional intelligence. He discovered that
women scored higher than men on empathy and social responsibility while men surpassed
women on stress tolerance and self-confidence. His findings suggested women and men
are equally emotionally intelligent, but they are different in these spheres. Khalili (2011)
conducted an empirically investigation of emotional intelligence within employees of
a private small and medium enterprise (SME) in Iran. He found that women are more
emotionally intelligence than men but there is no significant difference between them.

Age has been considered in emotional intelligence acquisition. Goleman (1998, p.285)
said researches show that, “maturity remains an advantage; it may be slightly harder to
‘teach young dogs new tricks’”. Mayer and Salovy (as cited in Goleman, 1998) discovered
emotional intelligence increases significantly by age with an apex happening in the forties.
Fariselli, Ghini and Freedman (2006) examined the relationship between emotional
intelligence and age in the workplace. They chose 405 American workers between 22-
70 years. They discovered that emotional quotient (EQ) score increases slightly by age.
They concluded that while a slight majority of older individuals are higher in EQ, there
are many young people with higher EQ scores than their older counterparts. As well,
they discussed that emotional intelligence is an important and crucial competence that
leaders require to take into consideration in the current work context (Fariselli, Ghini
& Freedman, 2006).

358 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

Another part that research in the emotional intelligence area has concentrated considerably
is leadership which is a fundamental workplace quality. Fleishman and Harris (1962)
noted that before commencing research in the field of emotional intelligence, the Ohio
State Leadership investigations informed leaders who were capable of establishing mutual
trust, respect, and certain warmth and close relationship with members of their group
were more effective. This consequence is not surprising given that many scholars have
debated that effective leadership is fundamentally contingent on the leader’s competencies
to solve the composite social difficulties which can arise in organisations (Mumford,
Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000).

Other field of interest in the workplace is the cost-effectiveness of emotional intelligence.
Several researches have stated the economic value of employing staff based on emotional
intelligence. Based on a report to Congress, the US General Accounting Office (GAO)
(1998) indicated the amount saved when the United States Air Force used Bar-On’s
Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) to select program recruiters. By choosing those
persons who scored highest in Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory as recruiters, they
increased their ability to select successful recruiters by threefold and saved $3 million
per year. Boyatzis (1999) discovered that when partners in a multinational consulting
organisation were estimated on emotional intelligence competencies, partners who scored
above the median on nine or more competencies delivered $1.2 million more profit than
did other partners. Industry in the United States is losing between $5.6 and $16.8 billion
annually, by not following training guidelines established to raise emotional intelligence
(EI) in the workplace (Cherniss & Goleman, 1998). They discovered that the influence
of training employees in emotional and social skills with programs which followed their
guidelines was higher than for other programs, and by not executing these programs
enterprises were receiving less of an influence and as a result losing money.

Emotional intelligence has formed a hypothesis as impacting a myriad of workplace
variables such as performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism, organisational commitment
and leadership (Rozell, Pettijohn & Parker, 2002).

Thi Lam and Kirby (2002) investigated the linkage between emotional intelligence and
cognitive-based performance using US university graduates. Thi Lam and Kirby placed
participants in stressful situations to replicate a modern work environment and measured
emotional intelligence with the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS).
Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) is a test of ability rather than a self-
report measure. The test-taker performs a series of tasks that are designed to estimate the
individual’s competency to be aware of, identify, understand, and work with emotion.
However, they discovered that overall emotional intelligence, emotional perception, and
emotional regulation uniquely describe person cognitive-based performance over and
beyond the level attributable to general intelligence (Thi Lam & Kirby, 2002).

Nikolaou and Tsaousis (2002) investigated the relevance of emotional intelligence
and source of occupational stress on a sample of 200 professionals in mental health

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 359

institutions in Greece. They found a negative relationship among emotional intelligence
and stress at workplace, indicating that high scorers in overall emotional intelligence
endured less stress identifying with occupational environment. As well, they discovered
a positive relation between emotional intelligence and organisational commitment,
which suggested that emotional intelligence is a determining factor of employees’
loyalty to the organisations. Regarding overall emotional intelligence score, they did not
address significant differences among males and females. An important relationship was
discovered between emotional intelligence, age and education. They also found job type
influences overall emotional intelligence scores, but no influence was found among job
type and emotional intelligence subscales (Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002).

Oginska-Bulik (2005) investigated a study in Poland with the aim to see if emotional
intelligence plays an important role in forming the interaction among individuals and
their work environment. The results approved a necessary role of emotional intelligence
on being aware of occupational stress and intercepting employees from negative health
outcomes. Oginska-Bulik (2005) indicated a higher degree of emotional intelligence in
women rather than men.

David McClelland (1998) investigated division heads of a global food and beverage
company and found that 50% of division directors hired using standard methods left
within two years, mostly due to poor performance. When the firm began selecting based
upon emotional abilities like initiative, self-confidence, and leadership, only 6% left in
two years. He also discovered that the divisions conducted by leaders strong in emotional
intelligence competencies exceed in performance yearly revenue targets by a margin of
15-20% more high than divisions with leaders that did not show emotional intelligence
abilities (McClelland, 1998).

In 1998, Daniel Goleman (1998) claimed by reviewing researches of nearly 500
companies around the world concluded that leaders have high degrees of emotional
intelligence. Goleman noted leaders are highly emotionally intelligent because (1) they
present the company to the public, (2) act reciprocally with the highest number of people
inside and outside the organisation, and (3) set the tone for staff morale. In 1998, Goleman
conducted a research which took into consideration competence models for 181 various
job positions from 121 companies. Management in each firm was asked to agree on a
profile indicating which factors were required for an individual to exhibit excellence
in a specific job. He discovered that 67% of the competencies management outlined as
determining factors of excellence within a job was related to emotional abilities. Just
few years later, he formed a hypothesis that emotional competence is a learned capability
based on emotional intelligence that causes outstanding performance at work. Dulewicz
and Higgs (2000) reported alike results. They researched one thousand managers, over
a seven-year period, concentrating on their abilities and their advancement through the
organisation. They discovered that emotional intelligence factors contributed 36% to
an individual’s progression, while intellectual intelligence contributed 27% through the
organisation.

360 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

Major Theories of Emotional Intelligence (EI)
The increasing penchant in emotions as well as growing awareness of the role that it
plays in business and in life is in great part due to the propagation of research over the
past decade on emotions generally and EI specifically (Jamali, D. et al., 2008). Generally,
emotional intelligence can be classified into two sets.

Firstly, it is the ability model matured by Mayer and Salovey that concentrates upon
using intelligence to guide emotions (Weinberger, 2004). Weinberger mentioned that as
of 2004, Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso were the only scholars promoting a more limited
ability (cognitive) model. Mayer and Salovey (1997) thought that emotional intelligence
is based initially in mental abilities. David Caruso was another scholar that joined
Mayer and Salovey. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2004) identified the diverging of the
foundational components of emotional intelligence based on the specific “bent” of the
foundational theorists. They improved a measurement of emotional intelligence called
the Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).

Secondly, it is called the mixed-model (Bar-On, 1988 and Goleman, 1998) where
emotional intelligence is not solely depending on cognition, but upon a socio-emotion
centered in personality traits.

Precisely, Mayer and Salovey, (1997) focused upon the relevance between emotion and
cognition, while Bar-On (2000) concentrated upon emotional intelligence influences
on performance and well being, and Goleman (1995, 1998, Goleman et al., 2002)
concentrated on emotional intelligence as a competency model. Three theories that
have generated the most willingness in terms of research and applications are namely
the theories of Bar-On (1988, 2000), Mayer and Salovey (1997), and Goleman (1998).

Bar-On (1988, 2000)
The first theory which emerged is Bar-On theory in 1988. He coined the term of
“emotional quotient” (EQ) in his doctoral dissertation which is an analogue to intelligent
quotient (IQ).

Bar-On (1997) matured his own mixed-model construct of emotional intelligence, which
is tested and appraised by the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I). His construct
follows a 1-5-15 breakdown of assessing individual’s level of emotional intelligence.
There is an overall EQ score (1), with each of the five compound scales receiving a
score (5), and likewise 15 subscales, each receiving its own individual score. The five
social and emotional abilities subscales are sorted as “intrapersonal”, “interpersonal”,
“stress management”, “adaptability”, and “general mood” which all together impact an
individual’s ability to challenge with environmental demands effectively.

Hence, his model framed emotional intelligence in the concept of personality theory
that in case of general model of psychological well-being and adaption is best viewed
(Goleman, 2001). That is to say, the 15 subscales are divided up in accord with their
respective composite scales. All Bar-On EQ-I scales and the emotional intelligence
competencies and skills which assessed by each scale are addressed in Table 1.

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 361

Mayer and Salovey (1997)
Mayer and Salovey (1997) framed emotional intelligence within a developmental model
of intelligence which occurred as a result of a realization that traditional measures
of intelligence was not capable to measure individual differences in the emotional
intelligence ability to realize, process and effectively conduct emotions. Thus, they
derived a model based on cognitive consideration which outlines the specific mental
brilliance for distinguishing and culling emotions (Goleman, 2001).

Their model (Figure 1) is inclusive four tiers of abilities with the elaboration of emotional
skill which is increased from basic emotional perception to more complex processes of
unifying emotion and cognition.

The first tire includes abilities that allow one to perceive, estimate, and express emotions.
These types of abilities comprise identifying individual’s own and other’s emotions,
manifesting one’s emotions and distinguishing the expressions of emotion in others. In the
second tire skills involve using emotions to facilitate and prioritize idea (Goleman, 2001).

That is to say, using the emotions to assist in judgment as well as recognizing that mood
swings can lead to a thoughtfulness of alternative viewpoints, and understanding that

Table 1: The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI)

EQ-I SCALES The EI competencies and skills assessed by each scale

Intrapersonal
Self-regard
Emotional self-
awareness
Assertiveness
Independence
Self-actualization

Self-awareness and self-expression:
To accurately perceive, understand and accept oneself
To be aware of and understand one’s emotions

To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself
To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others
To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential

Interpersonal
Empathy
Social responsibility
Interpersonal
relationship

Social awareness and interpersonal relationship:
To be aware of and understand how others feel
To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others
To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others

Stress management
Stress tolerance
Impulse control

Emotional management and regulation:
To effectively and constructively manage emotions
To effectively and constructively control emotions

Adaptability
Reality-testing
Flexibility
Problem-solving

Change management:
To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality
To adopt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations
To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature

General mood
Optimism
Happiness

Self-motivation:
To be positive and look at the brighter side of life
To feel content with oneself, others and life in general

362 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

a shift in emotional state and perspective can facilitate various kinds problem solving.
The third tier comprises of abilities namely labeling and discriminating among emotions,
understanding complex mixture of feelings and formulating rules about feelings. The
last (forth) tire is the general skill to manage emotions to uphold some social goals. This
level is more complex one of emotional intelligence, because abilities at forth tire allow
individuals to selectively engage in or separate from emotions to monitor and marshal
emotions in themselves and others (Goleman, 2001).

In 2002, Caruso and Salovey by using their ability-based construct identified “

Emotional

Blueprint” which equips managers in their emotional skills. In their manuscript, they
identified an “Emotional Blueprint” through which managers can appraise and mature
their emotional intelligence competencies. Their construct of emotional intelligence
concentrates upon the cognitive abilities of an individual to be capable of identify, use,
understand, and manage emotions. In other words, they posed emotional intelligence
which combines feeling with thinking. What appear later are the main themes of emotional
intelligence in Caruso and Salovey manuscript (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2002, p. 8):

1) “Read People: Identifying Emotions. Emotions contain data. They are signals to us
about significant events going on in our world, whether it’s our internal world, social
world, or the natural environment.”

2) “Get in the Mood: Using Emotions. How we feel influences how we think and what
we think about. Emotions direct our attention to important events; they ready us for a
certain action, and they help guide our thought processes as we solve problems.”

3) “Predict the Emotional Future: Understanding Emotions. Emotions are not random
events. They have underlying causes, they change according to a set of rules, and they

Figure 1: Mayer and Saloveys’ EI Model

Figure 1: Mayer and Saloveys’ EI Model

ADOPTED FROM: Bar-On and Parker (2000)

Emotional Perception

Registering and deciphering of

feelings and emotions

Emotional Integration

Integration of emotions into the

cognitive system, altering

cognition/thought

Emotional Management

Regulation of emotions and the

monitoring of their expression

Emotional Understanding

Assimilation, understanding,

reasoning with emotions

Emotional

Intelligence

Adopted from: Bar-On and Parker (2000)

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 363

can be understood. Knowledge of emotions is reflected by our emotion vocabulary and
our ability to conduct emotional what-if analyses.”

4) “Do It with Feeling: Managing Emotions. Because emotions contain information and
influence thinking, we need to incorporate emotions intelligently into our reasoning,
problem solving, judging, and behaving.”

Goleman (1998)
Goleman (1998) introduced his emotional intelligence based on performance theory
(that is merit based) including a separable set of abilities that integrate cognitive and
affective skills. He identified five dimensions of emotional intelligence in his proposed
framework (Table 2), comprising self-awareness, self-management, self-motivation,
social awareness (empathy) and social skills.

Goleman’s (1998) five dimensions model of emotional intelligence are described as
below:

1) Self-Awareness is allied with the competency to be conscious of which emotions,
moods, and impulses individual is experiencing and why. This also comprises
individual’s consciousness of the results of his or her feelings on others.

2) Self-Regulation pertains to the competency to keep individual’s own emotions and
impulses in check, to remain calm in potentially volatile conditions, and to maintain
composure notwithstanding individual’s emotions.

3) Motivation refers to the ability to remain concentrated upon goals irrespective of
obstacles, to operate from hope of prosperity rather than fear of inability to succeed,
delaying satisfaction, and to accept change to achieve goals.

4) Empathy represents individual’s competency to understand the feelings transmitted
through verbal and nonverbal messages, to prepare emotional support to people when
required, and to understand the linkages among others’ emotions and behaviour.

5) Social Skills is allied with individual’s competency to deal with difficulties without
behaving those who work with him or her, to not permit own or others’ negative
feelings to restrain collaboration, and to handle affective conflict with tact and
diplomacy.

That is to say, his five dimensions of EI classified into two broad categories (Figure 2),
which are personal competence and social competence in dealing with one’s own self
and others respectively (Goleman, 1995).

Table 2 illustrates Goleman’s model of emotional intelligence in 1998, which identified
five domains of emotional intelligence (EI). That earlier model consists of twenty-five
competencies, which divided into two broad competencies.

First category is personal competencies which mean understanding and conducting
emotions in oneself that comprise of three dimensions: Self-Awareness, Self-Regulation,
and Motivation. Second category is social competencies which mean knowing and

364 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

managing emotions in others that include two dimensions: Social-Awareness (Empathy)
and Social Skills (Bar-On & Parker, 2000; Kunnanatt, 2004).

The refinement model (Table 3) brings from latter statistical analyses by his colleague
Richard Boyatzis that supported decomposing the five dimensions into the four domains:
Self-Awareness which is being aware of what one feels, Self-Management considers the

Table 2: Goleman’s Five Dimensions Model of EI

THE EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE FRAMEWORK

P
er

so
na

l s
ki

lls
(

ho
w

w
e

m
an

ag
e

ou
rs

el
ve

s)

Self-awareness
Emotional awareness
Accurate self-
assessment
Self-confidence

Knowing one’s internal states, preferences, resources and intuitions
Recognizing one’s emotions and their effects
Knowing one’s strengths and limits

A strong sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities

Self-regulation
Self-control
Trustworthiness
Conscientiousness
Adaptability
Innovation

Managing one’s internal impulses and resources
Keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in check
Maintaining standards of honesty and integrity
Taking the responsibility for personal performance
Flexibility in handling change
Being comfortable with novel ideas, approaches, and new information

Motivation
Achievement drive
Commitment
Initiative
Optimism

Emotional tendencies that guide or facilitate reaching goals
Striving to improve or meet a standard of excellence
Aligning with goals of the group or organisation
Readiness to act on opportunities
Persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks

So
ci

al
s

ki
lls

(
ho

w
w

e
m

an
ag

e
re

la
tio

ns
hi

ps
)

Empathy
Understanding others

Developing others
Service orientation
Leveraging diversity
Political awareness

Awareness of other’s feelings, needs, and concerns
Sensing others’ feelings and perspectives, and taking active interest
in their concerns
Sensing others’ development needs and bolstering their abilities
Anticipating, recognizing, and meeting customers’ needs
Cultivating opportunities through different kinds of people
Reading a group’s emotional currents and power relationships

Social Skills
Influence
Communication
Conflict management
Leadership
Change catalyst
Building bonds
Collaboration &
cooperation
Team capabilities

Adeptness and inducing desirable responses in others
Wielding effective tactics for persuasion
Listening openly and sending convincing messages
Negotiating and resolving disagreements
Inspiring and guiding individuals and groups
Initiating or managing change
Nurturing instrumental relationships
Working with others toward shared goals

Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals

Adopted from: Goleman’s (1998) Book “Working With Emotional Intelligence”

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 365

ability to regulate distressing influences like anxiety and anger and to restrain emotional
impulsivity, Social Awareness which comprises the competency of Empathy, and
Relationship Management or Social Skill which in a fundamental sense, the effectiveness
of our relationship skills depend on our ability to adjust ourselves to or affect the emotions
of another person. That ability in turn builds on other domains of emotional intelligence,
especially Self-Management and Social Awareness. If we cannot control our emotional
tantrums or impulses and lack Empathy, there is less possibility we will be effective in
our relationships (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000).

Indeed, in their analysis of data on workplace effectiveness, they discovered that
Emotional Self-Awareness is required for effective Self-Management, which in turn
anticipates greater Social Skill. A secondary pathway runs from Self-Awareness to Social
Awareness (specifically Empathy. Finally, Relationship Management depends on a base
of Self-Management and Empathy, each of which in turn requires Self-Awareness.

Figure 2: Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence Two Broad Categories

Figure 2: Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence Two Broad Categories

ADOPTED FROM: Bar-On and Parker (2000) and Kunnanatt (2004)

Personal Competence

• Self-Awareness

• Self-Management

• Self-Motivation

Social Competence

• Social Awareness

• Social Skills

Emotional Intelligence

Adopted from: Bar-On and Parker (2000) and Kunnanatt (2004)

Table 3: Goleman’s Refinement Model of EI (2001)

Personal Competence Social Competence

Recognition
Self-Awareness
-Emotional self-awareness
-Accurate self-assessment
-Self-confidence

Social Awareness
-Empathy
-Organisational awareness
-Service

Regulation

Self-Management
-Emotional self-control
-Transparency
-Adaptability
-Achievement
-Initiative
-Optimism

Relationship Management
-Inspirational leadership
-Influence
-Developing others
-Change catalyst
-Conflict management
-Building bonds
-Teamwork & collaboration

366 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

Goleman (1998) and Bar- On (1997) perceived emotional intelligence as a mixed-model
that combines not only cognitive abilities, but also personality traits also. Goleman (1998)
Working with Emotional Intelligence and Goleman et al. (2002) Primal Leadership, are
two books that further purified Goleman’s broad definition of emotional intelligence
into domains (2001, p. 39)(Table 3). These fields reflect an intrapersonal component as
well as an interpersonal component. These two broad parts make up Goleman’s whole
construct, but then they are broken down further into specific competencies (2001, p.39):

1) Personal Competence: These abilities determine how we conduct ourselves.
a) Self-Awareness
• Emotional self-awareness: Reading one’s own emotions and recognizing their

impact; using “gut sense” to guide decisions
• Accurate self-assessment: Knowing one’s strengths and limits
• Self-confidence: A sound sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities
b) Self-Management
• Emotional self-control: Keeping disruptive emotions and impulses under control
• Transparency: Displaying honesty and integrity; trustworthiness
• Adaptability: Flexibility in adapting to changing situations or overcoming obstacles
• Achievement: The drive to improve performance to meet inner standards of

excellence
• Initiative: Readiness to act and seize opportunities
• Optimism: Seeing the upside in events

2) Social Competence: These abilities determine how we conduct relationships.

a) Social Awareness
• Empathy: Sensing others’ emotions, understanding their perspective, and taking

active interest in their concerns
• Organisational awareness: Reading the currents, decision networks, and politics

at the organisational level
• Service: Recognizing and meeting follower, client, or customer needs
b) Relationship Management
• Inspirational leadership: Guiding and motivating with a compelling vision
• Influence: Wielding a range of tactics for persuasion
• Developing others: Bolstering others’ abilities through feedback and guidance
• Change catalyst: Initiating, managing, and leading in a new direction
• Conflict management: Resolving disagreements
• Building bonds: Cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships
• Teamwork and collaboration: Cooperation and team building

This model (Table 3) is a refinement of the model that Goleman used in 1998. That earlier
framework (Table 2) identified five domains, or dimensions, of emotional intelligence
that comprised twenty-five competencies. Three dimensions—Self-Awareness, Self-
Regulation, and Motivation—depicted personal abilities, that is, knowing and conducting
emotions in oneself. Two dimensions—Empathy and Social Skills—depicted social
abilities, that is, knowing and conducting emotions in others. The current model reflects

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 367

recent statistical analyses by his colleague Richard Boyatzis that supported collapsing the
twenty-five competencies into twenty, and the five domains into the four ones (Boyatzis,
Goleman, & Rhee, 2000).

Certainly, these three main models are the substructure for other emotional intelligence
theories and constructs. Over passing decades, theorists have generated definition of
emotional intelligence. Namely, Zeidner et al. (2004) by analyzing of the literature,
mediate that there are two models of emotional intelligence as below:
1. Mental ability models: these models are concentrates on aptitude for processing

affective information, in which emotional intelligence is viewed as a well defined and
conceptually related collection of cognitive abilities for the processing of emotional
information and regulating emotion adaptively, namely Mayer and Salovey ability
model (1997).

2. Mixed models: in these models emotional intelligence conceptualize as a various
construct, including aspects of personality and ability to comprehend, assimilate,
understand and conduce emotions. These models include motivational factors and
drastic dispositions. Bar-On (1988-2000) and Goleman (1998) can be classified as
mixed models.

Discussion
Nature of organisations has been changed in the last two decades. Firms have been
decided to move toward knowledge, team-based and client-oriented vocations which
results in raising individuals’ autonomy at all levels of enterprises. Moreover criteria
of success have been changed in the workplace. Previously, individuals examined just
by their smart but in recent years organisations seek to hire individuals who are more
emotionally intelligence.

Based on review of the relevant literature, three main theories have been perceived in
emotional intelligence domain: (1) Bar-On (1988, 2000). His model framed emotional
intelligence in the concept of personality theory which in case of general model of
psychological well-being and adaption is best viewed (Goleman, 2001). (2) Mayer and
Salovey (1997). They derived a model base on cognitive consideration which outlines
the specific mental brilliance for distinguishing and culling emotions (Goleman, 2001).
(3) Goleman (1998). Goleman (1998) introduced his emotional intelligence model based
on performance theory (that is merit based) including a separable set of abilities that
integrate cognitive and affective skills.

Therefore, there are two broad categories of models in this area: (1) Ability model:
Matured by Mayer and Salovey that concentrates upon using intelligence to guide
emotions (Weinberger, 2004). Mayer and Salovey (1997) thought that emotional
intelligence is based initially in mental abilities. (2) Mixed model: Matured by Goleman
(1998) and Bar-On (1988), where emotional intelligence is not solely depending on
cognition, but upon a socio-emotion centered in personality traits. Definitely, Mayer
and Salovey focused upon the relevance between emotion and cognition, while Bar-On
concentrated upon emotional intelligence influences on performance and well being, and
Goleman relied on emotional intelligence as a competency model.

368 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

References
Armstrong, D. (2000). Emotions in Organizations. Paper presented ISPSO Symposium.
London.

Barchard, K. A., & Hakstian, A. R, (2004). The nature and measurement of emotional
intelligence abilities: basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability
and personality variables. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 64, 437–62.

Bar-On, R. (1988). The development of a concept of psychological well-being.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rhodes University, South Africa.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual.
Toronto: Multi-Health System.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional
Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of
emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth
Version (EQ-i:YV) Technical Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1999). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence and cognitive
competencies to predict financial performance of leaders. Psicothema, 18, 124-131.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) In R. Bar-On &
J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development,
assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 343-362). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.

Cherniss, C. (2000). Social and emotional competence in the workplace. In Bar-on, R.,
& Parker, J.D.A. (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 433-458). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (1998). Bringing Emotional Intelligence to the Workplace.
Retrieved June 16, 2011 from www.eiconsortium.org.

Cooper, R.K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive eq: Emotional intelligence in leadership
and organizations. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group.

Domagalski, T.A. (1999). Emotion in organizations, Human Relations, 52(6), 833-852.

Eriksson, C. B. (2004). The effects of change programs on employees’ emotions.
Personnel Review. 33(1), 110-126.

Fariselli, L., Ghini, M. and Freedman, J. (2006). Emotional Intelligence and Age.
Retrieved April 02, 2011, from http://www.6seconds.org/sei/ wp-age.php.

Fineman, S., (1993). Emotion in organizations, (Ed.) London: Sage Publications.

Fineman, S. (1996). Emotion and organizing. In C. Hardy, S. Clegg, & W. Nord (Eds),
Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage.

International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012 369

Fineman, S. (1997). Emotion and management learning. Management Learning, 28,
13-25.

Fineman, S. (2000). Emotions in organizations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). Emotions in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 121–234.

Fleishman, E., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behaviour related to employee
grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.

French, R. (2001). Negative Capability: managing the confusing uncertainties of change.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 480-492.

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

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-based theory of performance. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman
(Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jamali, D., Sidani, Y., & Abu-Zaki, D. (2008). Emotional Intelligence and management
development implications: Insights from the Lebanese context. Journal of Management
Development, (27) 3, 348 – 360.

Jordan, PJ & Troth, AC. (2002). Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution:
Implications for human resource development, in JL Callahan & EE McCollum (eds.),
Advances In Developing Human Resources, Special Edition Perspectives of Emotion
and Organizational Change, 4 (1), 62–79.

Kafetsios K, Zampetakis LA (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing
the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Pers Indiv Differ, 44(3),
710-720.

Khalili, A. (2011). Gender Differences in Emotional Intelligence Among Employees of
Small and Medium Enterprise: An Empirical Study. Journal of International Management
Studies, 6(2), 184-193.

Kunnanatt, J. T. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: The New Science of Interpersonal
Effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), 489-495.

Lynn, A. B. (2002). The Emotional Intelligence Activity Book. New York: HRD Press.

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

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In I. P. Salovey &
D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence (pp. 3-13).
New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

370 International Journal of Management Vol. 29 No. 3 Part 2 Sept 2012

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory,
findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 60, 197–215.

McClelland, David C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews.
Psychological Science, 9(5), 331-340.

Mumsford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Owen Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E.A.
(2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems.
Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.

Murray, B. (1998). Does “emotional intelligence” matter in the workplace?
APA Monitor, 29(7).

Nikolaou, I. & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: exploring
its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment. International Journal
of Organizational Analysis, 10, 327-342.

Oginska- Bulik, N. (2005). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: exploring its effects
on occupational stress and health outcomes in human service workers. International
Journal Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 18(2), 167-75.

Pekrun, R. and Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement, In: Cooper, C. L. and
Robertson, D. T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
7, (pp. 153-200). St. Edmundsbury Press, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester.

Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E. & Parker, R. (2002). An empirical evaluation of emotional
intelligence: The impact on management development. Journal of Management
Development 21, 272-289.

Spencer, L. M. Jr., Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior
performance. New York: Wiley.

Thi Lam L. & Kirby S.L. (2002). Is Emotional Intelligence and advantage? An exploration
of the impact of emotional and general intelligence on individual performance.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 133-143.

Turnbull, S. (1999). Emotional labour in corporate change programmes: the effect
of organizational feeling rules on middle managers, Human Resources Development
International, 2(2), 125-146.

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

Weinberger, L. A. (2004). An examination of the relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership style. Human Resource Development Review, 54(1),
1151-1158.

Wolfe, C.J., Caruso, D.R. (2004). Emotional intelligence. Shelton, CT: New Haven
Consulting Group.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. & Roberts, R. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace:
a critical review, Applied Psychology. An International Review, 53(3), 371-99.

Contact email address: ashkankhalili@ymail.com

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE WORKPLACE: EXPLORING ITS EFFECTS ON …
Nikolaou, Ioannis;Tsaousis, Ioannis
International Journal of Organizational Analysis; 2002; 10, 4; ProQuest One Academic
pg. 327

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linking emotional intelligence, spirituality and workplace …
Tischler, Len;Biberman, Jerry;McKeage, Robert
Journal of Managerial Psychology; 2002; 17, 3; ProQuest One Academic
pg. 203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ABSTRACT

BROOKS, JONI KING. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of

managers in a financial organization by performance level. (Under the direction of James
Burrow)

As companies increasingly are required to do more with less, seemingly “soft”

skills, based on emotions, are associated with leadership effectiveness and organizational

success. Research suggests that emotional “competencies,” such as those related to

empathy, adaptability, self-control, emotional self-awareness, ability to develop others, and

so forth, contribute significantly to leader

effectiveness.

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences in EI levels exist among high

performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in this

financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their performance

ratings exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than managers with lower

performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels and various demographic

characteristics of the

sample.

The data were gathered from a sample of 57 from the study population—79 members

of the management team of a large regional financial organization selected to participate in

an internal study on emotional intelligence.

The participating managers completed self-

report versions of the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0 (ECI 2.0) (Hay/McBer,

2002).

They, in turn, asked others with whom they work closely to complete 360-degree versions

of the instrument, providing feedback on the participants. Participants also completed an

instrument that gathered demographic data, including title, position, area, management

tenure, gender, educational level, and type of degree, and their most recent performance

ratings (three, four, or five on a five-point scale).

The researcher analyzed the ECI scores provided by the Hay Group, performance

ratings, and demographic data via a statistical analysis computing system, SAS 8. She

employed the general linear model (GLM) version of analysis of variance (ANOVA), T-

test, and union-intersection test methods.

Findings indicated that high ratings and high emotional intelligence were not

significantly related at a 95 percent confidence level. They were significantly related on

three competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism—at a 90 percent

confidence level. The EI average scores of the sample differed significantly from the

average scores of other groups in the ECI North American Database on three competencies:

Achievement, Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional Self-control. Statistically

significant differences between Sales and Support functions were evident in three

competencies: Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and Transparency. For all three,

Support EI levels were greater than Sales EI levels. Position, title, gender, and management

tenure did not

significantly impact the emotional

intelligence of the sample.

While educational level did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of

the sample, statistically significant differences existed between those with a Bachelor of

Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts degree on four competencies: Conflict

Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness. EI

levels of those with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BA degrees in

Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI levels of those

with BA degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees on one competency:

Emotional Self-awareness.

Results of the self versus total others ratings indicated that statistically significant

differences exist in four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational

Leadership, and Self-confidence. For each of the four competencies, EI levels of total

others were greater than self-reported EI levels.

Emotional Competencies of Leaders:

A Comparison of Managers in a Financial Organization by

Performance Level

By

Joni King Brooks

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North
Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Adult and Community College Education

Raleigh

2002

Approved by:

____________________________ _____________________________
Dr. James L. Burrow Dr. Paula Berardinelli
Chair of Advisory Committee

____________________________ _____________________________
Dr. John Pettitt Dr. Michael Vasu

UMI Number: 3073312

________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3073312

Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

____________________________________________________________

ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road

PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

ii

Biography

Joni King Brooks earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism, with a double major in

speech communications, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1981). She holds a

master’s degree in public administration from North Carolina State University (1992). Her

research interests include leadership and workplace performance.

Ms. Brooks works as a manager of public relations and marketing communications with

a telecommunications solutions provider. She has 20 years of experience in communications,

marketing, and public relations. Her career, which began in the news media, has encompassed

roles in a number of organizations, including those focused in non-profit, health-care, education,

research, banking, and high tech.

Ms. Brooks is the daughter of Carolyn Riggs King and the late William E. (Eddie)

King. She resides in Raleigh, N.C., with her husband, Ricky, and son, Austin.

iii

Acknowledgements

Along the long and curving road that I have traveled to complete this degree, I have

been very fortunate to have the support of numerous family members, friends, and

acquaintances. I sincerely appreciate all who have encouraged and assisted me.

In particular, I am indebted to the members of my advisory committee. Each has

offered support and guidance, helping me attain this ultimate academic goal. Dr. Michael Vasu

has been a part of my entire post-graduate academic life. He taught my very first graduate class

and served as my advisor during my master’s program. I sincerely appreciate his guidance and

support. Dr. Paula Berardinelli kindly stepped in to fill the void left by a committee member

who retired before I completed the

degree.

She has offered much encouragement when I was

discouraged and assistance, even trying to help me find a company to participate in my study

after one backed out far into the process. Dr. John Pettitt has served as a helpful advisor both as

an instructor and committee member.

Dr. James Burrow, the chair the advisory committee, has provided constant guidance

and aid. Dr. Burrow steered me through the doctoral requirements, helping me succeed along

the way. He gave willingly of his time and expertise, and his efforts are most appreciated.

My friends and family have provided support to enable me to achieve this goal. First, I

want to thank my parents, Carolyn Riggs King and the late William E. (Eddie) King, who

provided me with the foundation to achieve and instilled in me the value of education and

success. My parents taught me perseverance and to roll with the punches, reminding me that life

is not always fair. My mother is a source of continuous encouragement, support, and love. I

know my late father and late brother, Edwin, would be proud of this accomplishment.

I sincerely appreciate all who helped me identify a company to participate—which

proved to be an arduous task. I am very grateful to those in the participating organization who

contributed greatly to the completion of the research study.

iv

Finally, to my husband, Ricky, and son, Austin, thank you for loving, supporting, and

inspiring me. Ricky, you have given unselfishly and are always there to pick up the pieces,

enabling me to achieve this dream.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… IX

CHAPTER I…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT……………………………………………………………………………..1

Emotional Intelligence……………………………………………………………………………………………………..4

EI and IQ ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6

EI and Leadership …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8

ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9

Research Questions and Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………………………….9

Applicability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15

TERMS DEFINED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16

RESEARCH DESIGN ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16

DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY…………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Population ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers ………………………………………………………………18

Gathering of Survey Information……………………………………………………………………………………..18

SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE …………………………………………………………………20

ORGANIZATION OF THE LITERATURE …………………………………………………………………………………….20

LEADERSHIP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………21

Leadership Behavior Theory …………………………………………………………………………………………..22

Leadership versus Management ………………………………………………………………………………………23

EMOTIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………27

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE………………………………………………………………………………………………….29

vi

EI competencies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….32

EI and EQ…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….34

Moving Ahead……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35

EI History …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND LEADERSHIP ………………………………………………………………………..38

Johnson & Johnson Emotional Competencies and Leadership Study ……………………………………39

EI Training …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41

EI AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS …………………………………………………………………………….43

EI and Functional and Position Differences ……………………………………………………………………..43

EI and Gender ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43

EI AND PERFORMANCE IN THE FINANCE SECTOR …………………………………………………………………….45

MEASURING EI…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..45

COMPARING SELF AND OTHERS’ RATINGS……………………………………………………………………………..47

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AS A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS …………………………………………………48

SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………49

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………………………..51

METHODS AND PROCESSES ………………………………………………………………………………………………….53

Research Design ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………53

Data Needs and Collection Steps……………………………………………………………………………………..53

Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54

Reliability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….56

Validity ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..58

Scale Design …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………60

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM OF PARTICIPATING COMPANY ……………………………………………60

Sales Performance Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………61

Support Performance Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………..62

Demographic Form ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….63

vii

Population and Sample…………………………………………………………………………………………………..64

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers ………………………………………………………………65

Gathering of Survey Information……………………………………………………………………………………..65

2002 Performance Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………..67

Data collection procedures……………………………………………………………………………………………..67

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND DATA ANALYSIS……………………………………………………69

Analysis of Research Question One………………………………………………………………………………….69

Analysis of Research Question Two………………………………………………………………………………….71

Analysis of Research Question Three ……………………………………………………………………………….73

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………78

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………………………………………………………78

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, NULL HYPOTHESES, AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES ……………………………..78

Research Question One ………………………………………………………………………………………………….79

Research Question Two ………………………………………………………………………………………………….81

ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………85

Detailed Research Questions and Null and Alternative Hypotheses Review…………………………..87

2002 Performance Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………..88

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: SELF VERSUS OTHERS RATINGS………………………………………………………….106

SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….108

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………113

SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….113

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ……………………………………………………………………………114

KEY FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….120

DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………………………122

LIMITATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………128

RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………129

viii

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………131

FINAL COMMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….133

REFERENCE LIST……………………………………………………………………………………………………………135

APPENDIX A EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES. …………..143

APPENDIX B ECI ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..147

APPENDIX C CHRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENTS…………………………………………………157

APPENDIX D TEST-RETEST STABILITY ……………………………………………………………………….158

APPENDIX E SALES APPRAISAL FORM………………………………………………………………………..159

APPENDIX F SUPPORT APPRAISAL CHECKLIST…………………………………………………………168

APPENDIX G DEMOGRAPHICS………………………………………………………………………………………173

APPENDIX H STATISTICAL ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………174

APPENDIX I CONSENT FORMS………………………………………………………………………………………190

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1 EMOTIONS: CONVENTIONAL VS. HIGH-PERFORMANCE ………………………………………………………………28

TABLE 2.2 ADDITIONAL CONVENTIONAL VS. HIGH-PERFORMANCE EMOTIONS ……………………………………………..28

TABLE 4.1 MEAN SCORES FOR EACH COMPETENCY BY RATING…………………………………………………………………..89

TABLE 4.2 RELATIONSHIP OF HIGH RATINGS TO HIGH EI SCORES………………………………………………………………..91

TABLE 4.3 RELATIONSHIP OF EI COMPETENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATINGS AT 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE ……92

TABLE 4.4 EI COMPARISONS OF BANK SAMPLE WITH OTHER SAMPLES…………………………………………………………94

TABLE 4.5 RELATIONSHIP OF EI COMPETENCIES AND POSITIONS AT 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL ……………..95

TABLE 4.6 RELATIONSHIP OF EI COMPETENCIES AND TITLES AT 95-PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL…………………..96

TABLE 4.7 RELATIONSHIP OF GENDER AND EI A 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL ………………………………………..98

TABLE 4.8 MEANS SCORES BY GENDER IN DESCENDING ORDER ………………………………………………………………….99

TABLE 4.9 SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EI AND AREA……………………………………………………………..100

TABLE 4.10 SUPPORT MANAGERS’ HIGHEST- AND LOWEST-RATED COMPETENCIES ……………………………………..101

TABLE 4.11 SALES MANAGERS’ HIGHEST- AND LOWEST-RATED COMPETENCIES …………………………………………101

TABLE 4.12 COMPARISONS OF EI MEANS FOR SALES AND SUPPORT FUNCTIONS …………………………………………102

TABLE 4.13 RELATIONSHIP OF EI AND TENURE A 95-PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL …………………………………….103

TABLE 4.14 RELATIONSHIP OF EI AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AT 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL…………………104

TABLE 4.15 EI SCORES SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO BA VERSUS BS DEGREES …………………………………………..106

TABLE 4.16 STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….107

TABLE 4.17 EI COMPETENCY SCORES FOR SELF AND TOTAL OTHERS’ RATINGS FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST …….107

TABLE 4.18 SUMMARY OF NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS TESTING…………………………………………………109

TABLE A1 SELF-AWARENESS COMPETENCIES ………………………………………………………………………………………..143

TABLE A2 SELF-MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES……………………………………………………………………………………..144

TABLE A3 SOCIAL AWARENESS COMPETENCIES …………………………………………………………………………………….145

TABLE A4 RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES………………………………………………………………………..146

TABLE C CHRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENTS………………………………………………………………………………………157

TABLE D TEST-RETEST STABILITY COEFFICIENTS …………………………………………………………………………………..158

x

TABLE H1 ANOVA FOR RATINGS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….174

TABLE H2 ANOVA FOR POSITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………176

TABLE H3 ANOVA FOR TITLES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….178

TABLE H4 ANOVA FOR GENDER………………………………………………………………………………………………………..180

TABLE H5 ANOVA FOR AREA ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………182

TABLE H6ANOVA FOR TENURE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………184

TABLE H7 T-TEST FOR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ……………………………………………………………………………………….186

TABLE H8 T-TEST FOR BA AND BS……………………………………………………………………………………………………..188

TABLE H9 T-TEST FOR SELF AND TOTAL OTHERS ……………………………………………………………………………………189

1

Chapter I

Introduction and Problem Statement

The times, they are still “a changing.” Companies today are very different from

those of the past. Globalization, increased competition, and technology advances are

requiring organizations, management teams, and employees to do more with less—while

retaining the flexibility to address changes.

According to Cherniss and Adler (2000), factors contributing to the turbulence

resulting from changes in the marketplace include technical innovation, global

competition, and pressures from institutional investors. Among technical innovations,

they cite organizational downsizing. “As organizations shrink, people who remain are

more accountable and more visible. They must interact with more peers, more

subordinates, and more customers” (p. 4).

The highly competitive environment driving today’s organizations has negative

effects. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) stated that the intellect required to make companies

competitive has resulted in dramatic costs to employees. The costs include “crumbling

trust, jarring uncertainty, greater distance between managers and those they manage,

stifled creativity, festering cynicism, increasingly volatile anger, and vanishing loyalty

and commitment” (pp. xi-xii).

Motivation, initiative, and cooperation also may be lacking among today’s employees

and may be resulting in less-than-effective organizations. Cherniss and Adler referred to

a 1991 study of American employers by Harris Education Research. Their findings

indicated that more than half of employees in the surveyed organizations “lacked the

2

motivation to continue learning and improving on the job. Four of 10 were not able to

work cooperatively with fellow employees, and just 19 percent of those applying for

entry-level jobs had enough discipline in their work habits” (p. 7).

Kouzes and Posner (1997) explained that both employees’ loyalties to institutions

and institutions’ loyalties to employees are diminishing. They added that the power

within organizations has shifted from the top brass to the people and to those with

technology and the skills to use it. Nearly half the population is cynical, and cynics don’t

participate in improving things. In such a climate, how can a leader possibly mobilize a

seemingly unwilling constituency (p. xviii)? They added, “With movement away from

the powerful bosses to the empowered people, organizational structures are flattening.

Everyone is connected, and knowledge has become synonymous with currency. Kouzes

and Posner contended that organizational success and the ability to compete are

“dependent upon the mental fitness of the workforce” (p. xviii).

Further, they explained, because there are far more products and services today

than were available a decade ago, the marketplace is fragmented. Organizations are

reducing staffs and, what was once a permanent workforce is changing to include

contingent and self-employed workers. “Loyalty and job security, we’re told, have gone

the way of the dodo bird” (p. xix).

However, the situation is not hopeless. “There’s a new search for meaning. With

today’s cynicism, fragmentation, and shifting relationships has come a yearning for a

greater purpose in our lives. … In the race of these new realities, there are countless

opportunities to make a difference. …More than ever, there’s a need for people to seize

these opportunities to lead us to greatness” (Kouzes and Posner, pp. xix-xx).

3

What separates the successful companies from others? According to Rodriguez,

Patel, Bright, Gregory, and Gowing (2002), a distinguishing element is superior

employees. “High-performing people are critical to high-performing organizations” (p.

309). Gordon (1998) added, “Enlightened companies now look for managers of

independent spirit, people with the courage of their convictions. Enlightened companies

want up-and-coming leaders who will speak their minds, boldly and openly” (p. 54).

Other sources, including Cherniss and Adler (2000), George (2000), and Goleman

(1998b), pointed to social and emotional competencies, such as feelings, emotions,

moods, and so forth—as differentiators in today’s competitive and continually changing

work environment. As a manager of a telecommunications company explained, “You

don’t compete with products alone anymore, but how well you use your people”

(Goleman, p. 7). Cherniss and Adler added that because of changes in the domestic and

global marketplace, “Personal qualities, such as resilience, optimism, and initiative, have

become more important in recent years” (pp. 2-3).

Goleman (1998b) contended that in today’s organizations, high performers are not

necessarily the most intelligent or most highly skilled employees. He wrote, “We’re

being judged by a new yardstick; not just by how smart we are, or by our training and

expertise, but also by how well we handle ourselves and each other. This yardstick is

increasingly applied in choosing who will be hired and who will not, who will be let go

and who retained, who passed over and who promoted” (p. 3).

Cherniss and Adler (2000) contended that because of a growing body of research

in competencies as well as personal experiences, employers are modifying their ideas

about what qualifications of an employee are most important. They cited results of a

4

survey conducted by the Department of Labor and American Society for Training and

Development. The survey sought to determine characteristics employers required for

entry-level positions. Results showed that the most important qualities were personal

management (self-esteem, goal setting and motivation, and personal and career

development); interpersonal skills (negotiation and teamwork); and organizational

effectiveness and leadership. The authors referenced a study by Dowd and Liedtka that

found that employers value the same competencies in entry-level managers. Results

indicated that qualities most desired in candidates with Master of Business

Administration degrees were communications skills, interpersonal skills, and initiative.

Identifying personnel possessing such specific qualities as these is not easy. It is

becoming increasingly challenging for organizations to recruit, select, and retain high-

performing employees (Rodriguez et al., 2002). The authors suggested that human

resources personnel consider competency-based programs: “Competencies provide the

foundation through which human resource professionals can contribute to the success of

their organizations” (p. 309).

While the concept of competencies has increased in popularity recently, the

concept is not new. In the 1970s, David McClelland’s research suggested that “academic

aptitude and knowledge content tests alone did not predict high job performance or

success in life, and that individual characteristics or competencies can identify high

performers” (Rodriguez, et al., 2002, p. 309).

Emotional Intelligence

Many have attempted to define the term emotional intelligence or to add their

descriptions to its definition. Some definitions focus on the skills or competencies of an

5

emotionally intelligent person, some have focused on behaviors, and some have focused

on intelligence.

Goleman has worked extensively in the competency area. He is well known for

his research on emotional intelligence. Since his best-selling book on emotional

intelligence in 1995, the term has come into increasingly popular use. Goleman (1998b)

introduced the concept of emotional intelligence and the role of emotions: “The new

measure takes for granted having enough intellectual ability and technical know-how to

do our jobs; it focuses instead on personal qualities, such as initiative and empathy,

adaptability, and persuasiveness” (p. 3). These “personal qualities” are included in the

emotional intelligence framework as EI competencies (See Tables A1-A4, Appendix A).

Goleman (1998b) described emotional intelligence as “the capacity for

recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, for managing

emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). He continued, “Emotional

intelligence determines our potential for learning the practical skills that are based on its

five elements: self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and adeptness in

relationships” (p. 24). Goleman distinguished between emotional intelligence and

emotional competence. Emotional competence is a “learned capability based on

emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work” (p. 24).

“Emotional competence shows how much of that potential we have translated into on-

the-job capabilities” (p. 25). For example, being effective at customer service is an

emotional

competency based on empathy.

According to Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (1998), with emotional intelligence

(EI), one is able to process emotional information, specifically as it involves the

6

perception, assimilation, understanding, and management of emotion. EI consists of four

branches of mental

ability:

1. Emotional identification, perception and expression

2. Emotional facilitation of thought

3. Emotional understanding

4. Emotional management

Cooper and Sawaf (1997) defined emotional intelligence in terms of energy,

relationships, and influence. It is “the ability to sense, understand, and effectively apply

the power and acumen of emotions as a source of human energy, connection, and

influence” (p.xiii). They contended that every business leader wants or needs emotional

intelligence. Subordinates want these qualities in a manager, and people hope for them in

a parent, partner, and sibling. They reported that emotional intelligence contributes to

employee and organizational success, citing examples in the following areas (p. xii):

Decision making

Leadership

Strategic and technical breakthroughs

Open honest communication

Trusting relationships and teamwork

Customer loyalty

Creativity and innovation

EI and IQ

Cacioppo and Gardner (1999) contended that emotion contributes not only to

intelligence but also to a fulfilling life. “The heightened ability to monitor one’s own and

7

others’ emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one’s

thinking and action has proven to be as important a determinant of life success as

traditional measures of intelligence such as IQ” (p.194).

Other theorists (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cherniss,

2000; and Druskat, 2001) also proposed that EQ is an important as IQ to ensuring

effective performance of workers and success in

organizations.

However, as Cherniss (2000) stated, it is absurd to suggest that cognitive ability is

not related to success in various disciplines and organizations. “We also should keep in

mind that cognitive and non-cognitive abilities are very much related. In fact, there is

research suggesting that emotional and social skills actually help improve cognitive

functioning” (p. 8). Cherniss and Adler (2000) added, “Emotional intelligence and

cognitive ability actually work together for effective action in organizations. Therefore, it

is not surprising that numerous studies point to EI as critical for success at work” (p. 5).

EI and

Leadership

Researchers (including Goleman, 1998b; George, 2002; Cavallo and Brienza,

2002; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; and George, 1995) have linked emotions and

competencies with performance and leadership.

Is high emotional intelligence synonymous with high performance? This was the

contention of Goleman (1998b), who has stated that with the recent emphasis on

flexibility, teams, and a strong customer focus in the workplace, “this crucial set of

emotional competencies is becoming increasingly essential for excellence in every job

and in every part of the world” (p. 29). The studies cited suggest that emotional

8

intelligence is related to the effectiveness and advancement of managers in today’s

organizations.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences in EI levels exist among

high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in

this financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their performance

ratings exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than managers with lower
performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels and various demographic

characteristics of the sample, including position, title, area of employment, gender,

education level, type of degree, and management tenure.

In a study of emotional intelligence and leadership performance, it is important to

examine the concepts related to emotions, emotional intelligence, leadership, leadership

theories, and the

relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership.

The literature indicates that as companies increasingly are required to do more

with less, seemingly “soft” skills, based on emotions, are associated with leadership

effectiveness and organizational success. Research suggests that emotional

“competencies,” such as those related to empathy, adaptability, self control, emotional

self-awareness, and so forth, contribute significantly to leader effectiveness. This study

examines whether levels of emotional competencies are related to performance (as

defined by performance ratings) of managers in one organization.

9

Analysis

The analysis addressed research questions and null hypotheses posed to determine

if, in a sample, performance levels are related to levels of emotional intelligence; if EI

scores of the sample were similar to those of others surveyed using the same instrument;

and if various demographic characteristics of the sample (gender, position, title, sales or

support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree) are related to

emotional intelligence.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question One: Do high-performing leaders exhibit high emotional

intelligence?

Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18): High performance ratings and high scores on

each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies listed below are not related:

(H0-1): Achievement

(H0-2): Adapt

ability

(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment

(H0-4): Conflict Management

(H0-5): Change Catalyst

(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation

(H0-7): Developing Others

(H0-8): Empathy

(H0-9): Emotional Self-awareness

(H0-10): Emotional Self-control

10

(H0-11): Influence

(H0-12): Initiative

(H0-13): Inspirational Leadership

(H0-14): Organizational Awareness

(H0-15): Optimism

(H0-16): Self-confidence

(H0-17): Transparency

(H0-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H1-1)-(H1-18): High performance ratings and high scores

on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related:

(H1-1): Achievement

(H1-2): Adaptability

(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment

(H1-4): Conflict Management

(H1-5): Change Catalyst

(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation

(H1-7): Developing Others

(H1-8): Empathy

(H1-9): Emotional Self-awareness

(H1-10): Emotional Self-control

(H1-11): Influence

(H1-12): Initiative

(H1-13): Inspirational Leadership

11

(H1-14): Organizational Awareness

(H1-15): Optimism

(H1-16): Self-confidence

(H1-17): Transparency

(H1-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

Research Question Two: How do emotional intelligence competency scores of the

sample compare with emotional intelligence competency scores of other samples

surveyed using the same survey instrument?

Null Hypotheses 2(H0-1)-(H0-16): There are no significant differences among 16

emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence he

competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:

(H0-1): Achievement

(H0-2): Adaptability

(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H0-4): Conflict Management
(H0-5): Change Catalyst
(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation

(H0-7): Empathy

(H0-8): Emotional Self-awareness

(H0-9): Emotional Self-control

(H0-10): Influence

(H0-11): Initiative

(H0-12): Inspirational Leadership

12

(H0-13): Organizational Awareness

(H0-14): Optimism

(H0-15): Self-confidence

(H0-16): Teamwork and Collaboration

Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1)- (H1-16): Significant differences exist among 16

emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence

competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:
(H1-1): Achievement
(H1-2): Adaptability
(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H1-4): Conflict Management
(H1-5): Change Catalyst

(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation

(H1-7): Empathy

(H1-8): Emotional Self-awareness

(H1-9): Emotional Self-control

(H1-10): Influence

(H1-11): Initiative

(H1-12): Inspirational Leadership

(H1-13): Organizational Awareness

(H1-14): Optimism

(H1-15): Self-confidence

(H1-16): Teamwork and Collaboration

13

Research Question Three: Do various demographic characteristics (position, title,

gender, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)

influence scores on 18 emotional intelligence competencies?

Null Hypotheses 3 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample

in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor, manager,

senior manager, and executive) on each of 18

competencies.

Alternative Hypotheses 3 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in

the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor,

manager,

senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.

Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18): (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample

with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, area vice

president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18

competencies.

Alternative Hypotheses 4 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in

the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice

president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18

competencies.

Null Hypotheses 5 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of

men and women in the sample.

14

Alternative Hypotheses 5 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency

scores of

men and women in the sample.

Null Hypotheses 6 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of

managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.

Alternative Hypotheses 6 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency

scores of managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.

Null Hypotheses 7 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of

managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more

than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for

fewer than five years.

Alternative Hypotheses 7 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency

scores of managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports

for more than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct

reports for fewer

than

five years.

Null Hypotheses 8 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of

managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers without

advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree).

15

Alternative Hypotheses 8 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency

scores of managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers

without advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s

degree).

Null Hypotheses 9 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of

managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with Bachelor of

Arts degrees.

Alternative Hypotheses 9 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency

scores of managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with

Bachelor of Arts degrees.

Applicability

If findings from a study of emotional intelligence, such as this one, indicate that

performance levels are tied to EI levels, individuals and organizations may realize a

number of benefits. For individuals, the results of the Emotional Competence Inventory

employed in this study may serve as awareness tools for assessment and development,

providing precise, focused guidance on their emotional strengths in the workplace and

their priorities for improvement. For teams, departments, or business units, the ECI

provides information on emotional strengths in the workplace and priorities for

improvement. It can identify emotional intelligence gaps that might limit effectiveness

(Hay Group, 2002a).

16

If results do not indicate a relationship between performance levels and levels of

EI, individuals and organizations might choose to limit or restrict time and money

invested in programs to identify and enhance EI.

Terms Defined

Emotional intelligence: According to Daniel Goleman (1998b), emotional

intelligence is “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for

motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our

relationships” (p. 317). It refers to 18 social and emotional abilities grouped in four core

areas (Self-awareness, Self-management, Social Awareness, and Relationship

Management) that previous research has indicated are linked to successful performance

in the workplace (Hay Group, 2002c; Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Cherniss, 2000; and

Goleman, 1998b; George, 2000). Emotional intelligence is also known as called

emotional quotient (EQ).

Emotional competence: “A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that

results in outstanding performance at work” (Goleman, 1998b, p. 24).

Research design

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences in EI levels exist among

high performers in one sample organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether

managers in this financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their

performance ratings exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than managers

with lower performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels and various

demographic characteristics of the sample. The data were gathered from a sample of 57

17

from the population—79 members of the management team of a large regional financial

organization selected to participate in an internal study on emotional

intelligence.

The participating managers completed self-report versions of the Emotional

Intelligence Inventory 2.0 then asked others with whom they worked closely to rate them

by completing 360-degree versions of the instrument. Participants also completed forms

indicating their most recent performance ratings (three, four, or five on a five-point scale)

and demographical information, including title, position, area, management tenure,

gender, educational level, and type of degree.

The researcher employed a quantitative research design that provides a numeric

description of a fraction of the population—the sample—through the data collection

process of asking questions of people (Creswell, 1994). From the data collection, the

researcher might be able to generalize from a sample to a population in order to make

inferences about characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of the population.

She analyzed EI scores provided by the Hay Group, performance ratings, and

demographic data via a statistical analysis computing system, SAS 8. The researcher

employed the general linear model (GLM) version of analysis of variance (ANOVA), T-
test, and union-intersection test methods.

Delimitations of the Study

The study is limited in scope; it includes several levels of managers in sales and

support functions in one large organization in the financial services industry. All of the

managers in the sample are high-performing or potentially high-performing managers

selected specifically to participate in an internal study on emotional competency. All

have had ratings of three or higher on a five-point scale for the past two review cycles.

18

Furthermore, performance ratings are based on a performance evaluation process

developed within the organization that has not been validated to discriminate between

high and low performers.

Population

The research study was conducted among managers in one financial organization,

a bank. Based in North Carolina, the bank has branches in three states. The sample of 57

managers included volunteers from the management pool of 79 selected to participate in

an internal study of emotional intelligence.

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers

The sample of 57 was drawn from a population of 79 managers participating in an

internal leadership symposium and/or an internal leadership program, according to the

manager of management and leadership development (personal communication,

November 18, 2002). Of the 79, 59 were asked to participate in the doctoral research

study. Twenty executive-level participants in the bank’s study did not have performance

ratings, and, therefore, did not qualify for participation in the doctoral research study.

Two of the 59 chose not to participate.

Gathering of Survey Information

Data for the study were gathered via the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, an

existing instrument. Study participants completed a “self-report” version of the

instrument. Peers, managers, direct reports, and customers evaluated each participant,

completing 360-degree instruments.

19

Summary

As competition in the workplace heightens, what separates highly successful

organizations from others? Many factors contribute to success in organizations. One

factor cited as contributing to success is effective leadership. What makes a leader

effective? As Goleman (1995, 1998b) and others (including Cherniss, 2000; Cherniss and

Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf, 1997; Druskat, 2001; George, 2000) contend, an

effective leader has more than the technical skills to do a job. He or she employs

qualities, such as initiative and empathy, adaptability, and persuasiveness—competencies

of emotional intelligence. Researchers (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; George, 1995, 2002;

George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Goleman, 1998b) have found relationships between

emotions and competencies and performance and leadership. High EI in organizations

has been linked to improved financial results, improved return on investment in change

initiatives, improved productivity, increased retention of top talent, and increased sales

(Hay Group, 2002b).

This study investigates the EI competencies of high-performing managers in a

financial organization to determine if level of performance and demographic

characteristics are related to EI in the sample.

The research report is organized with the following sections:

1. Introduction and problem statement

2. Literature Review

3. Methodology

4. Findings

5. Summary, Conclusions, and

Recommendations

6. Appendices

20

Chapter II Review of the literature

As competition in the workplace heightens, what separates highly successful
organizations from others? Many factors contribute to success in organizations. One
factor cited as contributing to success is effective leadership. What makes a leader
effective? As Goleman (1995, 1998b) and others (including Cherniss, 2000; Cherniss and

Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf 1997; Druskat, 2001; George. 2000) contend, effective

leaders have more than the technical skills to do a job. They employ qualities, such as

initiative and empathy, adaptability, and persuasiveness—competencies of emotional

intelligence. High EI has been linked to high performance by organizational personnel as

shown in a study at Johnson & Johnson (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002). High EI in

organization has been linked to improved financial results, improved return on

investment in change initiatives, improved productivity, increased retention of top talent,

and increased sales (Hay Group, 2002b).

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences in EI levels exist among
high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in
this financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their performance
ratings exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than managers with lower

performance ratings.

Organization of the Literature

In a study of emotional intelligence and leadership performance, it is important to

examine the concepts related to leadership, emotions, emotional intelligence, and the

relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership.

21

The literature indicates that as companies increasingly are required to do more
with less, seemingly “soft” skills, based on emotions, are associated with leadership
effectiveness and organizational success. Research suggests that emotional
“competencies,” such as those related to empathy, adaptability, self control, emotional

self-awareness, ability to develop others, and so forth, contribute significantly to leader

effectiveness.

In Chapter II, the researcher reviews literature on the following topics:

Leadership

Emotions

Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence and leadership

Emotional intelligence and demographic characteristics

Emotional intelligence and performance in the finance sector

Measuring EI

Comparing self and others’ ratings

Performance appraisal as a measure of effectiveness

Leadership

What characterizes an effective leader? Researchers have attempted to define the

concept only to realize that the term means different things to different people. There are

nearly as many definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define the

concept (Yukl, 1994).

Yukl (1994) further explained, “Leadership has been defined in terms of

individual traits, behaviors, influence over other people, interaction patterns, role

22

relationships, occupations or an administrative position, and perception by others

regarding legitimacy of influence” (p. 2). Most definitions include an assumption that

leadership involves a process of social influence whereby one person exerts intentional

influence over other people to structure the activities and relationships in a group or

organization.

Successful leaders are typically adaptable to situations, alert to social

environment, ambitious and achievement-oriented, assertive, cooperative, decisive,

dependable, dominant (desire to influence others), energetic (high-activity level),

persistent, self-confident, tolerant of stress, and willing to assume responsibility (Yukl,

1994).

Leadership Behavior Theory

Research has uncovered various leadership styles (patterns of behavior).

According to Hampton, Summer, and Webber (1987):

…leaders’ actions fall into two broad categories, actions that get the work out

(leadership of things) and actions that support and encourage subordinates

(leadership of people). Some social scientists believe that one human being cannot

really be an excellent performer at both, and that a given person tends to be task-

oriented or people-oriented in his or her actions. Others insist that the leader not

only can but must be an excellent performer on both scales. At least one author

gave us a more specific and concrete list of action leaders take to ‘lead’ both

things and people (p. 579).

23

Leadership versus Management

Similar to Hampton, Summer, and Webber’s (1987) description of what leaders

do, theorists (Batten, 1989; Capezio and Morehouse, 1997; Kotter, 1998; Kouzes and

Posner, 1997; Zaleznik, 1998) differentiated between management and leadership.

Management is more about completing tasks while leadership involves influence and

relationships.

Kotter (1998) explained: “Leadership is different from management….

Leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action.

Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in

today’s business environment. Management is about coping with complexity. Its practices

and procedures are largely a response to the emergence of large, complex organizations

in the twentieth century. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change”(p. 37).

Zaleznik (1998) agreed that managers and leaders are very different. “Managers’

goals arise out of necessities rather than desires; they excel at diffusing conflicts between

individuals or departments, placating all sides while ensuring that an organization’s day-

to-day business gets done. Leaders, on the other hand, adopt personal, active attitudes

towards goals. They look for the potential opportunities and rewards that lie around the

corner, inspiring subordinates and firing up the creative process with their own energy.

Their relationships with employees and coworkers are intense, and their working

environment is often, consequently, chaotic” (p. 61). To succeed, businesses need both

managers and leaders and must find ways to train excellent managers and simultaneously

develop leaders.

24

Batten (1989) contrasted managers and leaders: “Managers manage inventories,

supplies, data. They are number crunchers. Leaders catalyze, stretch, and enhance people.

They provide transcendent goals, creating a motivational climate. Managers push and

direct. Leaders pull and expect. Leaders are exhilarated by identifying and enhancing

their people’s strengths” (p. 2).

According to Tom Peters, “Management is mostly about ‘to-do’ lists. Leadership

is about tapping the wellsprings of human motivation—and about fundamental relations

with one’s fellows” (Kouzes and Posner, 1997, p. xvi). Capezio and Morehouse (1997)

summed up the differences: “Management is keen on doing things right. Leadership is

more concerned with doing the right things” (p.3).

Blank (1995) explained that the word leadership “inspires images that range from

a power for positive change to a force that can misdirect to a capacity that is often absent

when we need it most” (p. 1). Blank added that determining what constitutes leadership is

difficult at best. “The same leadership approach can work in very different contexts, but a

leadership strategy that works in one particular situation may not work again at another

time under the same conditions” (p. 9).

Capezio and Morehouse (1997) defined leadership as “the ability to influence

individuals or groups to think, feel and take positive action to achieve goals” (p. 1). They

contrasted recent and former views of leadership, explaining that the concept previously

was viewed as “direction from the top” (p. 1). They added that work is not completed at

the top of organizations. They continued, “Leadership comes from a wellspring of talent

and commitment among workers close to the customer and to the work. We call this kind

of leadership self-directed. Self-directed leadership challenges every team member—

25

regardless of level—to help solve problems, improve quality, increase market share and

create the kind of work environment that encourages people to do their best” (p.1).

Kouzes and Posner (1997) contended that “Leadership isn’t the private reserve of

a few charismatic men and women. It’s a process ordinary people use when they’re

bringing forth the best from themselves and others. Liberate the leader in everyone, and

extraordinary things happen” (p. xx).

What do leaders do? Among other responsibilities, Truskie (1999) explains that

leaders perform two tasks:

1. Establish Organizational Direction. Where is the organization headed? And how

is it going to get there? It is the leader’s responsibility to establish direction by

determining vision, mission, business strategy, objectives, and goals.

2. Develop Organizational Effectiveness. Once direction is determined, the

strength, stamina, competencies, and agility of the organization must be

developed by the leader. This enables the organization to serve its mission,

achieve its objectives, meet its goals, and move in its intended direction (p. 109).

Blank contended that leaders and leadership are different. “When people say, ‘We

need better leadership,’ they typically mean, ‘We need a different leader.’ However,

‘leadership’ represents something more than the leader alone; it encompasses the leader

and the follower together” (p.12). He added, “Leadership is not a person, a position, or a

program but a relationship or field of interaction that occurs when the leader and the

follower connect” (Blank, 1995, p.12). Blank posited nine natural laws of leadership (pp.

10-11):

1. A leader has willing followers—allies.

26

2. Leadership is a field of interaction-relationship between leaders and followers—

allies.

3. Leadership occurs as an event.

4. Leaders use influence beyond formal authority.

5. Leaders operate outside the boundaries of organizationally defined procedures.

6. Leadership involves risk and uncertainty.

7. Not everyone will follow a leader’s initiative.

8. Consciousness—information-processing capacity creates leadership.

9. Leadership is a self-referral process. Leaders and followers process information

from their own subjective, internal frame of reference.

According to Batten (1989), one of the most consistent characteristics of high-

performing people is the “ability to take a hit in stride and bounce back” (p. 17). Batten

contended that leadership is finally being recognized as a differentiator between success

and failure in organizations. “It is finally being perceived by large and small

organizations alike that a company’s profit and future are only as strong as its corporate

culture. And an excellent corporate culture can be envisioned and built only by excellent

leaders” (p.17).

It is important to note that different organizations and industries have unique

economic and technological characteristics (Yukl, 1994). Thus, they require different

types of leaders. Even within the same type of organization or the same organization,

skills required of successful leaders may change over time. “The skills needed by an

entrepreneurial manager to build a new organization are not identical to the skills needed

by the chief executive of a large, established organization. The skills needed to lead an

27

organization with a stable, supportive environment are not identical to the skills needed to

lead an organization facing a turbulent, competitive environment” (p. 277).

Many (including Cacioppo and Gardner, 1999; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper

and Sawaf, 1997; Fineman, 1993; and Forgas, 1995; George, 2000; Goleman 1995,

1998b) have proposed that feelings—moods and emotions—are critical in the leadership

process.

Emotions

Emotions are the primary sources of “motivation, information (feedback),

personal power, innovation, and influence. …they inspire and enliven good judgment and

reasoning and are linked to success and profitability. …everything important that happens

to us arouses emotion. Everything” (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997, p. xv). Emotion is

“applying movement, either metaphorically or literally, to core feelings. …Emotions have

long been considered to be of such depth and power that in Latin, for example, they were

described as motus anima, meaning literally ‘the spirit that moves us’” (p. xiii).

Cooper and Sawaf (1997) explained that contrary to what most people believe,

emotions are inherently neither positive nor negative. Emotions:

Serve as the single most powerful source of human energy, authenticity, and

drive, and can offer us a wellspring of intuitive wisdom. In fact, feelings provide

us with vital and potentially profitable information every minute of the day. This

feedback—from the heard, not the head—is what ignites creative genius, keeps

you honest with yourself, shapes trusting relationships, provides an inner compass

for your life and career, guides you to unexpected possibilities, and may even

save your or your organization from disaster… (p. xiii).

28

Cooper (Table 2.1) expanded on the work of the American Quality Foundation,

which describes conventional and high-performance meaning of emotions (Cooper and

Sawaf, 1997 p. xxxii):

Table 2.1 Emotions: Conventional vs. high-performance
Conventional High-performance

Sign of weakness Sign of strength
No place in business Essential in business
Avoid emotions Emotions trigger learning
Confuse Explicate (clarify)
Table them Integrate them
Avoid emotional people Seek out emotional people
Pay attention only to thoughts of Listen for the emotion in
Use of non emotional words Use of emotional words

Cooper (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997) added the following (Table 2.2) to the list:

Table 2.2 Additional conventional vs. high-performance emotions
Conventional High Performance

Interfere with good judgment Essential to good judgment
Distract us Motivate us
Sign of vulnerability Make us real and alive
Obstruct, or slow down, reasoning Enhance, or speed up, reasoning
Form a barrier to control Build trust and connection
Weaken fixed attitudes Activate ethical values
Inhibit the flow of objective data Provide vital information and

feedback
Complicate management planning Spark creativity and innovation
Undermine authority Generate influence without authority

29

Emotional Intelligence

What is emotional intelligence and why is it important? Many have attempted to

define and add their descriptions to the term, emotional intelligence. Some definitions of

emotional intelligence focus on the skills or competencies of an emotionally intelligent

person, some focus on behaviors, and some focus on intelligence.

Goleman has worked extensively in the competency area. He is renowned for his

research in “emotional intelligence.” Since the publishing a best-selling book on the topic

by Goleman in 1995, the term as become increasingly popular. Goleman (1998b)

introduced the concept of emotional intelligence and the role of emotions: “The new
measure takes for granted having enough intellectual ability and technical know-how to
do our jobs; it focuses instead on personal qualities, such as initiative and empathy,

adaptability, and persuasiveness” (p. 3). The “personal qualities” are included in the

emotional intelligence framework as EI competencies (See Table A, Appendix A).

Goleman (1998b) described emotional intelligence as “the capacity for
recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, for managing
emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). He continued, “Emotional
intelligence determines our potential for learning the practical skills that are based on its

five elements: self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and adeptness in

relationships” (p. 24). Goleman distinguished emotional intelligence and emotional

competence. Emotional competence is a “learned capability based on emotional

intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work” (p. 24). “Emotional

competence shows how much of that potential we have translated into on-the-job

30

capabilities” (p. 25). For example, being effective at customer service is an emotional

competency based on empathy.

According to Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (1998), with EI, one is able to process

emotional information, specifically as it involves the perception, assimilation,

understanding, and management of emotion. EI consists of four branches of mental

ability:

1. Emotional identification, perception, and expression

2. Emotional facilitation of thought
3. Emotional understanding
4. Emotional management
Cooper and Sawaf (1997) defined emotional intelligence in terms of energy,
relationships, and influence. It is “the ability to sense, understand, and effectively apply
the power and acumen of emotions as a source of human energy, connection, and

influence” (p. xiii). They contended that every business leader wants or needs emotional

intelligence. Subordinates want these qualities in a manager and people hope for them in

a parent, partner, and sibling. They added that

emotional intelligence:

Motivates us to pursue our unique potential and purpose, and activates out

innermost values and aspirations, transforming them from things we think about

to what we live. …Emotional intelligence requires that we learn to acknowledge

and value feelings—in ourselves and others—and that we appropriately respond

to them, effectively applying the information and energy of emotions in our daily

life and work (p. xiii).

31

Abraham (1999) described emotional intelligence as “the accurate appraisal and

expression of emotion both in the self and in others” (p.210). She added that emotional

intelligence also is “the adaptive regulation of emotion” and the “ability to use emotional

knowledge to solve problems” (p. 210). Cherniss (2000) contended that EI enables one to

know when and how to express emotion as well as control it.

Cooper and Sawaf (2002) reported that emotional intelligence contributes to

success in careers and organizations, citing examples in the following areas (p. xii):

Decision making
Leadership
Strategic and technical breakthroughs
Open honest communication
Trusting relationships and teamwork
Customer loyalty
Creativity and innovation

Cherniss and Adler (2000) continued: Emotional intelligence is the basis for

personal qualities such as realistic self-confidence, personal integrity, knowledge of

personal strengths and weaknesses, resilience in times of change or adversity, self

motivation, perseverance, and the knack for getting along well with others (p. 1).

According to Cooper and Sawaf (1997), emotional intelligence can enhance

reasoning and better channel the energy of emotions:

The exponentially growing science of Emotional Intelligence, bolstered by

hundreds of research studies and management reports, is teaching us every day

how to enhance our reasoning capacities and, at the same time, to make better use

32

of the energy of our emotions, the wisdom of our intuition, and the power inherent

in our ability to connect at a fundamental level with ourselves and those around us

(p. xii).

EI competencies

Based on a review of approximately 200 competency models, Goleman (1998b)

identified 25 social and emotional competencies that most accurately predict superior

performance in many occupations. He organized the competencies into five dimensions

of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, social awareness, and social skills

(Goleman, 1995). Cherniss and Adler (2000) added that research employing the

Emotional Competence Inventory, a measure of emotion intelligence, by Boyatzis,

Goleman, and Rhee (2002), led to a refined version of the original model. The

competency framework consists of four dimensions (Self-awareness, Self-management,

Social Awareness, and Relationship Management) and 18 competencies, including

Empathy, Achievement Orientation, Optimism, Self-confidence, and Adaptability

(Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002, pp. 253-256) (See Table A, Appendix A). The

competencies were distilled in large part from studies by the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management (1996); Spencer and Spencer (1993); and Rosier and Jeffrey (1994,

1995).

Many of the traits described in the literature on leadership are included or implied

in the ECI competency framework based on the work of Boyatzis, Goleman and McKee

(2002). For example, achievement-orientation, inspiration, adaptability and self-

confidence are listed specifically. Others are implied within framework (such as

cooperative, which is related to the characteristics listed in teamwork and collaboration

33

cluster; coping with change (adaptable); encourage (influence); opportunistic (optimism);

motivation (developing others and achievement); persistence (achievement);

and so forth.

According to Goleman (1998b), key competencies match a particular

organization’s “reality.” “Each company and each industry has its own emotional

ecology, and the most adaptive traits for workers will differ accordingly” (p.29). He

contended that the results of nearly 300 company-sponsored studies show that “across a

wide array of jobs, the recipe for excellence gives far more weight to emotional

competencies than to cognitive abilities” (p. 29).

However, there is no recipe of competencies that works in every situation. “The

same competencies can make people excel in different jobs” (Goleman, 1998b, p. 2

8).

Additionally, “The competencies one needs for success may change as one rises through

the ranks; in most large organizations, senior executives need a greater degree of political

awareness than middle managers. Specific positions require specific skills. For the best

nurses, it’s a sense of humor; for bankers, respecting customers’ confidentiality,” (p. 28)

and so forth.

Further, having high emotional intelligence does not guarantee that a person has

learned the emotional competencies that matter for work; it means that the person has

excellent potential to learn them (Goleman, 1998b). For example, a person might be

highly empathic but has “not learned the skills based on empathy that translate into

superior customer service, top-flight coaching or mentoring, or the ability to bring

together a diverse work team” (p. 25).

34

EI and EQ

Cacioppo and Gardner (1999) contended that emotion contributes not only to

intelligence but also to a fulfilling life. “The heightened ability to monitor one’s own and

other’s emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one’s

thinking and action has proven to be as important a determinant of life success as
traditional measures of intelligence such as IQ” (p.194).

Other theorists (Cherniss, 2000; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf,

1997; and Druskat, 2001) proposed that one’s Emotional Quotient (EQ) is an important

as Intelligence Quotient (IQ) to ensuring effective performance of managers and the

organizations in which they work.

Cherniss and Adler (2000) explained that more people now appreciate the

importance of EI for individual and organizational effectiveness. However, for many

years, most people assumed it was cognitive ability that mattered most. A growing body

of research indicates that cognitive ability, while important, is not the major contributor

to success. “No longer do they [employers] emphasize technical skills and raw

intelligence alone. Employers increasingly recognize that, given sufficient cognitive

ability and technical skills to hold the job, social and emotional competencies matter

most.” The authors continued, “In fact, IQ accounts for at most 25 percent of the

variance in individual success (p.6). It may account for less than five percent: “IQ may

be related to as little as 4 percent of real-world success. In other words, over 90 percent

may be related to other forms of intelligence” (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997, p. xxv).

Technical expertise adds to success, but even cognitive ability and technical expertise

35

leave much to be explained. “Thousands of bright, technically able individuals fail to

reach their potential because they lack sufficient EI” (Cherniss and Adler, 2000, p. 4).

Druskat (2001) added that many executives accept that EI is as crucial as IQ to an

individual’s effectiveness. She pointed out that most studies have centered on emotional

intelligence as an individual competency even though most work is completed in teams.

She proposed that emotional intelligence is critical to a group’s effectiveness and that

teams can enhance EI and, thereby, increase overall performance.

However, as Cherniss (2000), stated that it is absurd to suggest that cognitive

ability is not related to success in various disciplines and organizations. “We also should

keep in mind that cognitive and non-cognitive abilities are very much related. In fact,

there is research suggesting that emotional and social skills actually help improve

cognitive functioning” (p.8). Cherniss and Adler (2000) added, “Emotional intelligence

and cognitive ability actually work together for effective action in organizations.

Therefore, it is not surprising that numerous studies point to EI as critical for success at

work” (p.5).

Moving Ahead

Cooper and Sawaf (1970) suggested that IQ will become less and less of a factor

used to gauge intelligence. They explained even though IQ and mathematical models

have guided much of the organizational design to date, there are suggestions that

“emerging models of organizational intelligence will be based far more on the principles

of EQ and biological systems. Accordingly, it will treat people, markets, ideas, and

organizations as unique and alive, generative and interactive, and inherently capable of

change, learning, growth, inspiration, creativity, synergy, and transformation” (p. xxviii).

36

Cooper and Sawaf (1997) contended, “We are in the beginning stages of what

many authorities believe will be the next revolution in business. By design, no blood will

be shed in this sweeping transformation from old to new, just a host of preconceived

notions” (p.xi). They continued:

It all began with a series of studies on Emotional Intelligence indicating that

people who are intellectually the brightest are often not the most successful,

whether in business or in their personal lives. Over the past several years, EQ has

become widely accepted as a shorthand expression for the Emotional Intelligence

equivalent of IQ. Emerging research suggests that a technically proficient

executive or professional with a high EQ is someone who picks up more deftly,

and more quickly than others the budding conflicts that need resolution, the team

and organizational vulnerabilities that need addressing, the gaps to be leaped or

filled, the hidden connections that spell opportunity and the murky, mysterious

interactions that seem most likely to prove golden—and profitable (p. xi).

EI History

According to Cherniss (2000), originally psychologists focused on cognitive

aspects of intelligence, such as memory and problem solving. There were, however,

researchers who recognized early on that non-cognitive aspects were important, too.

Much of the earlier work was forgotten until 1983, when Howard Gardner began to write

about multiple intelligences. Gardner (1983) suggested that intrapersonal and

interpersonal intelligence is as important as the type of intelligence measured by IQ and

similar tests.

37

Gardner (1993) began a study in the 1970s that culminated in 1983 in the

publishing of a book, Frames of mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence, that

introduced the theory of multiple intelligences. He used the term multiple intelligences to

describe “an unknown number of human capacities, ranging from musical intelligences to

the intelligence involved in understanding oneself; ‘intelligences’ to underscore that these

capacities were as fundamental as those historically captured within the IQ test” (pp. xi-

xii). Gardner (1993) described seven intelligences:

1. Linguistic intelligence—the type exhibited best by poets

2. Logical-mathematical intelligence—logical, mathematical, and scientific

ability

3. Spatial intelligence—ability to form a mental model of a spatial world

4. Musical intelligence—the type exhibited by famous composers and musicians

5. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence—ability to solve problems or design products

using one’s whole body

6. Personal intelligence—ability to understand other people

7. Intrapersonal intelligence—capacity to form an accurate, veridical model of

oneself and to be able to use that model to operate effectively in life

Cherniss (2000) added that by the early 1990s, there was a great deal of research

on the role of non-cognitive factors in helping people succeed in life and in the

workplace.

In 1990, Salovey and Mayer (1990) coined the term: emotional intelligence,

which they described in terms of being able to monitor and control one’s own and others’

feelings and to make use of the feelings to guide thought and action. In the early 1990s,

38

Daniel Goleman took an interest in the work of Salovey and Mayer, which led, in 1995,

to the publishing of a book, Emotional Intelligence, which became an international best

seller (Cherniss, 2000).

The concept has continued to spark interest and research in business, education,

and other settings. Cherniss (2000) contended that since Goleman’s book was published

in 1995:

Emotional intelligence has become one of the hottest buzzwords in corporate

America. For instance, when the Harvard Business Review published an article

on the topic two years ago, it attracted a higher percentage of readers than any

other article published in that periodical in the last 40 years. When the CEO of

Johnson & Johnson read that article, he was so impressed that he had copies sent

out to the 400 top executives in the company worldwide (p.3).

Emotional Intelligence and Leadership

Many approaches to leadership have been proposed—researchers have analyzed

what leaders are like, what they do, how they motivate followers, how their styles relate

to situations, and how they can make major changes in their organizations (George,

2000). Although the role of emotions in the leadership process is not often explored,

some earlier leadership approaches, such as the trait approach, described particular

leadership skills or traits that may be subsumed in or partially overlap emotional

intelligence.

While most studies have been fairly recent, Cherniss (2000) cited studies from as

far back as the 1940s as linking emotional characteristics and leadership. He contended

39

that the Ohio State Leadership Studies surmised that “consideration” was an important

aspect of effective leadership. The research suggested that leaders who are able to

establish “mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and rapport” with members of their

group would be more effective.

Studies in 1990 and 1995 indicated that leaders’ feelings/emotions may play an

important role in the leadership process. George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that the

extent to which leaders of existing work groups experienced upbeat moods was positively

related to levels of prosocial behavior performed by group members and negatively

related to group turnover rates. George (1995) found that work groups, led by sales

managers who tended to have positive moods at work, delivered higher quality customer

service than groups led by managers who did not tend to experience positive moods at

work. She contended that it is likely that a range of feelings (emotions and moods)

influences leadership effectiveness.

Johnson & Johnson Emotional Competencies and Leadership Study

A study of emotional competencies and leadership excellence in Johnson &

Johnson’s Personal Care Group sought to determine if there were certain leadership

competencies that distinguished high performers from average performers (Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002). The researchers compared the ratings of groups defined by region,

gender, function, and performance and potential. To separate high performers from

average performers, the researchers relied on performance ratings and the potential of

participants for taking on added responsibility in the organization “Both the performance

rating and potential code are success indicators within the organization and determine

promotion, compensation, and position in succession planning schemes” (p. 2).

40

The study found a strong relationship between superior performing leaders and

emotional competence, supporting theorist’s suggestions that the social, emotional, and

relational competency set commonly referred to as Emotional Intelligence, is a

distinguishing factor in leadership performance. According to Cavallo and Brienza

(2002), the outcome is consistent with conclusions reached by McClelland (1998), in a

study of leaders in 30 organizations. McClelland determined that the most powerful

leadership differentiators were self-confidence, achievement drive, developing others,

adaptability, influence, and leadership.

Goleman (1998b) had access to competence models for 181 positions from 121

companies and organizations worldwide, with combined workforces in the millions. The

models illustrated characteristics that management in the organizations agreed captured

the profile of excellence for a specific position. He compared which competencies

deemed critical to a specific position, role, or field, which could be classified as purely

cognitive or technical skills; and which were emotional competencies. He found that 67

percent of the abilities considered essential for effective performance were emotional

competencies. He commissioned Hay/McBer to conduct an independent study to test his

results. Hay/McBer found that emotional competencies were twice as important to

effective performance as pure intellect and expertise.

In a 2000 study, George proposed that four elements of emotional intelligence

(the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others)—

appraisal and expression of emotion; use of emotion to enhance cognitive processes and

decision making; knowledge about emotions, and management of emotions—contribute

to effective leadership in organizations.

41

Cherniss and Adler (2000) explained that while some studies have linked high EI

levels with superior performance, other studies have shown what happens when people

lack EI competencies. For instance, a study at the Center for Creative Leadership looked

at reasons why the careers of certain executives had derailed. The reason for their failure

was not a lack of cognitive ability. “The two most common traits of those who failed

were rigidity and poor relationships” (p. 6).

The next generation of workers may exhibit lower EI levels than the levels

exhibited by today’s workers. “The next generation of workers now entering the

workplace is less likely than previous generations to possess the social and emotional

qualities that are essential for effective performance. This trend represents a major

challenge for employers and for HR professionals in particular. It is no wonder that HR

personnel increasingly are being called upon to provide training—not just in technical

skills—but also in social and emotional competencies that are essential for success”

(Cherniss and Adler, 2000, p. 7).

EI Training

Emotional intelligence can be learned (Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper and

Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1998b; Sala, 2001). Cherniss and Adler (2000) cited best-practice

guidelines for what makes an EI training program effective and described model

programs that include elements from the guidelines. They described 14 programs that met

specified criteria (related to replication, sample size, control group, outcome measures,

and multiple data points) including:

Achievement motivation training developed by David McClelland

Emotional competency training developed at American Express Financial Advisors

42

Leaderlab developed at the Center for Creative Leadership

Weatherhead School of Management Program developed at Case Western Reserve

University’s Weatherhead School of Management

Sala (2002) reported on results of studies in which two groups were assessed with

the Emotional Competency Inventory twice, once before and once after participating in a

Mastering Emotional Intelligence workshop. In general, scores in the first sample were

higher upon reassessment, suggesting that EI improved. Results of second sample were

even more robust; scores were significantly higher following reassessment on 19 of 20

competencies.

Goleman (1998b) offered guidelines for learning emotional intelligence (p. 251-253):

Assess the job

Assess the individual

Deliver assessments with care

Gauge readiness

Motivate

Make change self-directed

Focus on clear, manageable goals

Prevent relapse

Give performance feedback

Encourage practice

Arrange support

Provide models

Encourage

Reinforce change

Evaluate

43

EI and Demographic Characteristics

Studies have been conducted to determine correlations between EI scores and

various demographic characteristics, such as gender, function, age, job function, and job

level (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Goleman, 1998b; Sala, 2002).

EI and Functional and Position Differences

One example is a study by Cavallo and Brienza (2002) that found some

significant differences among participants in various functional areas at Johnson &

Johnson; however, they reported that the number of participants in each functional

category

was not sufficient to draw

conclusions.

Sala (2002) reported that a study of emotional intelligence and job characteristics

found that participants with higher-level positions (senior-level manager versus entry-

level manager) rated themselves higher on the ECI than those with lower-level positions.

Results indicated that there no relationship between job level and total others’ ratings on

the ECI.

EI and Gender

The literature on gender and EI is mixed. While some emotion- and EI-related

studies (Hart, 2002; Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Sala, 2002) have noted gender

differences, others (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani, 1992,

1995; Landau, 1996; Ragins, 1991) have found little or no differences between the

sexes.

Even though Cavallo and Brienza (2002) found many differences in performance

and potential in the Johnson & Johnson study, they unveiled few gender differences.

Analysis of peer ratings found differences in five emotional competencies: Emotional

44

Self-awareness, Conscientiousness, Developing Others, Service Orientation, and

Communication. Women were rated higher than men in the five competencies.

Supervisor ratings revealed significant differences on two emotional competencies—

women were rated higher on Adaptability and Service Orientation. Ratings of direct

reports showed one significant difference; men were rated higher on the Change Catalyst

competency.

Studies have shown that while men and women do not appear to differ in total EI,

there is evidence that women and men may differ on specific competencies (Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002). Bar-On (2000) surveyed more than 7,700 administrations of the Emotion

Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) and found that while men and women did not differ on the

total EI, women scored significantly higher on Empathy, Interpersonal Relationships, and

Social Responsibility, while men scored higher on Self-actualization, Assertiveness,

Stress Tolerance, Impulse Control, and Adaptability.

Cavallo and Brienza (2002) reported that some studies suggest that the style by

which males and females lead differs. Eagly and Johnson (1990) found that females have

better social skills and are described as “interested in other people.” Compared to male

leaders as a group, women leaders as a group tend to be portrayed as more friendly,

pleasant, and socially sensitive.

Several theories have been presented to explain gender differences, “including

biological differences, differences in early childhood socialization in same-sex

playgroups, and the fulfillment of culturally prescribed gender role expectations”

(Cavallo and Brienza, 2002, pp. 3-4).

45

EI and Performance in the Finance Sector

A study on emotional intelligence and performance in the finance sector (Sevinc,

2001), indicated that self-reported salary was significantly correlated with the ECI

clusters, indicating that those who reported higher salaries tended to be rated by others as

higher on emotional intelligence than those who reported lower salaries. The study

sample included a group of Turkish participants working in the finance sector (banks,

insurance, and securities). A marginal finding related to position level and social skills,

suggesting that those in higher-level positions were rated by others as having higher

social skills than others (Sala, 2002).

Sala (2002) described a relationship between the number of promotions reported

by participants and self-rated EI scores. Although correlations were small, significant

relationships were found between self-reported number of promotions in a five-year span

and self-rated ECI scores. However, no relationship was found between ECI ratings of

“total others” and participants’ self-reported number of promotions. Sala contends the

findings may be related to a halo effect.

Measuring EI

Cherniss (2000) and others provided an overview of the instruments used to gauge

emotional intelligence:

Bar-On’s EQ-I, the oldest instrument, has been in use for more than a decade. It

originated from a clinical, rather than an occupational context. It was designed to assess

personal qualities that enabled some people to possess better “emotional well-being” than

others.

46

The Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) is a test of ability instead of a self-

report measure. Participants perform a series of tasks to assess their ability to perceive,

identify, understand, and work with emotion.

The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) is a 360-degree instrument. Others who

know the individual rate him or her on 20 competencies (the ECI 2.0 includes 18

competencies) that Goleman’s research suggests are linked to emotional intelligence.

Approximately 40 percent of the instrument’s items originated with the Self-Assessment

Questionnaire developed by Boyatzis.

The EQ Map was developed by Cooper and Sawaf (1997) to help people chart their

“relative strengths and vulnerabilities across a wide range of characteristics related to

emotional intelligence’ (p. xv).

Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, and Dornheim designed a 33-item

self-report instrument based on the early work of Salovey and Mayer (1990).

A sixth measure is described on the EI Consortium’s website. The Work Profile

Questionnaire—EI Version (WPQei) is an 84-item instrument that measures the personal

qualities and competencies employees need to develop to manage emotion at work. It is

based on qualities and competencies identified by researchers such as Mayer and Salovey

and Goleman. The WPQei, based on a conceptual model of emotional intelligence, has

seven components:

1. Innovation

2. Self-awareness

3. Intuition

4. Emotions

5. Motivation

6. Empathy

47

7. Social Skills

Cherniss (2000) added that other instruments that measure specific abilities assess

emotional intelligence and competencies. “Some of these tests seem rather strong. To

name just one example, there is Seligman’s SASQ, which was designed to measure

learned optimism and which has been impressive in its ability to identify high-performing

students, salespeople, and athletes, to name just a few” (Schulman, 1995) (p. 14).

Comparing Self and Others’ Ratings

Practitioners and organizational consultants propose that multi-rater, or 360-

degree feedback systems, enhance self-knowledge and improve managerial actions.

“Scholarly research has confirmed these sentiments and found that higher levels of

congruence between managerial ‘self’ and ‘total others’ behavioral ratings is associated

with managerial effectiveness and performance” (Sala, 2000, p. 27).

Burckle (1999) compared self and total others’ ratings. She found that those who

are not well in tune with their strengths and weaknesses have difficulty evaluating

themselves on EI competencies. She also found that, compared to those who had high

scores in Accurate Self-assessment, those who score low on the Accurate Self-assessment

subscale of the ECI have significantly larger gaps between their views of themselves and

others’ views of them.

In a research report, Burckle (1999) recommended multi-rater over self-

assessments. “These findings suggest that relying on self-assessments alone can be

misleading, lending support to the contention that multi-rater assessments are more

48

desirable than self-assessments when evaluating emotional intelligence competencies” (p.

8).

Performance Appraisal as a Measure of Effectiveness

Performance appraisal systems are at the center of the process of maintaining

satisfactory levels of performance in organizations (Frechette and Wertheim, 1985). A

critical function of performance appraisals is to “define effective performance and to

measure employee job performance and behavior with respect to the criteria for effective

performance, and to use this information as a basis for various personnel decisions, such

as placement, promotion, and compensation.

Grote (1996) contended that while nearly all organizations have performance

appraisal systems in place, “no one seems satisfied with the system they have or content

with the results it produces” (p.1). However, performance appraisal systems continue to

be used to gauge performance. It seems to be “impossible to manage an organization

without good information on how well people are performing and how they go about

meeting their responsibilities” (p.4).

However, a single performance appraisal format may “not be adaptable to the

many situations and positions in the organization” (Frechette and Wertheim, 1985, p.

221). After listing a number of purposes of performance appraisal processes, including

selection, promotion, and management and organizational development, the authors

added, “No one performance appraisal format can achieve such a multitude of

purposes…. It is necessary to select those purposes that must be achieved by the

49

performance appraisal system and then design a format and program that are appropriate

for those purposes” (p. 225).

Summary

Is high emotional intelligence synonymous with effective leadership? Are the

contentions of Goleman (1998a and 1998b) accurate? He asserted that with the recent

emphasis on flexibility, teams, and a strong customer focus in the workplace, “this crucial

set of emotional competencies is becoming increasingly essential for excellence in every

job and in every part of the world” (p. 29).

Goleman (1998b) further declared that effective leaders are alike in one crucial

way: “They all have a high degree of what come to be known as emotional intelligence.

It’s not that IQ and technical skills are irrelevant. …But my research, along with other

recent studies, clearly shows that emotional intelligence is the ‘sine qua non’ of

leadership. Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive,

analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great

leader” (p. 2).

The researcher has an interest in leadership theories and practices. She has studied

leadership in academia and participated in leadership development programs and held

leadership positions in the workplace and in various organizations. She has considered

the topic as part of a doctoral research study for some time. After being introduced to

emotional intelligence, the researcher started reading about the topic and began to realize

that there is a connection between the emotional intelligence concept and effective

leadership. She investigated EI and read about comparison between EI and IQ. She

50

found studies that examined the relationships between EI and effective performance in

the workplace as well as studies that examined the influence of various demographic

characteristics on EI levels. The researcher also found a strong contention that EI can be

learned. She uncovered information about model programs and the elements of successful

training programs. This research study draws from elements uncovered in the literature

and those found in previous studies.

The studies cited in the literature suggest that emotional intelligence is related to

the effectiveness of managers in today’s organizations. The purpose of this study is to

determine if differences in EI levels exist among high performers in one organization.

Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in this financial organization who are

deemed most effective according to their performance ratings exhibit higher emotional

intelligence competencies than managers with lower performance ratings. The researcher

also compared EI levels and various demographic characteristics of the sample.

51

Chapter III Methodology

Because of increased competition and changes in the workplace, organizational

leaders are seeking to differentiate and improve their products and services. They are

looking for ways to ensure success of their organizations. Among the many factors that

have been attributed to success in organizations, one factor often cited is effective

leadership.

What makes a leader effective? As Goleman (1995, 1998b) and others (including

Cherniss. 2000; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf 1997; Druskat, 2001;

George, 2000) contended, an effective leader has more than the technical skills to do a job.

He or she employs qualities, such as initiative and empathy, adaptability, and

persuasiveness—competencies of emotional intelligence. Researchers (Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002; George, 1995, 2002; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Goleman, 1998b)

have found relationships between emotions and competencies and between performance

and leadership. High EI in organizations has been linked to improved financial results,

improved return on investment in change initiatives, improved productivity, increased

retention of top talent, and increased sales (Hay Group, 2002b).

The purpose of the study is to determine if performance levels and various

demographic characteristics are related to emotional intelligence scores in a sample of

high-performing managers within the financial services industry.

To address research questions and hypotheses, the researcher employed a

comparative research design to investigate differences among managers with varying

demographic characteristics in one financial institution. To ascertain if differences in

emotional intelligence levels existed among the sample, an existing survey instrument,

52

the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, a demographic form, and an existing

performance appraisal system and rating forms, were used. Data were analyzed with

descriptive statistics and univariate

analysis of variance.

The researcher analyzed the findings using the scored data provided by the Hay

Group, performance ratings, and the demographic information by using a statistical

analysis computing system, SAS 8. The researcher analyzed the data from the ECIs and

demographic forms using the general linear model (GLM) version of analysis of variance

(ANOVA), T-test, and union-intersection test methods.

An ANOVA test determines the existence (or nonexistence) of a statistically

significant difference among several group means (UCLA, 2002). The test actually uses

variances to help ascertain if the various means are equal or not. ANOVA uncovers the

main and interaction effects of categorical independent variables (or “factors”) on interval

dependent variables. The T-test is a test of significance of the difference in the means of a

single interval dependent, for two groups formed by a categorical independent (Garson,

2002). The T-test and ANOVA are generally accepted statistical tests and are equally

valid in the analysis of differences among levels of variables, such as performance

ratings, emotional intelligence scores, and demographic characteristics.

Union-intersection tests compared the mean EI scores of participants with

performance ratings of five with those with performance ratings of four and those with

performance ratings of four with those with performance ratings of three. If both of the

assumptions are accepted statistically, one can conclude that the mean EI of those with

ratings of five is greater than that of those with ratings of four and that the mean EI of

those with ratings of four is greater than that of those with ratings of three.

53

Methods and Processes

A description of the methods and processes employed in the study follow.

Methods and processes included the following elements:

Research design

Data needs and collection steps

Instrumentation

Population and sample

Data collection procedures

Research Design

The researcher employed a quantitative research design, which provides a

numeric description of a fraction of the population—the sample—through the data

collection process of asking people questions (Creswell, 1994). From the data collection,

the researcher may be able to generalize from a sample to a population in order to make

inferences about characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of the population.

The sample is purposeful (Creswell, 1994)—respondents were selected based on

their convenience and availability. The sampling design is single-staged—the participants

were surveyed directly. The researcher does not know their identities. The participants

voluntarily provided demographic and other information about themselves. The survey is

cross-sectional; the information was collected at one point in time.

Data Needs and Collection Steps

The data needs for this study require assessment of 18 emotional competencies,

performance ratings, and descriptions of specific demographic data (such as gender,

educational level, type of degree, management tenure, title and position, and employment

54

area: support or sales) for each person in the sample. The study also required norms

(averages) of others whose EI competencies have been assessed using the survey

instrument employed in this study. The norms were ascertained from the Emotional

Competence Inventory (ECI) Technical Manual and are based on the North American

and United Kingdom ECI databases (Sala, 2002). Descriptions of the survey instruments

employed in the study follow.

Instrumentation

Three types of instrumentation were required for the study: the Emotional

Competence Inventory, performance appraisal instruments, and a form that captured

demographic data on participants. Following is a description of each instrument type:

ECI Background. The researcher employed an existing instrument, Hay/McBer’s

ECI 2.0, in the study. ECI is a 360-degree tool (See sample in Appendix B) that assesses

the emotional competencies of individuals and organizations (Sala, 2002). The multi-rater

instrument provides self, manager, direct report, peer, and other perspectives on a cluster

of research-validated behaviors, which profile emotional intelligence. Each instrument

may accommodate up to 12 raters (self, manager, direct reports, peers, and others).

The tool is based on emotional competencies identified by Goleman in Working

with Emotional Intelligence (1998b), competencies from Hay/McBer’s Generic

Competency Dictionary (1996), and Boyatzis’s Self-assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)

(Sala, 2002).

Hay/McBer’s Generic Competency Dictionary (1996) originated with Lyle and

Signe Spencer in the book, Competence at Work (1993), and was revised by psychologist

McClelland following an extensive review of the literature (Sala, 2002). It is based on

55

more than 20 years of research initiated by McClelland in 1973 in the article, “Testing for

Competence Rather Than Intelligence.” Hay/McBer and other researchers have

established that each core competency in the dictionary reliably differentiates

performance in a variety of organizations (Sala, 2002). The SAQ was developed by

Boyatzis in 1991 for use with MBA and executive students to assess competencies in the

Generic Model of Management used at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case

Western Reserve University (Sala, 2002). Since 1991, it has been used in numerous

studies, including longitudinal research (Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb, 1995; Boyatzis,

1994; Boyatzis, Baker, Leonard, Rhee, and Thompson, 1995; Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee,

and Wheeler, 1996). The ECI 2.0 assesses 18 individual competencies. Each competency

is defined with specific behaviors and characteristics (Sala, 2002).

Based on a review of approximately 200 competency models, Goleman (1998b)
identified 25 social and emotional competencies that most accurately predict superior
performance in many occupations. He organized the competencies into five dimensions

of EI (Goleman, 1995): self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, social awareness,

and social skills. Cherniss and Adler (2000) added that research employing the

Emotional Competence Inventory, a measure of emotion intelligence, by Boyatzis,
Goleman, and Rhee (2002), led to a refined version of the original model. The
competency framework consists of four dimensions (Self-awareness, Self-management,
Social Awareness, and Relationship Management) and 18 competencies, including
Empathy, Achievement Orientation, Optimism, Self-confidence, and Adaptability
(Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002, pp. 253-256) (See Table A, Appendix A). The
competencies were distilled in large part from studies by the U.S. Office of Personnel

56

Management (1996); Spencer and Spencer (1993); and Rosier and Jeffrey (1994 and

1995).

The competencies may be grouped in four clusters. While a number of research

studies, such as those conducted by Sevinc (2001) and Cavallo and Brienza (2002)

investigated EI competencies and EI clusters, others, such as a study by Humphrey,

Kellett and Sleeth (2001) investigated individual competencies. The Humphrey et al.

study was conducted to determine if both empathy and cognitive ability are associated

with perceptions of leadership. Results showed that both influence perceptions of

leadership in small groups (Sala, 2002). Because of the sample size of 57, the researcher

in this study looked at individual competencies rather than groups, or clusters of

competencies. The researcher completed a competency-by-competency analysis of the

data to address research question and hypotheses and made intermittent inferences about

the competencies as related to the EI dimensions.

Reliability

Sala (2002) defined reliability as the consistency or stability of measures or

observations. If someone is measured twice on the same scale, he or she should have the

same, or reliable, score. Two indicators are generally used to assess the reliability of

survey instruments: internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

Internal consistency. Internal consistency is the average of the intercorrelations

among the survey items. Chronbach’s alpha, which is a commonly used indicator of

internal consistency, is used to describe the reliability of the ECI (See Table C, Appendix

C).

57

For total others’ ratings in the ECI, Sala (2002) reported that coefficients range

from .73 to .92. The overall average internal consistency coefficient was .85. For self-

ratings, the alpha coefficients range from .61 to .85, with an overall average internal

consistency coefficient of .75. The findings suggest that total others ratings are more

stable and reliable than self-ratings; however, no statistical tests were run to determine

whether or not the differences were significant.

The researcher in this study analyzed the responses of “total others” (managers,

subordinates, peers, and customers) in an attempt to ensure more accurate responses.

Sala (2002) explained that practitioners and organizational consultants believe

that multi-rater, or 360-degree feedback systems, enhance self-knowledge and improve

managerial actions. “Scholarly research has confirmed these sentiments and found that

higher levels of congruence between managerial ‘self’ and ‘total others’ behavioral

ratings is associated with managerial effectiveness and performance” (p. 27).

Burckle (1999) compared self and total others’ ratings. She found that those who
are not well in tune with their strengths and weaknesses have difficulty evaluating

themselves on EI competencies. She found that those who score low on the Accurate

Self-assessment subscale of the ECI have significantly larger gaps between their views of

themselves and others’ views of them, compared to those who had high scores in

Accurate Self-assessment.

In a research report, Burckle (1999) recommended multi-rater over self-
assessments. “These findings suggest that relying on self-assessments alone can be
misleading, lending support to the contention that multi-rater assessments are more

58

desirable than self-assessments when evaluating emotional intelligence competencies” (p.
8).

Test-retest reliability. According to Sala (2002), while no specific test-retest

reliability studies have been conducted with the ECI, “other pre- and post-assessment

research provides reasonable evidence for adequate levels of test-retest reliability” (p. 5).

He cited a study of 20 Brazilian executives from a large consumer retail organization.

The executives were assessed twice on the ECI; the assessments were seven months

apart. He explained that because the time between assessments was longer than what is

typically recommended and that the executives participated in an EI development

program between assessments, results should be interpreted with caution. “This data also

suggests that the ECI may be sensitive to change because stability coefficients for the

total others ratings were only moderately high, while stability coefficients for self scores

were very low” (Sala, 2002, p.5) (See Table D, Appendix D for test-retest coefficients).

Validity

Validity generally refers to the degree to which a measure or questionnaire

actually measures what it is supposed to measure (Sala, 2002). There are two types of

validity: content, which addresses whether a test adequately samples the relevant material

it is supposed to cover, and construct, which is the degree to which a test or questionnaire

is a measure of the characteristic of interest. Construct validity includes discriminant and

convergent validity, which determines whether or not the test correlates with other

measures with which it should be conceptually related and correlates less with those with

which it should not be associated. For instance, the ECI should correlate positively with

59

self-esteem (convergent) and negatively with depression (convergent). It should not

correlate with cognitive ability (discriminant).

Criterion validity is the degree to which the test of measure correlates with some

outcome criteria (Sala, 2002). Sala and others have conducted research to validate the

ECI against various outcome measures of performance in the workplace. For example,

research might test whether a manager high in EI tends to have lower turnover rates than

does a manager low in EI. Concurrent validity occurs when the measure of interest (such

as the ECI) and the criterion or outcome are assessed simultaneously. Predictive validity

occurs when the outcome is collected after the variable of interest is assessed.

Among other studies, Sala (2002) cites a research effort by Burckle (1999) that

investigated the accurate self-assessment subscale of the ECI as support of content

validity. To examine construct validity of the ECI, he describes a study by

Diamantopoulou (2001) that sought to ascertain if a relationship existed between Type A

and Type B personalities and emotional intelligence. The researcher found that people

with a mixture of Type A and B personalities were higher in emotional intelligence and

that Type B personality was positively correlated with social skills competencies.

To further support construct validity, Sala (2002) cited a study by Burckle (2000)

that sought to determine if a relationship existed between the ECI and the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI). Results of the study showed moderate to strong significant

correlations between several EI competencies and the Sensing/Intuiting and

Thinking/Feeling dimensions of the MBTI. Negative correlations indicated a relationship

existed in the Intuiting direction of the Sensing/Intuiting scale and the Feeling direction

of the Thinking/Feeling scale. The results indicate that Myers-Briggs Intuitive types are

60

strong on a number of EI competencies, especially Empathy and Adaptability and those

in the Social Awareness cluster. The Myers-Briggs Feeling types correlated with many

of the EI competencies, particularly Empathy and competencies in the Social Awareness

cluster. Sala also cites correlations between Feeling types and the competencies in the EI

Social Skills cluster.

Scale Design

The ECI 2.0 contains 73 items with a minimum of three items to assess each

competency. A six-point response format has been employed as follows:

Points Frequency
1 Never
2 Rarely
3 Sometimes
4 Often
5 Consistently
6 Don’t Know

Sample items from the ECI 2.0 include the following (See Appendix B):

Confronts unethical actions

Knows how feelings impact their own performance

Behaves calmly in stressful situations

Seeks information in unusual ways

Sees opportunities rather than threats

Performance Appraisal System of Participating Company

Performance reviews are prepared for employees of the participating organization

during the first quarter of each calendar year. Descriptions of the instruments used to rate

performance of the sales and support managers follow:

61

Sales Performance Analysis

The sales division of the organization uses a standard performance appraisal form.

The sales division incorporates all positions within the bank’s branch network. Positions

are generic throughout the organization (chief human resources officer, personal

communication, October 2, 2002). Based on the information provided by the human

resources officer, 40 of the participants in the study (70 percent) were evaluated using the

sales form (See Appendix E for a copy of the form). The form has been in use for at least

six years; it is updated annually to include specific behaviors. It assesses defined goals

and behaviors. Instructions for completing the forms are provided. (See Appendix E).

Sales personnel receive an overall performance rating based on the scale below:

Level Performance evaluation
5 Achieved Excellence
4 Exceeds Expectations
3 Meets Expectations
2 Needs Improvement
1 Unacceptable

62

Support Performance Analysis

The support departments of the bank report directly to the vice-chairman,

according to the chief human resources officer (personal communication, October 2,

2002). The department personnel are responsible for all activities involved in supporting

the sales functions, as well as traditional corporate functions.

The form used to appraise those in support roles has been in use for eight years,

with very few organizational modifications (See Appendix F). Managers in various

departments and divisions may modify the form to meet the specific needs of their areas.

The form is based on the five-point scale described below. According to the chief human

resources officer, even though the wording used to describe the five categories varies

slightly between the sales and support forms, the meanings/ratings are consistent and are

applied consistently for rewards, promotions, and so forth. The officer said, “Because we

are reworking all forms in 2003, we simply communicated expectations for completion

rather than a redesign of the form at this time” (personal communication, November 12,

2002).

Level Performance evaluation
5 Superior
4 Above expected level
3 Expected level
2 Below expected level
1 Unacceptable

The support form uses the five-point ratings scale described above; however,

evaluators have an option to use two additional ratings for line items gauging behaviors

and goals of managers: “Not Applicable” and “Unknown.” According to the chief human

63

resources officer, the two additional options are rarely used and if they are marked, a

human resources representative works with the evaluator to elicit one of the ratings in the

five-point scale. The officer explained that the form is being eliminated and replaced next

year. “Because we will be eliminating this form in 2003, we have not moved forward

with the changes” (personal communication, November 12, 2002).

Demographic Form

Participants completed a demographic form (See Appendix G) indicating their last

performance rating and demographic characteristics. The researcher analyzed the data to

determine the influence of performance ratings and varying demographic characteristics

on emotional intelligence competencies.

The researcher developed the demographic form following a review of the

literature and with advice from management at the participating organization. Studies

have been conducted to determine if relationships between EI scores and various

demographic characteristics, such as gender, function, age, job function, and job level,

exist (Sala, 2002; Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; and Goleman, 1998b) With input from the

participating organization’s management, the researcher developed classifications that

might help determine if varying categories influenced EI competencies. The manager of

management and leadership development reviewed categories and choices; modified

them slightly to match internal titles, positions, and so forth; and provided approval.

Participants indicated which one of several choices matched their positions and

background on a forced-choice form.

64

Population and Sample

The population of the study includes high-performing and potentially high-

performing managers who were selected to participate in an internal study of emotional

intelligence in a financial organization. Based in North Carolina, the bank has more than

5,000 employees and serves three states with about 350 branches. The organization offers

a complete line of financial services, including personal banking, business banking,

investor services, trust services, and insurance services.

The sample of 57 managers is a subset of the management pool of 79 selected to

participate in a first-of-its kind internal study of emotional intelligence. A selection

committee, comprised of the manager of management and leadership development, group

vice presidents of corporate education and human resources, and the employment

manager, identified 24 of the participants. The other 55 were selected because of their

positions. The company’s vice chairman reviewed the nominations and provided final

approval. According to the manager of management and leadership development

(personal communication, September 27, 2002), participants were chosen based on

diversity goals and specific criteria, including the following:

Performance ratings of three or above for the past two years

At least two years tenure in the company

Participation in or selection to participate in a leadership development program

Contribution to a department, area or organization-wide project

Career aspirations warranting investment in leadership development opportunities

65

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers

Of the 79 managers participating in an internal EI program, 59 were asked to

participate in the doctoral research study. Twenty executive-level participants in the

bank’s study did not have performance ratings, and, therefore, did not qualify for

participation in the doctoral research study. “In order to use the data to obtain a profile of

leaders in the organization, I asked that we also include executives. This was the first

time [the bank had conducted an EI program] so I wanted executives to get a company

[EI] profile [from the Hay Group],” according to the manager of management and

leadership development (personal communication, November 18, 2002). Two of the 59

managers chose not to participate.

According to the chief human resources officer, the 20 executives without

performance ratings participate in a “narrative performance discussion” during the second

quarter of each year. However, ratings are not maintained for these executives. The

executives report directly to the vice chairman or president of the bank and hold the top

leadership positions in the organization, including chief strategist and support executives,

such as chief financial officer, chief information offices, chief human resources officer,

chief credit officer, and so forth (personal communication, November 12, 2002).

Gathering of Survey Information
Data for the study were gathered via the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, an
existing instrument. Study participants completed a “self-report” version of the

instrument. Peers, managers, direct reports, and customers evaluated each participant,

completing 360-degree instruments.

66

Participants followed the Hay Group’s requirements for selecting others to

evaluate them using a 360-degree version of the ECI, according to the manager of

management and leadership development (personal communication, November 18,

2002). Participants were allowed to select a maximum of five and a minimum of two

people from the categories that included direct reports, peers, and customers. The Hay

Group required that a minimum of two responders other than self and manager complete

and submit the instruments. The process was conducted via e-mail and the Internet during

a three- to four-week period during the summer of 2002. The Hay Group received

electronic versions of the completed forms, scored them, and prepared reports of the

results for each participant as well as a group report for the organization. The scores of

those completing 360-degree inventories were compiled for each participant and labeled

“total others.” The researcher received the scored data from the Hay Group via emails for

use in the study. The “total others” scores were analyzed to address hypotheses and

research questions. The researcher also compared self and total others’ ratings.

Those who volunteered for the external study completed a form, indicating their

last performance rating, as well as demographic characteristics, and a consent form

required by North Carolina State University. The ratings were confirmed by the manager

of management and leadership development. The company’s manager of management

and leadership development also checked the demographic forms to ascertain that there

was a distribution of the three rating groups (21 with rating 3, 28 with rating 4, and 8 with

rating 5). The chart below compares the percentage of bank employees in each

performance-rating category with the percentage of bank employees participating in the

67

research study (chief human resources officer, personal communication, October 2,

2002).

2002 Performance Summary

Performance
Rating

Overall % Study %

1 0 0
2 3.18 0
3 60.62 36.85
4 34.18 49.12
5 2.02 14.03

Demographic characteristics used to stratify the sample include the following:

Role in the organization

Title

Gender

Function (sales or support)

Number of years with direct reports

Level of education (advanced or not)

Type of degree (BA or BS)

Data collection procedures

The data used in the study was collected via the participating organization’s

administration of the ECI. Participants were selected to participate via a committee based

on criteria specified above. Under the direction of the manager of management and

leadership development and following the guidelines supplied by the Hay Group, which

owns the instrument and scores the surveys, participants completed self-report versions of

68

the ECI during the summer of 2002. Others with whom they work closely completed

360-degree versions of the instrument also during the summer of 2002.

The Hay Group formally scored data compiled from the ECIs, according to an

algorithm. According to Sala (2002):

ECI raw data is scored or weighted using an algorithm that gives more ‘credit’ for

higher ratings on items that correspond to higher levels within a competency.

Items are written to reflect developmental characteristics such that higher-level

items reflect increasingly sophisticated behaviors for each emotional intelligence

competency. For example, for Leadership, a lower-level item is, ‘leads by

example’ while a higher-level item is, ‘articulates a compelling vision.’ Because

the higher-level item is more ‘difficult’ and requires more ‘leadership,’ the

scoring algorithm gives more weight to higher ratings on these competencies.

This technique ensures that higher-level behaviors are recognized, and it also

serves to increase variability of scores (p. 37).

During the internal survey process, the organization’s manager of management

and leadership development explained the proposed doctoral research study and invited

participants to volunteer for the study. She asked volunteers to complete the demographic

and consent forms. The manager devised codes for each participant. To ensure

anonymity, she assigned three-digit codes to the demographic data and consent forms for

each participant. A representative of the Hay Group sent the researcher ECI scores

labeled with six-digit codes for each participant in a spreadsheet. The bank manager

provided the key that matched the three- and six-digit codes. The researcher matched the

69

Hay Group codes with those provided by the bank, adding the three-digit codes to the six-

digit codes on the spreadsheet.

Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Data Analysis

The following research questions, hypotheses, and analysis methods guide the

study:

Analysis of

Research Question One

Research Question One: Do high-performing leaders exhibit high emotional
intelligence?
Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18): High performance ratings and high scores on
each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies listed below are not related:
(H0-1): Achievement

(H0-2): Adaptability

(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H0-4): Conflict Management
(H0-5): Change Catalyst
(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H0-7): Developing Others
(H0-8): Empathy
(H0-9): Emotional Self-awareness

(H0-10): Emotional Self-control

(H0-11): Influence
(H0-12): Initiative

(H0-13): Inspirational Leadership

70

(H0-14): Organizational Awareness
(H0-15): Optimism
(H0-16): Self-confidence
(H0-17): Transparency

(H0-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H-1) – (H1-18): High performance ratings and high

scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related:

(H1-1): Achievement
(H1-2): Adaptability
(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H1-4): Conflict Management
(H1-5): Change Catalyst
(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H1-7): Developing Others
(H1-8): Empathy
(H1-9): Emotional Self-awareness
(H1-10): Emotional Self-control
(H1-11): Influence
(H1-12): Initiative

(H1-13): Inspirational Leadership

(H1-14): Organizational Awareness
(H1-15): Optimism

(H1-16): Self-confidence

71

(H1-17): Transparency

(H1-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

To address the first null hypotheses and corresponding alternative hypotheses, a

union-intersection test was deployed to determine if those with ratings of five had higher

EI scores than those with ratings of four and if those with ratings of four had higher EI

scores than those with ratings of three. The test compared the mean EI scores of

participants who had performance ratings of five with those with performance ratings of

four at a 97.5 percent confidence level. A second test compared mean EI score of

participants who had performance ratings of four with those who had performance ratings

of three, also at a 97.5 percent confidence level. If both of the assumptions are accepted

statistically, one can conclude that the mean EI of those with ratings of five is greater

than the mean EI of those with ratings of four and that the mean EI of those with ratings

of four is greater than the mean EI of those with ratings of three. The researcher tested the

hypotheses at 95 and 90 percent

confidence levels.

Analysis of

Research Question Two

Research Question 2: How do emotional intelligence competency scores of the

sample compare with emotional intelligence competency scores of other samples
surveyed using the same survey instrument?
Null Hypotheses 2(H0-1)-(H0-16): There are no significant differences among 16
emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence he
competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:
(H0-1): Achievement
(H0-2): Adaptability

72

(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H0-4): Conflict Management
(H0-5): Change Catalyst
(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H0-7): Empathy
(H0-8): Emotional Self-awareness
(H0-9): Emotional Self-control
(H0-10): Influence
(H0-11): Initiative

(H0-12): Inspirational Leadership

(H0-13): Organizational Awareness
(H0-14): Optimism
(H0-15): Self-confidence
(H0-16): Teamwork and Collaboration

Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1)-(H1-16): Significant differences exist among 16

emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence
competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:
(H1-1): Achievement
(H1-2): Adaptability
(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H1-4): Conflict Management
(H1-5): Change Catalyst
(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation

73

(H1-7): Empathy
(H1-8): Emotional Self-awareness
(H1-9): Emotional Self-control
(H1-10): Influence
(H1-11): Initiative
(H1-12): Inspirational Leadership
(H1-13): Organizational Awareness
(H1-14): Optimism
(H1-15): Self-confidence

(H1-16): Teamwork and Collaboration

The researcher compared the “total others” EI mean scores for each participant in

the study sample with the “total others” EI mean scores of 5,360 people in the North

American and United Kingdom ECI databases (Sala, 2002), using a T-test and a 95

percent confidence level (P< .05).

Analysis of

Research Question Three

Research Question Three: Do various demographic characteristics (position, title,
gender, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)
influence scores on 18 emotional intelligence competencies?
Null Hypotheses 3 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample
in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor, manager,

senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.

74

Alternative Hypotheses 3 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in
the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor,

manager, senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.

The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure at a 95 percent confidence level

to determine if there were statistically significant differences in EI scores among

managers in the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor,

supervisor, manager, senior manager, and executive).

Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18)(See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample
with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, area vice

president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18 competencies.

Alternative Hypotheses 4 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in
the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice
president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18
competencies.
The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure at a 95 percent confidence level
to determine if there were statistically significant differences in EI scores among

managers in the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior

vice president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president).

75

Null Hypotheses 5 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
men and women in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 5 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency

scores of men and women in the sample.

The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure and 95 percent confidence level

to determine if there were statistically significant differences in EI scores between males

and females in the sample.

Null Hypotheses 6 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 6 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.

The researcher again used ANOVA to determine if statistically significant (P<.05)

differences in EI scores existed between managers working in sales functions and those

working in support functions.

Null Hypotheses 7 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more
than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for

fewer than five years.

76

Alternative Hypotheses 7 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports
for more than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct

reports for fewer than five years.

The researcher compared the two groups using ANOVA to determine, with 95

percent confidence (P <.05), if statistically significant differences in EI scores existed

between managers who have been in management roles with direct reports for more than

five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for fewer

than five years.
Null Hypotheses 8 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers without

advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree).

Alternative Hypotheses 8 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers
without advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s
degree).

The researcher analyzed the data with a T-test to ascertain, with 95 percent

confidence (P <.05), whether statistically significant differences in EI scores existed

between those in the sample with advanced degrees and those in the sample without

advanced degrees.

77

Null Hypotheses 9 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with Bachelor of
Arts degrees.

Alternative Hypotheses 9 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with
Bachelor of Arts degrees.

Again deploying a T-test, the researcher analyzed of the data to determine, with 95

percent confidence (P <.05), if statistically significant differences in EI scores existed

between those with a Bachelor of Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts

degree.

78

Chapter IV Findings

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in EI levels existed

among high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assessed whether

managers in this financial organization who are deemed most effective, according to

their performance ratings, exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than

managers with lower performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels

and various demographic characteristics of the sample, including, position, title, area

of employment, gender, education level, type of degree, and management tenure.

The data were gathered from a sample of 57 managers participating in an

emotional intelligence program of a financial institution. These managers were

included in a first-time internal EI study. Their selection for participation was based

on their position in the company and specific criteria as described in Chapter 3. The

participants completed self-report versions of the Emotional Competence Inventory

2.0. Selected managers, peers, direct reports, and customers of each participant

completed 360-degree versions of the ECI. The ECI scores, performance ratings, and

demographic data were analyzed to address hypotheses and research questions.

Research questions, null hypotheses, and alternative hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses guided the study and the

methodology.

79

Research Question One

Research Question 1: Do high-performing leaders exhibit high emotional

intelligence?
Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18): High performance ratings and high scores on
each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies listed below are not related:
(H0-1): Achievement
(H0-2): Adaptability
(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H0-4): Conflict Management
(H0-5): Change Catalyst
(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H0-7): Developing Others
(H0-8): Empathy
(H0-9): Emotional Self-awareness
(H0-10): Emotional Self-control
(H0-11): Influence
(H0-12): Initiative
(H0-13): Inspirational Leadership
(H0-14): Organizational Awareness
(H0-15): Optimism
(H0-16): Self-confidence
(H0-17): Transparency
(H0-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

80

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H-1) – (H1-18): High performance ratings and high
scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related:
(H1-1): Achievement
(H1-2): Adaptability
(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H1-4): Conflict Management
(H1-5): Change Catalyst
(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H1-7): Developing Others
(H1-8): Empathy
(H1-9): Emotional Self-awareness
(H1-10): Emotional Self-control
(H1-11): Influence
(H1-12): Initiative
(H1-13): Inspirational Leadership
(H1-14): Organizational Awareness
(H1-15): Optimism
(H1-16): Self-confidence
(H1-17): Transparency
(H1-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

81

Research Question Two
Research Question Two: How do emotional intelligence competency scores of the
sample compare with emotional intelligence competency scores of other samples
surveyed using the same survey instrument?
Null Hypotheses 2(H0-1)-(H0-16): There are no significant differences among 16
emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence he
competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:
(H0-1): Achievement
(H0-2): Adaptability
(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H0-4): Conflict Management
(H0-5): Change Catalyst
(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H0-7): Empathy
(H0-8): Emotional Self-awareness
(H0-9): Emotional Self-control
(H0-10): Influence
(H0-11): Initiative
(H0-12): Inspirational Leadership
(H0-13): Organizational Awareness
(H0-14): Optimism
(H0-15): Self-confidence
(H0-16): Teamwork and Collaboration

82

Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1)-(H1-16): Significant differences exist among 16
emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence
competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:
(H1-1): Achievement
(H1-2): Adaptability
(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H1-4): Conflict Management
(H1-5): Change Catalyst
(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H1-7): Empathy
(H1-8): Emotional Self-awareness
(H1-9): Emotional Self-control
(H1-10): Influence
(H1-11): Initiative
(H1-12): Inspirational Leadership
(H1-13): Organizational Awareness
(H1-14): Optimism
(H1-15): Self-confidence
(H1-16): Teamwork and Collaboration

83

Research Question Three

Research Question Three: Do various demographic characteristics (position, title,

gender, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)
influence scores on 18 emotional intelligence competencies?
Null Hypotheses 3 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample
in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor, manager,
senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.
Alternative Hypotheses 3 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in
the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor,
manager, senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.
Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18): (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample
with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, area vice
president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18 competencies.
Alternative Hypotheses 4 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in
the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice
president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18
competencies.

84

Null Hypotheses 5 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
men and women in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 5 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of men and women in the sample.
Null Hypotheses 6 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 6 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.
Null Hypotheses 7 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more
than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for
fewer than five years.
Alternative Hypotheses 7 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports
for more than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct

reports for fewer than five years.

85

Null Hypotheses 8 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers without
advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree).
Alternative Hypotheses 8 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers
without advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s
degree).
Null Hypotheses 9 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with Bachelor of
Arts degrees.
Alternative Hypotheses 9 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with
Bachelor of Arts degrees.
Analysis

This section describes the analysis of data gathered during the study. The data

used in the study were collected via internal processes of the financial organization,

following the guidelines of the Hay Group, which formally scored the data. The ECI data

provided analyses of ECI competencies based on self responses and responses of others.

The researcher received the scored and coded data for each of the EI competencies for

86

each participant in a spreadsheet from the Hay Group. She added performance ratings

and demographic data to the spreadsheet. When participants failed to provide answers to

the demographic questions, and, in one case, when a manager chose two responses, the

“missing data points” were not included in the statistical analyses.

The researcher analyzed the findings using the scored data provided by the

Hay Group, the performance ratings, and the demographic information via a

statistical analysis computing system, SAS 8. The researcher analyzed the data from

the ECIs and demographic forms using the general linear model (GLM) version of

analysis of variance (ANOVA), T-test, and union-intersection test methods.

An ANOVA test determines the existence (or nonexistence) of a statistically

significant difference among several group means (UCLA, 2002). The test uses

variances to help ascertain if the various means are equal or not. ANOVA uncovers

the main and interaction effects of categorical independent variables (or “factors”) on

interval dependent variables. The T-test is a test of significance of the difference in

the means of a single interval dependent, for two groups formed by a categorical

independent (Garson, 2002). T-test and ANOVA are generally accepted statistical

tests and are equally valid in the analysis of differences among levels of variables,

such as performance ratings, emotional intelligence scores, and demographic

characteristics. A union-intersection test analyzed Null Hypotheses 1 to ascertain if

participants with ratings of five had higher EI scores than those with ratings of four

and if those with ratings of four had higher EI scores than those with ratings of three.

87

Detailed Research Questions and Null and Alternative Hypotheses Review

The following sections present findings related to each research question and null

and corresponding alternative hypothesis. The results consist of a summary of the

relevant findings, tables depicting the statistical analysis, and a decision about each null

hypothesis based on the statistical analysis.

Research Question One: Do high-performing leaders exhibit high emotional
intelligence?

Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): High

performance ratings and high scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence

competencies are not related.

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H1-1) 1- (H1-18): High performance ratings and high

scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related.

To address the first null hypothesis and corresponding alternative hypothesis,

a union-intersection test was deployed to determine if those with ratings of five had

higher EI scores than those with ratings of four and if those with ratings of four had

higher EI scores than those with ratings of three. The test compared the mean EI

scores of participants who had performance ratings of five with those with

performance ratings of four at a 97.5 percent confidence level. A second test

compared mean EI score of participants who had performance ratings of four with

those who had performance ratings of three, also at a 97.5 percent confidence level. If

both of the assumptions are accepted statistically, one can conclude that the mean EI

of those with ratings of five is greater than the mean EI of those with ratings of four

and that the mean EI of those with ratings of four is greater than the mean EI of those

88

with ratings of three. The researcher analyzed the hypotheses at 95 and 90 percent

confidence levels.

The sample included 21 participants with ratings of 3; 28 with ratings of 4; and 8

ratings of 5. The list below compares the percentage of bank employees in each

performance-rating category with the percentage of bank employees participating in the

research study (chief human resources officer, personal communication, October 2,
2002).
2002 Performance Summary
Performance
Rating
Overall % Study %

1 0 0
2 3.18 0
3 60.62 36.85
4 34.18 49.12
5 2.02 14.03

Although high scores for 15 competencies (all except Conflict Management,

Developing Others, and Teamwork and Collaboration) appeared to be related to high

ratings based on mean scores (See Table 4.1 and Table H1, Appendix H), further analysis

indicated that there is no statistically significant relationship at the 95 percent confidence

level between high ratings and high emotional intelligence. Therefore, the researcher

does not reject Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18).

89

Table 4.1 Mean scores for each competency by rating
Competency ID Rating Mean
1 Achievement 3 3.39
2 Achievement 4 3.56
3 Achievement 5 3.71
4 Adaptability 3 3.34
5 Adaptability 4 3.52
6 Adaptability 5 3.66
7 Accurate Self-assessment 3 3.35
8 Accurate Self-assessment 4 3.41
9 Accurate Self-assessment 5 3.47
10 Conflict Management 3 2.85
11 Conflict Management 4 3.01
12 Conflict Management 5 2.99
13 Change Catalyst 3 3.3
14 Change Catalyst 4 3.39
15 Change Catalyst 5 3.6
16 Customer Service Orientation 3 3.87
17 Customer Service Orientation 4 3.89
18 Customer Service Orientation 5 3.92
19 Developing Others 3 3.34
20 Developing Others 4 3.59
21 Developing Others 5 3.55
22 Empathy 3 3.58
23 Empathy 4 3.6
24 Empathy 5 3.68
25 Emotional Self-awareness 3 3.26
26 Emotional Self-awareness 4 3.4
27 Emotional Self-awareness 5 3.52
28 Emotional Self-control 3 3.47
29 Emotional Self- control 4 3.6
30 Emotional Self-control 5 3.82
31 Influence 3 3.51
32 Influence 4 3.63
33 Influence 5 3.73
34 Initiative 3 3.31
35 Initiative 4 3.44

90

Table 4.1 continued
36 Initiative 5 3.59
37 Inspirational Leadership 3 3.26
38 Inspirational Leadership 4 3.5
39 Inspirational Leadership 5 3.64
40 Organizational Awareness 3 3.67
41 Organizational Awareness 4 3.67
42 Organizational Awareness 5 3.81
43 Optimism 3 3.67
44 Optimism 4 3.76
45 Optimism 5 3.9
46 Self-confidence 3 3.68
47 Self-confidence 4 3.76
48 Self-confidence 5 3.92
49 Transparency 3 3.39
50 Transparency 4 3.5
51 Transparency 5 3.66
52 Teamwork & Collaboration 3 3.54
53 Teamwork & Collaboration 4 3.62
54 Teamwork & Collaboration 5 3.54

However, further analysis at a 90 percent confidence level (P= <.1) indicated a

statistically significant relationship between high EI levels and high performance ratings

on three competencies: Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism (See Table 4.2 and

Table H1, Appendix H).

91

Table 4.2 Relationship of high ratings to high EI scores
at 95 % & 90 % confidence levels

Do Not Reject Null
Hypothesis 1 (P<.05)

Reject Null Hypothesis
1 (P=<.1)

Do Not Reject Null
Hypothesis 1 (P=<.1)

Achievement (P=.05) Achievement(P=.055) Accurate Self-assessment
(P=.49)

Adaptability (P=.08) Adaptability (P=.08)

Conflict Management
(P=0.57)

Accurate Self-assessment
(P=0.49)

Optimism (P=.07) Change Catalyst (P=0.18)

Conflict Management
(P=0.57)

Customer Service Orientation
(P=0.49)

Change Catalyst (P=0.18) Developing Others (P=0.63)
Customer Service Orientation
(P=0.49)

Empathy (P=0.56)

Developing Others (P=0.63) Emotional Self-awareness
(P=0.14)

Empathy (P=0.58)

Emotional Self-control
(P=0.13)

Emotional Self-awareness
(P=0.14)

Influence (P=0.22)

Emotional Self-control
(P=0.13)

Initiative (P=0.12)

Influence (P=0.22)

Inspirational Leadership
(P=0.13)

Initiative (P=0.19)

Organizational Awareness
(P=0.54)

Inspirational Leadership
(P=0.13)

Optimism (P=.07)

Organizational Awareness
(P=0.54)

Self-confidence (P=0.14)

Optimism (P=.07) Transparency (P=0.16)
Self-confidence (P=0.15) Teamwork & Collaboration

(P=0.94)
Transparency (P=0.16)
Teamwork & Collaboration
(P=0.94)

Before employing the union-intersection test to determine if those with higher

ratings had higher EI scores, the researcher ran an ANOVA test to ascertain if a

92

statistically significant relationship existed between ratings and the 18 emotional

intelligence competencies. Findings indicated that a statistically significant

relationship (95 percent confidence, P<.05) existed between the ratings and EI scores

in 10 of 18 competencies (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Relationship of EI competencies and performance ratings at 95 percent
confidence

Significant Relationship No Significant Relationship
Competency P Value= Competency P Value=
Achievement .0016 Accurate Self-assessment .5714
Adaptability .0056 Change Catalyst .0649
Conflict Management .0206 Customer Service Orientation .5347
Developing Others .0058 Empathy .6324
Emotional Self-control .0371 Emotional Self-awareness .0651
Initiative .012 Influence .0654
Inspirational Leadership .006 Organizational Awareness .2636
Optimism .0182 Teamwork and Collaboration .4517
Self-confidence .0375
Transparency .0485

The fact that the relationships between many of the EI levels and ratings were not

positive does not necessarily indicate that they were related in a negative direction.

There are six possible relationships (1 < 2 < 3; 3 < 2 < 1; 2 < 1 < 3; 3 < 1 < 2; 2 < 3 < 1;

and 1 < 3 < 2).

Research Question Two: How do emotional intelligence competency scores of the
sample compare with emotional intelligence competency scores of other samples
surveyed using the same survey instrument?

Null Hypotheses 2 (H0-1) 1- (H0-16) (See list in Null Hypotheses 2 above): There

are no significant differences among 16 emotional intelligence competency scores of the

93

sample and 16 emotional intelligence competency scores of other groups surveyed using

the same survey instrument.

Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1) 1- (H1-16) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 2

above): Significant differences exist among 16 emotional intelligence competency scores

of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence competency scores of other groups surveyed

using the same survey instrument.

Leaders of the organization in the study used the emotional competence

framework of the ECI 2.0. The study assesses 18 EI competencies as described in

Primal Leadership (Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002). The framework of the

earlier version of the ECI, which includes 20 competencies, and the dissertation

research study share 16 EI competencies. The matching competencies measure the

same characteristics; however, they may have different variances. The researcher

compared the norms of these 16 competencies to address the second null hypothesis.

The researcher compared the “total others” EI mean scores of the study

sample with the “total others” EI mean scores of 5,360 people in the ECI North

American Database (Sala, 2002), using a T-test. Based on a 95-percent confidence

level (P< .05), findings indicated there are statistically significant differences between

the sample and those in the database in three competencies: Achievement, Accurate

Self-assessment, and Emotional Self-control. Therefore, the researcher rejects the

Null Hypotheses 2 for (H0-1), (H0-3), and (H0-10) in favor of the Alternative

Hypotheses 2 for (H1-1), (H1-3), and (H1-10). The researcher does not reject the Null

Hypotheses 2 for the remaining 13 common EI competencies: (H0-2), (H0-4), (H0-5)

(H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), and (H0-16).

94

The Table 4.4 shows P values for the comparison between the average EI

scores in the study with the norms compiled for the ECI North American Database.

Table 4.4 EI comparisons of bank sample with other samples
Reject Null Hypotheses Do Not Reject Null Hypotheses

Competency P Value= Competency P Value=
Achievement .0216 Adaptability .6518
Accurate Self-assessment .0118 Conflict Management .4158
Emotional Self-control .008 Change Catalyst .2557
Customer Service Orientation .2471
Developing Others .8386
Empathy .074
Emotional Self-awareness .6629
Influence .4066
Initiative .9948
Inspirational Leadership .8307
Organizational Awareness .8145
Self-confidence .3574
Teamwork and Collaboration .1922

Research Question Three: Do various demographic characteristics (position, title,
gender, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)
influence scores on 18 emotional intelligence competencies?

Null Hypotheses 3(H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample
in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor, manager,
senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.
Alternative Hypotheses 3 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in

95

the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor,
manager, senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.

Using ANOVA, the researcher ascertained, with 95 percent confidence (P <.05),

that there are no statistically significant differences in EI levels among participants in the

five positions. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 3 for the 18 competencies:

(H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-

13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table 4.5 below and Table H2,

Appendix H).

Table 4.5 Relationship of EI competencies and positions at 95 percent confidence level
Competency P Value=

Achievement .9649
Adaptability .9217
Accurate Self-assessment .0849
Conflict Management .9126
Change Catalyst .3277
Customer Service Orientation .741
Developing Others .8555
Empathy .1228
Emotional Self-awareness .1181
Emotional Self-control .503
Influence .9654
Initiative .5869
Inspirational Leadership .9293
Organizational Awareness .8301
Optimism .7636
Self-confidence .5039
Transparency .4764
Teamwork and Collaboration .5029

Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample

96

with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, area vice
president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18 competencies.

Alternative Hypotheses 4 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in
the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice
president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18
competencies.
Using ANOVA, the researcher ascertained, with 95 percent confidence (P <.05),

that there are no statistically significant differences in EI levels among participants with

the various titles. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 4 for the 18

competencies: (H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-

11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table 4.6 below and

Table H3, Appendix H).

Table 4.6 Relationship of EI competencies and titles at 95-percent confidence level
Competency P Value=

Achievement .7059
Adaptability .8385
Accurate Self-assessment .8805
Conflict Management .6434
Change Catalyst .1032
Customer Service Orientation .9835
Developing Others .6161
Empathy .2854
Emotional Self-awareness .7848
Emotional Self-control .7914
Influence .6732
Initiative .8754
Inspirational Leadership .7247

97

Table 4.6 continued
Organizational Awareness .4189
Optimism .6307
Self-confidence .6286
Transparency .9255
Teamwork and Collaboration .6511

The findings from the analyses of Null Hypotheses 3 and Null Hypotheses 4

are consistent with findings from a study of EI and employees in varying levels of

positions (Sala, 2002). And even though Cavallo and Brienza (2002) found some

significant differences among participants in various functional areas at Johnson &

Johnson, they reported that the number of participants in each functional category

was not sufficient to draw conclusions.
Null Hypotheses 5 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
men and women in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 5 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of men and women in the sample.

The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure to determine if there were

statistically significant differences between males and females. As indicated in Table 4.7

(also see Table H4, Appendix H), results indicated that there are no significant

differences (95 percent confidence level, P <.05) in EI scores of men and women in the

sample. The researcher does not reject the Null Hypotheses 5 for the 18 competencies:

98

(H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-

13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18).

Table 4.7 Relationship of gender and EI a 95 percent confidence level

Competency P Value=
Achievement .5887
Adaptability .4974
Accurate Self-assessment .9782
Conflict Management .6209
Change Catalyst .132
Customer Service Orientation .6241
Developing Others .8023
Empathy .1747
Emotional Self-awareness .3251
Emotional Self-control .8577
Influence .8611
Initiative .9942
Inspirational Leadership .405
Organizational Awareness .6563
Optimism .6919
Self-confidence .2069
Transparency .9112
Teamwork and Collaboration .5037

While some emotion- and EI-related studies (Hart, 2002, Sala, 2002, and Petrides

and Furnham, 2000) have noted gender differences, others (Sala, 2002 and Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002) have found little or no differences between the sexes.

The literature on gender and EI is mixed. While some emotion- and EI-related

studies (Hart, 2002, Sala, 2002, and Petrides and Furnham, 2000) have noted gender

differences, others (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Landau, 1996; Eagly, Karau, and

99

Makhijani, 1992, 1995; Ragins, 1991) have found little or no differences between the

sexes.

The researcher ranked the mean scores for each competency for females and

males. Table 4.8 shows mean scores by gender in descending order from highest to

lowest. Although the difference between the highest and lowest mean scores is less than

1, one cannot surmise that the difference is small. Finding indicated that most data likely

lie between 3.867 and 2.967 for females and 3.887 and 2.932 for males.

Table 4.8 Means scores by gender in descending order
Females Males

Competency Mean = Competency Mean =

Customer Service Orientation 3.867 Customer Service Orientation 3.887
Self-confidence 3.83 Optimism 3.75
Optimism 3.72 Self-confidence 3.73
Empathy 3.692 Organizational Awareness 3.696
Organizational Awareness 3.662 Influence 3.597
Influence 3.582 Teamwork & Collaboration 3.587
Emotional Self-control 3.558 Emotional Self-control 3.579
Achievement 3.548 Empathy 3.577
Teamwork & Collaboration 3.534 Achievement 3.504
Adaptability 3.517 Developing Others 3.482
Developing Others 3.507 Transparency 3.48
Inspirational Leadership 3.502 Adaptability 3.457
Transparency 3.469 Change Catalyst 3.419
Emotional Self-awareness 3.436 Initiative 3.41
Initiative 3.411 Inspirational Leadership 3.407
Accurate Self-assessment 3.397 Accurate Self-assessment 3.4
Change Catalyst 3.262 Emotional Self-awareness 3.34
Conflict Management 2.967 Conflict Management 2.932

100

Null Hypotheses 6 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 6 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.

The researcher again used ANOVA to determine if differences existed between

managers working in sales functions and those working in support functions. With 95

percent confidence (P <.05), the researcher determined that a statistically significant

difference is evident in the three competencies as listed below. The researcher rejects the

Null Hypotheses 6 (H0-8) (H0-9), and (H0-17) in favor of the Alternative Hypotheses 6 (H1-

8) (H1-9), and (H1-17) for the three competencies (see Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 Significant relationships between EI and area
(Sales and Support) at 95 percent confidence level

Competency P Value = t Value =
Empathy .0352 2.16
Emotional Self-awareness .0435 2.07
Transparency .0164 2.48

The positive t values of each of the three competencies indicate that Support

scores were greater than Sales scores. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 6

for the remaining 13 competencies: (H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-

10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), and (H0-18).

Sala (2002) reports on norms by job function. Even though statistical tests were

not performed to compare groups, the data indicated that those in sales functions were

101

rated highest in Customer Service Orientation (mean score of 3.8818) and Self–

confidence (mean score of 3.77). Sala described a study by Lloyd at Bass Brewers in the

U.K. in 2001, which sought to determine if EI competencies were associated with sales

performance. Results of the Lloyd study indicated a strong relationship between EI

scores; the area development managers who performed best were more likely to have

higher EI scores.

Managers in Support functions in the sample scored highest and lowest in the

competencies shown in Table 4.10 (also see Table 4.12).

Table 4.10 Support managers’ highest- and lowest-rated competencies
Highest-rated competencies Lowest-rated competencies

Customer Service Orientation (3.905) Conflict Management (3.008)
Optimism (3.783) Change Catalyst (3.39)
Self-confidence (3.757) Accurate Self-assessment (3.463)
Organizational Awareness (3.752) Initiative (3.464)

Managers in Sales functions in the sample scored highest and lowest in the

competencies shown in 4.11 (also see Table 4.12).

Table 4.11 Sales managers’ highest- and lowest-rated competencies
Highest-rated competencies Lowest-rated competencies

Customer Service Orientation (3.882) Conflict Management (2.929)
Self-confidence (3.758) Emotional Self-awareness (3.32)
Optimism (3.73) Accurate Self-assessment (3.371)
Organizational Awareness (3.674) Initiative (3.392)

102

Table 4.12 Comparisons of EI means for Sales and Support functions
Competency Sales

Ranking
Sales

Mean =
Support
Ranking

Support
Mean =

Accurate Self-assessment 16 3.371 16 3.463
Achievement 9 3.491 9 3.609
Adaptability 11 3.448 11 3.571
Change Catalyst 14 3.392 17 3.39
Conflict Management 18 2.929 18 3.008
Customer Service Orientation 1 3.882 1 3.905
Developing Others 10 3.478 12 3.532
Emotional Self-awareness 17 3.316 13 3.497
Emotional Self-control 8 3.544 6 3.678
Empathy 7 3.564 5 3.727
Influence 5 3.59 7 3.636
Initiative 15 3.392 15 3.464
Inspirational Leadership 13 3.409 14 3.493
Optimism 3 3.73 2 3.783
Organizational Awareness 4 3.674 4 3.752
Self-confidence 2 3.758 3 3.757
Teamwork & Collaboration 6 3.572 10 3.592
Transparency 12 3.431 8 3.631

The rankings were similar between the groups. Again, although the difference

between the highest and lowest mean scores is less than 1, one cannot surmise that the

difference is small. Findings indicate that most data likely lie between 3.8819 and 2.9289

for managers in Sales and 3.905 and 3.008 for managers in Support functions.

Null Hypotheses 7 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more
than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for
fewer than five years.

103

Alternative Hypotheses 7 (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1 above): Significant

differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of managers

in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more than five

years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for fewer than

five years.

The researcher compared the two groups using ANOVA and found, with 95

percent confidence (P <.05), that no statistically significant differences existed. The

researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 7 (H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6),

(H0-7), (H0-8), (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and

(H0-18). (See Table H6, Appendix H).

Table 4.13 Relationship of EI and tenure a 95-percent confidence level
Competency P Value=

Achievement .8233
Adaptability .8138
Accurate Self-assessment .5121
Conflict Management .6651
Change Catalyst .6941
Customer Service Orientation .8315
Developing Others .0601
Empathy .7089
Emotional Self-awareness .5223
Emotional Self-control .6835
Influence .6462
Initiative .7622
Inspirational Leadership .8112
Organizational Awareness .1515
Optimism .7123
Self-confidence .4035
Transparency .8958
Teamwork and Collaboration .991

104

Null Hypotheses 8 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers without
advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree).
Alternative Hypotheses 8 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers
without advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s
degree).
The researcher analyzed the data with a T-test to ascertain, with 95 percent

confidence (P <.05), that no statistically significant differences existed within the sample

based on educational level. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 8 (H0-1), (H0-

2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8), (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14),

(H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table H7, Appendix H).

Table 4.14 Relationship of EI and educational level at 95 percent confidence level
Competency P Value=

Achievement .0.376
Adaptability .0.564
Accurate Self-assessment 0.433
Conflict Management 0.182
Change Catalyst 0.862
Customer Service Orientation 0.788
Developing Others 0.825
Empathy 0.888
Emotional Self-awareness 0.882
Emotional Self-control 0.911
Influence 0.478
Initiative 0.861
Inspirational Leadership 0.495

105

Table 4.14 continued
Organizational Awareness 0.971
Optimism 0.841
Self-confidence 0.614
Transparency 0.439
Teamwork and Collaboration 0.58

Null Hypotheses 9 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with Bachelor of
Arts degrees.

Alternative Hypotheses 9 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with
Bachelor of Arts degrees.

Again deploying a T-test, the researcher analyzed of the data to determine that,

with 95 percent confidence (P <.05), statistically significant differences existed between

those with a Bachelor of Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts degree on four

competencies: Conflict Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and

Organizational Awareness. The t values in the table below (Table 4.15) indicate the

direction of the relationship. The negative values indicated that scores of those with BS

degrees were greater than scores of those with BA degrees (Conflict Management,

Initiative, and Organizational Awareness) while the positive value for Emotional Self-

106

awareness indicated that scores of those with BA degrees were greater than those with BS

degrees.

The researcher rejects Null Hypotheses 9 for (H0-4), (H0-9), (H0-12), and (H0-14) in

favor of Alternative Hypotheses 9 (H1-4), (H1-9), (H1-12), and (H1-14). The researcher does

not reject Null Hypotheses 9 (H0-1), (H0-2) (H0-3), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7) (H0-8), (H0-10), (H0-

11), (H0-13), (H0-15), (H0-16) (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table H8, Appendix H).

Table 4.15 EI scores significantly related to BA versus BS degrees
Competency P Value = t Value =

Conflict Management .0214 -2.39
Emotional Self-awareness .0271 2.29
Initiative .0431 -2.09
Organizational Awareness .0422 -2.1

Additional findings: self versus others ratings

Another finding of note relates to self-ratings compared to ratings by total others

(managers, direct reports, peers, and customers). The scored data provided by the Hay

Group included self ratings as well as total others’ ratings. Even though the researcher

employed “total others’” ratings in the study, she was able to compare self versus others’

ratings. She found, with 95 percent confidence (P <.05), that participants tended to rate

themselves lower than others rated them. (See Table H9, Appendix H).

Results indicated that statistically significant differences existed in four

competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational Leadership, and Self-

confidence. Negative t values indicated that for each of the four competencies, total

others’ scores were greater than self-reported scores. See Table 4.16.

107

Table 4.16 Statistically significant differences
Competency P Value = t Value =

Emotional Self-control .0008 -3.53
Influence .0404 -2.1
Inspirational Leadership .0011 -3.45
Self-confidence .0099 -2.67

The findings do not support findings reported by the Hay Group. Self ratings of

those included in the ECI North American Database tended to be higher than ratings of

total others (Sala, 2002). “People clearly seem to view themselves more favorably than

others view them; however, the moderate correlation between self and total others’

ratings suggest that ratings tend to be aligned. That is, those that rate themselves higher

tend to be rated higher by others” (p. 32).

The researcher also ranked and compared the mean EI scores for the sample from

highest to lowest for self and total others’ ratings. Total others’ mean scores ranged from

a high of 3.885 (Customer Service Orientation) to a low of 2.947 (Conflict Management).

Self ratings ranged from 3.7 (Customer Service Orientation) to 2.83 (Conflict

Management). The rankings were similar between the groups (see Table 4.17).

Table 4.17 EI competency scores for self and total others’ ratings from highest to lowest
Competency Others

ranking
Others
mean

Self
ranking

Self
mean

Achievement 9 3.517 9 3.451
Adaptability 12 3.475 12 3.372
Accurate Self-assessment 15 3.399 11 3.39
Conflict Management 18 2.947 18 2.83
Change Catalyst 16 3.390 14 2.358
Customer Service Orientation 1 3.885 1 3.7
Developing Others 10 3.491 12 3.372
Empathy 5 3.606 5 3.542

108

Table 4.17 continued
Emotional Self-awareness 17 3.365 8 3.479
Emotional Self-control 7 3.581 15 3.274
Influence 6 3.598 10 3.423
Initiative 14 3.411 16 3.258
Inspirational Leadership 13 3.43 17 3.13
Organizational Awareness 4 3.693 4 3.551
Optimism 3 3.747 2 3.698
Self-confidence 2 3.755 6 3.525
Transparency 11 3.484 3 3.567
Teamwork & Collaboration 8 3.577 7 3.507

The following competencies had the same ranking for both self and others:

Competency Ranking
Customer Service Orientation 1
Organizational Awareness 4
Empathy 5
Achievement 9
Adaptability 12
Conflict Management 18

Although the differences between the highest and lowest mean scores for self and

total others scores are less than 1, one cannot surmise that the difference is small. Finding

indicated that most data likely lie between 3.885 and 2.947 (see Table 4.17).

Summary
The analysis addressed research questions and null hypotheses posed to determine

if high performance ratings and high emotional intelligence were related in a sample; if

EI scores of the sample were similar to those of others surveyed using the same

instrument; and if various demographic characteristics of the sample (gender, position,

title, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)

109

influenced emotional intelligence. Table 4.18 shows a summary of the research question

and null hypothesis analysis.

Table 4.18 Summary of null and alternative hypothesis testing
Test Analysis Hypotheses Reject/Not Reject

(95 % confidence level; P<.05) 1. Cross-

intersection
Test

High performance
ratings and high
scores on each of the
18 emotional
intelligence
competencies are not
related.

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 1 for the 18
competencies.
At 90 percent confidence level (P<.1), reject Null Hypotheses 1 in favor of Alternative Hypotheses 1 for: Achievement (P=.0547) Adaptability (P=.0838) Optimism (P=.01675) At 90 percent confidence level, do not reject (H0) 1 for remaining 15 competencies.

2. T-test There are no
significant differences
among 16 emotional
intelligence
competency scores of
the sample and 16
emotional intelligence
he competency scores
of other groups
surveyed using the
same survey
instrument.

Reject Null Hypotheses 2 in favor of
Alternative Hypotheses 2 for:
Achievement (P=.0216)
Accurate Self-assessment (P=.0118)
Emotional Self-control (P=.008)

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 2 for the
remaining 13 competencies.

3. ANOVA There are no
significant differences
in the emotional
intelligence scores of
managers in the
sample in different
positions (those
classified as individual
contributor, supervisor,
manager, senior
manager, and
executive) on each of
18 competencies.

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 3 for the 18
EI competencies.

110

Table 4.18 continued
4. ANOVA There are no significant

differences in the emotional
intelligence scores of
managers in the sample
with various titles (assistant
vice president, vice
president, senior vice
president, area vice
president, and
executive/group vice
president) on each of 18
competencies.

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 4 for the
18 EI competencies.

5.
ANOVA

There are no significant
differences in each of the
18 emotional intelligence
competency scores of men
and women in the sample.

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 5 for the
18 EI competencies.

6. ANOVA There are no significant
differences in each of the
18 emotional intelligence
competency scores of
managers in sales and
managers in support roles
in the sample.

Reject the Null Hypotheses 6 in favor of
the Alternative Hypotheses 6 for:
Empathy (P=.0352) (Support > Sales)
Emotional Self-awareness (P=.0435)
(Support > Sales)
Transparency (P=.0164) (Support >
Sales)
Do not reject Null Hypotheses 6 for the
remaining 15 competencies.

7. ANOVA There are no significant
differences in each of the
18 emotional intelligence
competency scores of
managers in the sample
who have been in
management roles with
direct reports for more than
five years and those who
have been in management
roles with direct reports for
fewer than five years.

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 7 for the
18 EI competencies.

8. T-test There are no significant
differences in each of the
18 emotional intelligence
competency scores of
managers with advanced
degrees (master’s degree
or higher) and managers
without advanced degrees
(those with a high school
diploma and those with a
bachelor’s degree).

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 8 for the
18 EI competencies

111

Table 4.18 continued
9. T-test There are no significant

differences in each of the
18 emotional intelligence
competency scores of
managers in the sample
with Bachelor of Science
degrees and those with
Bachelor of Arts degrees.

Reject Null Hypotheses 9 in favor of
Alternative Hypotheses 9 for:
Conflict Management (P=.021) (BS>BA)
Emotional Self-awareness (P=.027)
(BA>BS)
Initiative (P=.043)(BS>BA)
Organizational Awareness.
(P=.042)(BS>BA)
Do not reject Null Hypotheses 9 for the
remaining 14 competencies.

High ratings and high emotional intelligence were not significantly related at a 95

percent confidence level. They were significantly related on three competencies—

Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism—at a 90 percent confidence level. The EI

average scores of the sample differed significantly from the average scores of other

groups in the ECI North American Database on three competencies: Achievement,

Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional Self-control. Statistically significant

differences between Sales and Support functions were evident in three competencies:

Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and Transparency. For all three, Support EI levels

were greater than Sales EI levels. Position, title, gender, and management tenure did not

significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.
While educational level did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of
the sample, statistically significant differences existed between those with a Bachelor of
Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts degree on four competencies: Conflict
Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness. EI
levels of those with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BA degrees in
Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI levels of those

112

with BA degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees on one

competency: Emotional Self-

awareness.

Results of the self versus total others ratings indicated that statistically significant
differences exist in four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational
Leadership, and Self-confidence. For each of the four competencies, EI levels of total
others were greater than self-reported EI levels.

113

Chapter V Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in EI levels existed
among high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assessed whether
managers in this financial organization who are deemed most effective, according to

their performance ratings, exhibited higher emotional intelligence competencies than

managers with lower performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels
and various demographic characteristics of the sample, including, position, title, area
of employment, gender, education level, type of degree, and management tenure.
In a study of emotional intelligence and leadership performance, it is important to
examine the concepts related to emotions, emotional intelligence, leadership, leadership

theories, and the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership.

The literature indicated that as companies increasingly are required to do more

with less, seemingly “soft” skills, based on emotions, are associated with leadership

effectiveness and organizational success. Research suggested that emotional

“competencies” such as those related to empathy, adaptability, self-control, emotional

self-awareness, ability to develop others, and so forth, contribute significantly to leader
effectiveness.
The analysis addressed research questions and null hypotheses posed to determine

if performance had an influence on emotional intelligence in a sample; if EI scores of the

sample were similar to those of others surveyed using the same instrument; and if various

demographic characteristics of the sample (gender, position, title, sales or support role,

114

management tenure, educational level, and type of degree) influenced emotional

intelligence.
Research Questions and Hypotheses

The researcher conducted data analysis to address the following research

questions and null hypotheses.

Research Question One: Do high-performing leaders exhibit high emotional
intelligence?
Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18): High performance ratings and high scores on
each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies listed below are not related:
(H0-1): Achievement
(H0-2): Adaptability
(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H0-4): Conflict Management
(H0-5): Change Catalyst
(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H0-7): Developing Others
(H0-8): Empathy
(H0-9): Emotional Self-awareness
(H0-10): Emotional Self-control
(H0-11): Influence
(H0-12): Initiative
(H0-13): Inspirational Leadership
(H0-14): Organizational Awareness

115

(H0-15): Optimism
(H0-16): Self-confidence
(H0-17): Transparency
(H0-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H1-1) – (H1-18.): High performance ratings and high

scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related:
(H1-1): Achievement
(H1-2): Adaptability
(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H1-4): Conflict Management
(H1-5): Change Catalyst
(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H1-7): Developing Others
(H1-8): Empathy
(H1-9): Emotional Self-awareness
(H1-10): Emotional Self-control
(H1-11): Influence
(H1-12): Initiative
(H1-13): Inspirational Leadership
(H1-14): Organizational Awareness
(H1-15): Optimism
(H1-16): Self-confidence
(H1-17): Transparency

116

(H1-18): Teamwork and Collaboration
Research Question Two: How do emotional intelligence competency scores of the
sample compare with emotional intelligence competency scores of other samples
surveyed using the same survey instrument?
Null Hypotheses 2(H0-1)-(H0-16): There are no significant differences among 16
emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence he
competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:
(H0-1): Achievement
(H0-2): Adaptability
(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H0-4): Conflict Management
(H0-5): Change Catalyst
(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H0-7): Empathy
(H0-8): Emotional Self-awareness
(H0-9): Emotional Self-control
(H0-10): Influence
(H0-11): Initiative
(H0-12): Inspirational Leadership
(H0-13): Organizational Awareness
(H0-14): Optimism
(H0-15): Self-confidence
(H0-16): Teamwork and Collaboration

117

Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1)-(H1-16): Significant differences exist among 16
emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence
competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:
(H1-1): Achievement
(H1-2): Adaptability
(H1-3): Accurate Self-assessment
(H1-4): Conflict Management
(H1-5): Change Catalyst
(H1-6): Customer Service Orientation
(H1-7): Empathy
(H1-8): Emotional Self-awareness
(H1-9): Emotional Self-control
(H1-10): Influence
(H1-11): Initiative
(H1-12): Inspirational Leadership
(H1-13): Organizational Awareness
(H1-14): Optimism
(H1-15): Self-confidence
(H1-16): Teamwork and Collaboration
Research Question Three: Do various demographic characteristics (position, title,
gender, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)
influence scores on 18 emotional intelligence competencies?

118

Null Hypotheses 3 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample
in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor, manager,
senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.
Alternative Hypotheses 3 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in
the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor,
manager, senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.
Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample
with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, area vice
president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18 competencies.
Alternative Hypotheses 4 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in
the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice
president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18
competencies.
Null Hypotheses 5 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
men and women in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 5 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of men and women in the sample.

119

Null Hypotheses 6 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.
Alternative Hypotheses 6 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.
Null Hypotheses 7 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more
than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for
fewer than five years.
Alternative Hypotheses 7 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports
for more than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct
reports for fewer than five years.
Null Hypotheses 8 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers without
advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree).
Alternative Hypotheses 8 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers

120

without advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s
degree).
Null Hypotheses 9 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are
no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of
managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with Bachelor of
Arts degrees.
Alternative Hypotheses 9 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1
above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency
scores of managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with
Bachelor of Arts degrees.

To address research questions and null and alternative hypotheses, the researcher

employed a comparative research design to investigate differences among managers with

varying demographic characteristics in one financial institution. An existing survey

instrument, Hay/McBer’s Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, and existing

performance appraisal system and rating forms were used to ascertain if differences

existed among the sample. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and univariate

analysis of variance.

Key Findings

The following key findings are derived from the results of the analysis of research

questions and null hypothesis testing.

1. High performance ratings and high emotional intelligence were not related at a

95-percent confidence level. At a 90-percent confidence level, the two were related in

three competencies: Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism.

121

2. The EI average scores of the sample differed significantly from the average

scores of other groups in the ECI North American Database in three competencies:

Achievement, Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional

Self-control.

3. Position did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

4. Title did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

5. Gender did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

6. Significant differences existed between those in sales and support in three

competencies: Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and Transparency. For all three,

Support EI levels were greater than Sales EI levels.

7. Management tenure (a comparison of managers with direct reports for more

than five years and those who have had direct reports for fewer than five years) did not

significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

8. Educational level did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the

sample.

9. Significant differences existed between those in the sample with BS degrees

and those in the sample with BA degrees in four competencies: Conflict Management,

Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness. EI levels of those

with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BA degrees in Conflict

Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI levels of those with BA

degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees in Emotional Self-

awareness.

10. Significant difference existed between self-ratings and total others ratings in

four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational Leadership, and Self-

122

confidence. For each of the four competencies, EI levels of total others were greater than

self-reported EI levels.

Discussion of Key Findings

The following findings and subsequent discussion were formed based on the

findings of the study and on the analysis described in Chapter IV.

Discussion of Finding 1. High performance ratings and high emotional

intelligence were not related at a 95-percent confidence level. At a 90-percent confidence

level, the two were related in three competencies: Achievement, Adaptability, and

Optimism.

Before employing the union-intersection test to determine if higher ratings were

related to higher EI scores, the researcher ran an ANOVA test to ascertain if a

relationship existed between performance ratings and EI scores. Findings indicated that a

statistically significant relationship existed between performance ratings and EI scores in

10 competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, Conflict Management, Developing

Others, Emotional Self-control, Initiative, Inspirational Leadership, Optimism, Self-

confidence, and Transparency. However, further analysis on the direction of the

relationship indicated that there is no statistically significant relationship at the 95 percent

confidence level between high ratings and high emotional. High scores and high

competency levels were significantly related in a positive direction in three

competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism—at a 90 percent confidence

level.

Interestingly, the three competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, and

Optimism—are included in the six-competency Self-management EI cluster. Boyatzis,

123

Goleman, and McKee (2002) describe Self-management: “From self-awareness—

understanding one’s emotions and being clear about one’s purpose—flows self-

management, the focused drive that all leaders need to achieve their goals” (p. 45). They

added that self-management “is the component of emotional intelligence that frees us

from being a prisoner of our feelings. It’s what allows the mental clarity and

concentrated energy that leadership demands, and what keeps disruptive emotions from

throwing us off track. Leaders with such self-mastery embody an upbeat, optimistic

enthusiasm that tunes resonance to the positive range” (p. 46).

Achievement is defined as “striving to improve or meeting a standard of

excellence” (Hay Group, 2002c). Adaptability is defined as “flexibility in handling

change.” An Optimistic leader can “roll with the punches, seeing an opportunity rather

than a threat in a setback” (Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002, p. 255).

Two of the three competencies (Achievement and Adaptability) are among those

cited by McClelland (1998), in a study of leaders in 30 organizations. He determined that

the most powerful leadership differentiators were Self-confidence, Achievement Drive,

Developing Others, Adaptability, Influence, and Leadership.

It is logical that managers with higher scores in the Achievement competency

would have higher ratings. One might assume that higher scores in achievement are

linked to higher performance. The ability to handle change (adaptability) would

seemingly enable the managers to be able to adapt well to changes in requirements of

superiors who are evaluating them. Optimistic leaders would be expected to handle

changes and difficulties in a positive manner.

124

Discussion of Finding 2. The EI average scores of the sample differed

significantly from the average scores of other groups in the ECI North American

Database in three competencies: Achievement, Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional

Self-control.

The sample was limited to managers. Those in the database were not limited to

managers. Therefore, if a premise of the study—that high EI levels are linked to higher

performance ratings in management—holds true, one expects there to be differences

between the sample and the database. Results indicate that differences indeed exist in

three competency levels.

Discussion of Findings 3 and 4. Position did not significantly impact the

emotional intelligence of the sample. Title did not significantly impact the emotional

intelligence of the sample.

Although the researcher had no expectations about the results of the analysis of

null hypotheses 3 and 4, she included it in the study as another dimension for segmenting

the sample to determine if varying characteristics impacted EI competencies. Other

research, such as a study at Johnson & Johnson by Cavallo and Brienza (2002), has

looked for significant differences among participants in various functional areas.

Although Cavallo and Brienza (2002) found significant differences, they reported that the

number of participants in each functional category was not sufficient to draw

conclusions.

On the surface, position and title do not appear to be related to performance or EI.

Results indicated they do not impact EI in the sample.

125

Discussion of Finding 5. Gender did not significantly impact the emotional

intelligence of the sample.
The literature on gender and EI is mixed. While some emotion- and EI-related
studies (Hart, 2002, Sala, 2002, and Petrides and Furnham, 2000) have noted gender

differences, others (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Landau, 1996; Eagly, Karau, and

Makhijani, 1992, 1995; Ragins, 1991) have found little or no differences between the
sexes.

Based on gender differences such as those noted by Hart (2002), the researcher

expected differences in competencies related to emotion and social skills. Hart cites a

study indicating that a woman’s brain is better suited than a man’s for sensing,

processing, and remembering emotions is. One EI study (Petrides and Furnham, 2000)

revealed that females scored higher than males on social scales. This study found

significant differences between genders in the Emotional Self-control competency.

Discussion of Finding 6. Significant differences existed between those in sales

and support in three competencies: Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and

Transparency. For all three, Support EI levels were greater than Sales EI levels.

Again, the researcher included functional area in the study as a dimension for

segmenting the sample to determine if varying characteristics impacted EI competencies.

Managers in both Support and Sales functions in the sample organization scored among

the highest four scores in Customer Service Orientation, Optimism, Self-confidence, and

Organizational Awareness. Having managers with relatively high EI scores in these

areas, particularly Customer Service Orientation, seems very beneficial for a financial

126

institution like the one in the study. Managers in both areas scored among the lowest four

scores on Accurate Self-assessment, Conflict Management, and Initiative.

Findings indicated that the impact of function (Sales or Support) is not

statistically significant in the other 15 competencies. Forty study participants indicated

that they worked in Sales while 14 cited Support as their area of employment.

Discussion of Finding 7. Management tenure (a comparison of managers with

direct reports for more than five years and those who have had direct reports for fewer

than five years) did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

Although the researcher was not aware of a reference to management tenure and

its potential impact on emotional intelligence, she included the analysis as another

dimension for segmenting the sample to determine if varying characteristics impacted EI

competencies. It is possible to expect that people who had managed others for long

periods of time would become increasingly in tune with their leadership behaviors and

how others with whom they work perceive them. This study found no statistically

significant differences between management tenure and EI.

Discussion of Finding 8. Educational level did not significantly impact the

emotional intelligence of the sample.

Based the literature citing that EI is as important as IQ and other qualities, such as

technical skills, to effective performance (Goleman, 1998b; Cooper and Sawaf, 1997;

Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cherniss, 2000; and Druskat, 2001), one would not expect

formal education to impact emotional intelligence competencies.

In particular, Goleman (1998b) contends that effective leaders in today’s

organizations are not necessarily the most intelligent or highly skilled ones.

127

Discussion of Finding 9: Significant differences existed between those in the

sample BS degrees and those in the sample with BA degrees in four competencies:

Conflict Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational

Awareness. EI levels of those with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with

BA degrees in Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI

levels of those with BA degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees in

Emotional Self-awareness.

As explained in the discussion of finding 9, one would not expect formal

education, including type of degree, to impact emotional intelligence competencies. In

this sample, perhaps Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness are

more closely related to the strengths of those with BS degrees than those with BA

degrees while Emotional Self-awareness is more closely related to strengths of those with

BA degrees than those with BS degrees.

Discussion of Finding 10: Significant difference existed between self-ratings and

total others ratings in four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational

Leadership, and Self-confidence. For each of the four competencies, EI levels of total

others were greater than self-reported EI levels.

Sala (2002) reported that self-ratings of those included in the ECI North American

Database tended to be higher than ratings of total others seem logical. He contended that

people viewed themselves more favorably than others viewed them. One would expect

high-performing leaders to exhibit self-confidence, thereby rating themselves relatively

highly on EI competencies. It is possible that halo effects affected the others’ ratings in

128

the sample. The managers in the sample also may, to some extent, be modest about their

abilities.

Limitations

The recommendations for leaders and organizations interested in implementing EI

programs as a way to increase leader awareness of EI and to improve leader and

organizational effectiveness are based on the findings of this study. It is important to

note that the study was exploratory with limitations that may influence its reflection of

general practice. The sample in the study was limited to 57 of 79 high-performing or

potentially high-performing managers participating in an internal EI program in one

financial institution. The sample of 57 managers included volunteers from the

management pool selected by a committee to participate in an internal study of emotional

intelligence. Of the 79 in the bank’s study, 20 executive-level participants did not have

performance ratings, and, therefore, did not qualify for the doctoral research study. Two

managers did not volunteer for the study. Conducting this study with a larger sample size

should help strengthen the

findings.

Further, even though the same five-point ratings system is used for all employees,

performance of managers in the sample was evaluated with two instruments, one of

which is sometimes modified by managers in various departments and divisions. Use of a

consistent performance appraisal instrument could help strengthen the study findings.

However, performance appraisal may not be effective in discriminating between

effective and ineffective performers (Frechette and Wertheim, 1985). Frechette and

Wertheim concluded that one appraisal format should not be expected to cover a

multitude of purposes. They also pointed out a number of potential problems inherent in

129

performance appraisal systems. Others problems included rater errors, biases, and lack of

credibility and validity.

Recommendations

According to one of the organizational supporters of the EI study, its purpose was

to increase awareness of leaders and emerging leaders of their leadership behaviors as

related to the EI competency framework and as perceived by others with whom they

work. A goal was to encourage leaders to take responsibility for their learning and to use

the survey data to help guide further leadership development.

The sponsors were interested in ascertaining information about proficient and

deficient leadership behaviors of participants and investigating organizational and

business impacts of the behaviors. “The information has helped introduce the concept of

leadership competencies that is paving the way for a thoughtful and thorough discussion

at the executive level about our company’s strategic vision to develop talent within the

organization as a business strategy. These results are currently being blended into

competencies for leaders, managers, and supervisors. Appropriate training and

educational opportunities will be matched to the competencies identified through the

competency modeling project that is currently under way” (manager of management and

leadership development, personal communication, September 27, 2002).

It is important to note that although the researcher identified significant findings

while analyzing research questions and hypotheses, design limitations of the study restrict

the full understanding of the role of EI in leadership effectiveness. Therefore, in addition

to proposing continuing research, the researcher is making recommendations based on the

literature review and the value of an integrated human resources strategy. Further, one

130

element of a human resources strategy, such as selection or performance assessment, can

not function in isolation. Selection strategies combined with effective professional

development and coordinated performance assessment provide the best prospect for

leadership development and organizational effectiveness.

In addition, organizational sponsors should consider the following

recommendations:

Selection:

1. Use the ECI framework as part of the criteria for selecting candidates who have

potential to succeed in leadership roles.

2. Include the ECI framework in the organization’s selection process as part of a

behavioral/situational interviewing process. For example, human resources

representatives could include EI descriptors in interviews to elicit demonstration

of specific competencies.

Development:

1. Include pertinent EI competencies in processes to determine promotions and

design succession plans.

2. Add language to the bank’s performance appraisal system documentation and

instruments to help define and detail measurable, stated objectives from the ECI

framework.

Training:

1. Add EI training to the organization’s leadership development program.

2. Assess if EI training impacts organizational effectiveness.

131

3. Ascertain if competencies in which the overall sample scored lowest are

necessary for success in the organization and, if so, design training programs to

address weaknesses.

The ECI may be used to evaluate individuals within an organization and the

organization overall (Hay Group, 2002a). Results provide precise and focused feedback

on an individual’s strengths and limitations. Based on the feedback from various rater

groups, the ECI helps identify the specific emotional competencies in which development

is needed to enhance the individual’s emotional intelligence. The ECI may be used to

diagnose an organizational unit, profiling overall strengths and weaknesses.

Emotionally intelligent leaders may help organizations build competitive

advantages that result in benefits such as the following (Hay Group, 2002b):

Increased performance

Enhanced innovation

Effective leaders

Effective use of time and resources

More teamwork

Improved motivation

Restored trust

Recommendations for Future Research

This study examined whether ratings and specific demographic characteristics

impact EI competency levels of a select group of managers in one financial institution.

The study’s findings form the basis for additional research. The following are

suggestions for future investigation:

132

1. Expand the study with a larger sample within the same organization and with

samples in similar organizations, such as banks, security firms, and insurance

agencies, to compare findings.

2. Conduct the study in organizations outside of the financial sector and compare

findings.

3. Develop and implement an EI training program for sample participants and re-

survey the sample following training to determine if training has an impact of EI

levels in the sample.

4. Assess if the EI training has an impact on organizational effectiveness.

133

Final Comments

Results of the study show minimal ties between high levels of EI and high levels

of performance (as determined via performance ratings) in this sample. However, it is

important to note that all managers in the sample are considered high performers. All

received, at a minimum, scores of three out of five for the past two performance review

cycles, and there may be little variation among the three rating groups. They were

selected to participate in the internal EI program because of their high performance

and/or high potential.

Findings from this study generate questions such as the following:

1. How effective is the performance appraisal system used to distinguish managers

in the sample who received ratings of three versus four versus five. What

objective data separates the three rating groups? Do subjective criteria bias the

rater?

2. What criteria of the performance appraisal system are and are not reflected in the

EI competencies?

3. Would the objectively stated criteria from the EI competencies be important data

to include in an objectively oriented performance appraisal system?

4. Was this sample too restricted to ascertain the relationship between high EI and

high performance ratings?

Additional studies are needed to determine if managers scoring high in EI

competencies are actually more effective than managers with lower scores in the EI

competencies are. However, this organization’s leaders are implementing an EI program

internally, and, therefore, support the principles of EI. As the manager of management

134

and leadership development explained, a goal of the program is to generate “thoughtful

and thorough discussion at the executive level about our company’s strategic vision to

develop talent within the organization as a business strategy.”

As the literature pointed out, attracting, training, and retaining leaders high in

emotional intelligence might help organizations gain a competitive edge. Bank leaders

may consider implementing programs to identify and enhance levels of emotional

competencies in managers as one way to respond to changing times.

135

Reference List

Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: A Conceptualization.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209-224.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the Emotional

Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On and J.S.A. Parker (Eds.). The Handbook of
Emotional Intelligence (pp. 363-388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Batten, J. (1989). Tough-minded leadership. New York: AMACOM, a Division of

American Management Association.

Blank, W. (1995). The 9 Natural Laws of Leadership. New York: AMACOM Books.

Boyatzis, R. (1994). Stimulating self-directed change: A required MBA course called

managerial assessment and development. Journal of Management Education,
18(3), 304-323.

Boyatzis, R., Baker, A., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Thompson, L. (1995). Will it make a

difference? Assessing a value-based, outcome-oriented, competency-based
professional program. In Boyatzis, R., Cowen, S., & Kolb, D. (Eds.). Innovating
in professional education: Steps on a journey from teaching to learning. San
Francisco: Josses-Bass.

Boyatzis, R., Cowen, S., & Kolb, D. (1995). Innovation in professional education: Steps

on a journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco: Josses-Bass.

Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D.& McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power

of emotional intelligence.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Boyatzis, R., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Wheeler, J. (1996). Competencies can be

developed, but not the way we thought. Capability, 2(2), 25-41.

Boyatzis, R., Wheeler, J., & Wright, R. (in press). Competency development in graduate

education: A longitudinal perspective. Proceedings of the First World Conference
on Self-Directed Learning. Montreal: GIRAT.

136

Burckle. M. (1999). Can you assess your own emotional intelligence? Evidence
supporting multi-rater assessment. Hay/McBer Research Report.

Burckle. M. (2000). ECI and MBTI. Hay/McBer Research Report.

Capezio, P. and Morehouse, D. (1997). Secrets of Breakthrough Leadership. New Jersey:

The Career Press.

Cavallo, K. & Brienza, D., Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson

& Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. Retrieved from
http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/jj_ei_study.htm on October 28, 2002.

Cacioppo, J., &.Gardner, W. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999. 50

(1), 191-214.

Chatterjee, C. (2000). Emotional ignorance. Psychology Today. 33(6), 12.

Cherniss, C. The business case for emotional intelligence. Retrieved November 5, 2002,

from (http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/business_case_for_ei.htm).

Cherniss, C. (2000). What is emotional intelligence and why it matters? Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, New Orleans, LA, April 15, 2000. Retrieved October 14, 2002, from
(http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/what_is_emotional_intelligence.htm).

Cherniss, C., & Adler, M. (2000). Promoting emotional intelligence in organizations.

Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.

Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (1998). A technical report issued by the Consortium for

Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. The Consortium for
Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Retrieved on November 6,
2002, from http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/technical_report.htm.

137

Cooper. R. and Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ. Emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group.

Cornella, K. (2000, October). E-mail correspondence from the HayGroup.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crosby, P. (1988). The Eternally successful organization: The art of corporate wellness.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Diamantopoulou, M. (2001). An investigation of type A and type B behavior patterns in
relation with the emotional intelligence of bank employees in their working
environment. An unpublished Doctoral dissertation. DEI-Middlesex University
of London, Department of Social Psychology.

Druskat, V. (2001, March). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard

Business Review, 79 (3), 80.

Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. (1990.) Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin. 108 (2), 233-256)

Eagly, A., Karau, S. & Makhijani, M. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-22.

Eagly, A., Karau, S. & Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (1), 125-145.

EI Consortium (2002). Retrieved from

http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/wpi_ei.htm on October 16, 2002.

Fineman, S. (Ed.) (1993). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage.

138

Frechette, H. & Wertheim, E. (1985). Performance appraisal. In W.R. Tracey (Ed.)

Human Resources Management & Development (pp. 218-243). New York:
American Management Associations.

Forgas, J. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 39-66.

Frechette, H. and Wertheim, E. (1985). Performance appraisal. In W.R. Tracey (Ed.).

Human Resources Management & Development (pp. 218-243). New York:
American Management Associations.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. The theory in practice. New York: Basic

Books.

Garson, G. (2002). ANOVA. Retrieved from

http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/anova.htm on October 16, 2002.

George, J. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer
service. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.

George, J. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

George, J. & Battenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 112, 310-329.

Goleman, D. (1998a) What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93-104

Goleman, D. (1998b). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Gordon, J. (1998, November). My leader, myself: Faux freethinkers and the new cult of

the CEO. TRAINING Magazine, 35 (11), 54.

139

Grote, R. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: AMACOM

Books.

Hampton, D., Summer, C., & Webber, R. (1987). Organizational behavior and the

practice of management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

Hart, B. (2002, July 28). Men and women should celebrate differences. Salt Lake City,
UT: The Deseret News Publishing Co.

Hay Group (2002a). How can the ECI be used? Retrieved October 14, 2002, from

http://ei.haygroup.com/products_and_services/content_assessment_tools.html.

Hay Group (2002b). How has emotional intelligence made an impact on the bottom line?

Retrieved October 14, 2002, from “EI in Organizations” at
http://ei.haygroup.com/about_ei/

Hay Group (2002c). The emotional competency framework. Retrieved October 15, 2002

from “Framework” at http://ei.haygroup.com/about_ei/.

Hay/McBer (1996). Generic competency dictionary. Boston: Hay/McBer.

Hay/McBer (2002). Emotional Competency Inventory. Boston: Hay/McBer (used with

permission).

Hickman, C., & Silva, M. (1984). Creating excellence: Managing corporate culture,

strategy, and change in the new age. New York: New American Library.

Humphrey, R., Kellett, J. & Sleeth, R. (2001). Emotional competence, complex task

choice, and leadership emergence. Unpublished paper: Virginia Commonwealth
University, School of Business.

Kotter, J. (1998). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review on Leadership.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

140

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (1997). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Landau, J. (1996). The relationship of race and gender to managers’ ratings of promotion

potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16 (4), 391-400.

Mayer, J. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence: Implications for

educators. In P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional development, emotional
literacy, and emotional intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (1998). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In R.J.

Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of human intelligence (2nd ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press, 3-31.

Mayer J., & Cobb, C. (2000). Educational policy on emotional intelligence: Does it make

sense? Educational Psychology Review, 12 (2), 163-183.

McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American
Psychologist, 28, 1-14.

McClelland, D. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral event interviews.

Psychological Science, 9(5), 331-340.

Naisbitt, J., & Aburdene, P. (1985). Re-inventing the Corporation. New York: Warner

Books.

Peters, T., & Waterman R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-

run companies. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2000, March). Gender differences in measured and self-

estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 42(5-6),
449-461.

Ragins, B. (1991). Gender effects in subordinate evaluations of leaders: Real or artifact?

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(3), 259-268.

141

Roberts, W. (1987). Leadership secrets of Attila the Hun. New York: Warner Books.

Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., & Gowing, M. (2002). Developing

competency models to promote integrated human resources practices. Human
Resources Management, 41(3), 309-324.

Rosier, R. & Jeffrey, P. (1994). The competence model handbook (Volume 1). Boston:

Linkage Incorporated.

Rosier, R. & Jeffrey, P. (1995). The competence model handbook (Volume 2). Boston:

Linkage Incorporated.

Rosier, R. (Ed.). (1994-1997). The competency model handbook: Volumes 1-4.

Lexington, MA: Linkage Incorporated.

Sala, F. (2001). Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work–work?

Retrieved October 10, 2002, from http://www.eiconsortium.org/

Sala, F. (2002). Emotional competency inventory technical manual. Hay Acquisition

Company. (e-mail correspondence from author).

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, cognition, and

personality, 9(3), 185-211.

Schulman, P. (1995). Explanatory style and achievement in school and work. In G.

Buchanan, M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.) Explanatory Style. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Sevinc, L. (2001). The effect of emotional intelligence on career success: Research on the

1990 graduates of Business Administration Faculty of Istanbul University.
Unpublished Master Thesis: Istanbul University.

Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Hall, L., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J., Golden, C., & Dornheim, L.

(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

142

Spencer, L. & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior

performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

UCLA Department of Statistics. Statistics Handout 5. Retrieved on November 6, 2002,

from http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~vie//ANOVA .

Truskie, S. (1999). Leadership in high-performance organizational cultures. Westport,

Conn.: Quorum Books.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1996). Mosaic competencies for professionals

and administrators. Washington, DC: Author.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Inc.

Zaleznik, A. (1998). Managers and Leaders: Are They Different? Harvard Business

Review on Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

143

Appendix A Emotional intelligence leadership competencies.

Emotional intelligence leadership competencies (Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee,

2002, pp. 253-256).

Table A1 Self-awareness competencies

Emotional self-awareness. Leaders high in this competence:

Are attuned to their inner signals, recognizing how their feelings affect
them and their performance
Are attuned to their guiding values and often see the big picture in a
complex situation

Can be candid and authentic

Accurate self-assessment. Leaders high in this competence:

Know their strengths and weaknesses

Exhibit a sense of humor about themselves

Welcome constructive criticism and feedback

Know when to ask for help

Know where to focus to acquire new leadership strengths

Self-confidence. People with this competence:

May welcome a difficult assignment

Have a sense of presence (self assurance)

Are able to play to their strengths

144

Table A2 Self-management competencies

Self-control. Managing disruptive emotions and impulses.
Manage their impulsive feelings and disturbing emotions

Stay composed, positive, and unflappable even in trying moments

Think clearly and stay focused under pressure

Transparency. Authentic openness to others about one’s feelings, beliefs, and
actions. People with this competency:

Live their values others

Admit mistakes or faults

Confront unethical behaviors in

Adaptability. Flexibility in handling change. People with this competency:
Smoothly handle multiple demands without losing focus or energy

Are comfortable with inevitable ambiguities of organizational life
Are flexible in adapting to new challenges, nimble in adjusting to change, and limber in
their thinking

Achievement. Leaders high in the achievement competency:
Have high standards that drive them to constantly seek performance improvements

Are pragmatic, setting measurable and challenging goals; they are able to calculate risk
so that goals are worthy yet attainable

Are continually learning and teaching ways to improve

Initiative. Leaders with this competence:
Have a sense of efficacy—that they are able to control their own destiny

Seize or create opportunities

Do not hesitate to cut through red tape or bend the rules to create better possibilities

Optimism. Leaders high in the optimism competency:
Roll with the punches; they see an opportunity rather than a threat in a setback

See others positively, expecting the best of others

Have a “glass-half-full” outlook, which leads them to expect that changes in the future
will be for the better

145

Table A3 Social Awareness competencies
Empathy. Leaders high in the empathy competency:
Are attentive to a wide range of emotional signals
Listen attentively and can grasp others’ perspectives
Are able to get along well with diverse people

Organizational awareness. A leader with a keen organizational
awareness can:

Be politically astute, able to detect crucial social networks and key power relationships

Understand the political forces at work as well as the guiding values and unspoken rules

Service. Leaders with a high service competency:

Foster an emotional climate so that people directly in touch with customers will keep the relationship on track
Monitor customer satisfaction
Make themselves available as needed

146

Table A4 Relationship management competencies

Inspiration. Leaders with this competency

Inspire others, create resonance and move people with a compelling
vision or shared mission
Embody what they ask of others
Can articulate a shared mission in a way to inspire others
Offer a sense of common purpose and help make work exciting

Influence. People with this competency:
Find the right appeal for a given listener
Know how to build buy-in from key people and a network of support for
an initiative
Are persuasive and engaging

Developing others: Leaders with this competency:

Show a genuine interest in those they are helping, understanding their
goals, strengths, and weaknesses
Are able to provide timely and constructive feedback
Are natural mentors and coaches

Change catalyst. People with this competency:
Recognize the need for change
Challenge the status quo to acknowledge the need for change
Champion the change and enlist others in its pursuit
Find ways to overcome barriers to change

Conflict management. Leaders with this competency:

Draw out all parties
Understand differing perspectives
Find a common ideal that everyone can endorse
Surface the conflict, acknowledge the feelings and views of all
sides, and redirect the energy toward a shared ideal

Teamwork and collaboration. Leaders with this competency:
Generate an atmosphere of friendly collegiality
Are models of respect, helpfulness, and cooperation
Draw others into active, enthusiastic commitment to the collaborative
effort
Build spirit and identify
Forge and cement close relationships beyond work obligations

147

Appendix B ECI

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

Appendix C Chronbach’s alpha coefficients

Chronbach’s alpha coefficients for self and total others ECI ratings from the Hay

North American Database. Scores based on average item scores.

Table C Chronbach’s alpha coefficients

Competency Total Others Rating

(N=3,931)
Alpha Coefficient

Self Rating

(N=4,001) ECI
Alpha Coefficient

Emotional Self-awareness .74 .61
Accurate self-Assessment .83 .68
Self-confidence .88 .80
Self-control .89 .78
Trustworthiness .73 .74
Conscientiousness .90 .81
Adaptability .77 .60
Achievement Orientation .87 .78
Initiative .83 .72
Empathy .92 .81
Org. Awareness .84 .75
Service Orientation .91 .85
Developing Others .88 .77
Leadership .80 .69
Influence .83 .73
Communication .86 .77
Change Catalyst .91 .84
Conflict Management .86 .75
Building Bonds .84 .75
Teamwork & Collaboration .91 .81
Self-awareness .76 .61
Self-management .88 .79
Social Awareness .81 .71
Social Skills .96 .92

158

Appendix D Test-retest stability

Test-retest stability coefficients for Self and Total Others ECI ratings with

Brazilian consumer retail executives (N=20).

Table D Test-retest stability coefficients

Competency Total Others Rating

Stability Coefficients

Self Rating
Stability Coefficients

Emotional Self-awareness .55 .23
Accurate Self-assessment .58 .26
Self-confidence .69 .33
Self-control .49 .43
Trustworthiness .67 .22
Conscientiousness .92 .56
Adaptability .52 .55
Achievement Orientation .60 .19
Initiative .45 .15
Empathy .62 .61
Organizational Awareness .82 .22
Service Orientation .41 .05
Developing Others .75 .55
Leadership .56 .47
Influence .19 .30
Communication .56 .08
Change Catalyst .69 .35
Conflict Management .39 .43
Building Blocks .72 .44
Teamwork & Collaboration .57 .82

159

Appendix E Sales Appraisal Form Sales Appraisal Form

Confidential

160

Appraisal Detail Form – Area Executive Appraisal Detail Form – Area Executive

161

162

163

164

165

2002 Sales Appraisal Form Workbook

Instructions

166

2002 Sales Appraisal Workbook Instructions

167

2002 Sales Appraisal Workbook Instructions2002 Sales Appraisal Workbook Instructions

168

Appendix F Support Appraisal Checklist

169

170

171

172

173

Appendix G Demographics

Study Demographic Information

1. What is your position at the Company?
Individual Contributor
Supervisor
Manager
Senior Manager
Executive

2. What is your title?

Assistant Vice President
Vice President
Senior Vice President

Executive/Group Vice President
No title
Other

3. In which area of the Company do you work?

Sales
Support
Other (please name)

4. Gender:

Male
Female

5. Education (please check all that apply):

High School or equivalent
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Arts
Advanced degree (master’s degree or higher)

6. Have you been in a management position with direct reports for

more than five years or
less than five years?

7. What was the rating on your 2002 performance appraisal?

1
2
3
4
5

Participant Code: __________________

174

Appendix H Statistical analysis

Table H1 ANOVA for Ratings
Competency ID NAME

SOURC

E TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.5358847469 . .
2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.6856078933 7.2997848745 0.001562982
3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.6856078933 7.2997848745 0.001562982
4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.2749000305 . .
5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.6921352237 5.706327175 0.005646296
6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.6921352237 5.706327175 0.005646296
7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.3043828707 . .
8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0901432729 0.5654395625 0.571437495
9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0901432729 0.5654395625 0.571437495
10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.1862437933 . .
11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3382253087 4.1770654138 0.020571706
12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3382253087 4.1770654138 0.020571706
13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.7489429023 . .
14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.506155152 2.8777328736 0.064928497
15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.506155152 2.8777328736 0.064928497
16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 0.796925776 . .
17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0186902927 0.6332307452 0.534769608
18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0186902927 0.6332307452 0.534769608
19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.5469236174 . .
20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.7445209454 5.6674650187 0.005830488
21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.7445209454 5.6674650187 0.005830488
22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.5239522914 . .
23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0603071723 0.4620646131 0.6324492
24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0603071723 0.4620646131 0.6324492
25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.1896935063 . .
26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.4459869983 2.8741121364 0.065141304
27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.4459869983 2.8741121364 0.065141304
28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 5.8217337648 . .
29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.7553339565 3.5030830418 0.037114254
30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.7553339565 3.5030830418 0.037114254
31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.2452514974 . .
32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3448037066 2.8687145159 0.06545989
33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3448037066 2.8687145159 0.06545989
34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.2586874905 . .
35 ECI2002INI Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.5085364617 4.2135014499 0.01993308
36 ECI2002INI Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.5085364617 4.2135014499 0.01993308
37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 5.2868930947 . .
38 ECI2002INL Total_Others rating SS1 2 1.1029984974 5.6329793123 0.005999154
39 ECI2002INL Total_Others rating SS3 2 1.1029984974 5.6329793123 0.005999154
40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.587368478 . .
41 ECI2002OA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.1309798263 1.3668154886 0.263594211

175

42 ECI2002OA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.1309798263 1.3668154886 0.263594211
43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.0870906189 . .
44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3336252218 4.3159989834 0.018244515
45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3336252218 4.3159989834 0.018244515
46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.5765527733 . .
47 ECI2002SC Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3330888579 3.4904773758 0.03753078
48 ECI2002SC Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3330888579 3.4904773758 0.03753078
49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.7610466387 . .
50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.4460309675 3.2019906368 0.048513352
51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.4460309675 3.2019906368 0.048513352
52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.9154021244 . .
53 ECI2002TW Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0870849676 0.8065076533 0.451718166
54 ECI2002TW Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0870849676 0.8065076533 0.451718166

176

Table H2 ANOVA for Position

Obs Competency ID NAME SOURCE TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.17854 . .

2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others position SS1 4 0.03588 0.14392 0.96487
3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others position SS3 4 0.03588 0.14392 0.96487

4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.89688 . .

5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.06954 0.22752 0.92174
6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.06954 0.22752 0.92174

7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.72758 . .

8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.63600 2.17540 0.08492
9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.63600 2.17540 0.08492

10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.43870 . .

11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others position SS1 4 0.04646 0.24291 0.91264
12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others position SS3 4 0.04646 0.24291 0.91264

13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 4.78360 . .

14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others position SS1 4 0.44535 1.18702 0.32771
15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others position SS3 4 0.44535 1.18702 0.32771

16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 0.78113 . .

17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others position SS1 4 0.03019 0.49284 0.74097
18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others position SS3 4 0.03019 0.49284 0.74097

19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 4.10256 . .

20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others position SS1 4 0.10668 0.33155 0.85548
21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others position SS3 4 0.10668 0.33155 0.85548

22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.11699 . .

23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others position SS1 4 0.46724 1.91124 0.12276
24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others position SS3 4 0.46724 1.91124 0.12276

25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 4.02061 . .

26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.61137 1.93876 0.11815
27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.61137 1.93876 0.11815

28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 6.11700 . .

29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others position SS1 4 0.40562 0.84545 0.50299
30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others position SS3 4 0.40562 0.84545 0.50299

31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.48619 . .

32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others position SS1 4 0.03901 0.14265 0.96543
33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others position SS3 4 0.03901 0.14265 0.96543

177

34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.51276 . .

35 ECI2002INI Total_Others position SS1 4 0.19644 0.71301 0.58687
36 ECI2002INI Total_Others position SS3 4 0.19644 0.71301 0.58687

37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 6.19729 . .

38 ECI2002INL Total_Others position SS1 4 0.10422 0.21441 0.92925
39 ECI2002INL Total_Others position SS3 4 0.10422 0.21441 0.92925

40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.64199 . .

41 ECI2002OA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.07631 0.36826 0.83013
42 ECI2002OA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.07631 0.36826 0.83013

43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.33014 . .

44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others position SS1 4 0.08434 0.46151 0.76359
45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others position SS3 4 0.08434 0.46151 0.76359

46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.71850 . .

47 ECI2002SC Total_Others position SS1 4 0.17993 0.84387 0.50394
48 ECI2002SC Total_Others position SS3 4 0.17993 0.84387 0.50394

49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.92826 . .

50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.27438 0.89057 0.47638
51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.27438 0.89057 0.47638

52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.80129 . .

53 ECI2002TW Total_Others position SS1 4 0.18580 0.84566 0.50286
54 ECI2002TW Total_Others position SS3 4 0.18580 0.84566 0.50286

178

Table H3 ANOVA for Titles
Obs Competency ID NAME SOURCE TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.99526 . .
2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others title SS1 6 0.22623 0.62942 0.70594
3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others title SS3 6 0.22623 0.62942 0.70594
4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.76195 . .
5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.20508 0.45429 0.83851
6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.20508 0.45429 0.83851
7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.19693 . .
8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.19760 0.39235 0.88048
9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.19760 0.39235 0.88048
10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.32637 . .
11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others title SS1 6 0.19809 0.70960 0.64340
12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others title SS3 6 0.19809 0.70960 0.64340
13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.28878 . .
14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others title SS1 6 0.96631 1.87760 0.10318
15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others title SS3 6 0.96631 1.87760 0.10318
16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 0.79923 . .
17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others title SS1 6 0.01638 0.17082 0.98346
18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others title SS3 6 0.01638 0.17082 0.98346
19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.93929 . .
20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others title SS1 6 0.35216 0.74497 0.61615
21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others title SS3 6 0.35216 0.74497 0.61615
22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.10837 . .
23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others title SS1 6 0.47589 1.27582 0.28539
24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others title SS3 6 0.47589 1.27582 0.28539
25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.35978 . .
26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.27590 0.52735 0.78484
27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.27590 0.52735 0.78484
28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 6.19172 . .
29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others title SS1 6 0.38535 0.51864 0.79141
30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others title SS3 6 0.38535 0.51864 0.79141
31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.32241 . .
32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others title SS1 6 0.26764 0.67131 0.67319
33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others title SS3 6 0.26764 0.67131 0.67319
34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.59462 . .
35 ECI2002INI Total_Others title SS1 6 0.17260 0.40014 0.87543
36 ECI2002INI Total_Others title SS3 6 0.17260 0.40014 0.87543
37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 5.95711 . .
38 ECI2002INL Total_Others title SS1 6 0.43278 0.60541 0.72469
39 ECI2002INL Total_Others title SS3 6 0.43278 0.60541 0.72469
40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.42009 . .
41 ECI2002OA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.29826 1.02702 0.41893
42 ECI2002OA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.29826 1.02702 0.41893

179

43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.22672
44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others title SS1 6 0.19400 0.72603 0.63070
45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others title SS3 6 0.19400 0.72603 0.63070
46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.67567 . .
47 ECI2002SC Total_Others title SS1 6 0.23397 0.72871 0.62864
48 ECI2002SC Total_Others title SS3 6 0.23397 0.72871 0.62864
49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.05321
50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.15386 0.31634 0.92547
51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.15386 0.31634 0.92547
52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.76993 . .
53 ECI2002TW Total_Others title SS1 6 0.23255 0.69963 0.65112
54 ECI2002TW Total_Others title SS3 6 0.23255 0.69963 0.65112

180

Table H4 ANOVA for Gender

Obs Competency ID NAME
SOURC

E TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.15343 . .
2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.01728 0.29597 0.58866
3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.01728 0.29597 0.58866
4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.78377 . .
5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.03271 0.46681 0.49738
6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.03271 0.46681 0.49738
7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.39278 . .
8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00006 0.00075 0.97820
9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00006 0.00075 0.97820
10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.33973 . .
11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.01072 0.24742 0.62092
12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.01072 0.24742 0.62092
13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 5.02505 . .
14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.21767 2.33916 0.13199
15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.21767 2.33916 0.13199
16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 0.80283 . .
17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00361 0.24289 0.62412
18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00361 0.24289 0.62412
19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.25004 . .
20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00498 0.06328 0.80234
21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00498 0.06328 0.80234
22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.33951 . .
23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.11698 1.89160 0.17470
24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.11698 1.89160 0.17470
25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.45321 . .
26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.08132 0.98609 0.32513
27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.08132 0.98609 0.32513
28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.42722 . .
29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00386 0.03245 0.85772
30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00386 0.03245 0.85772
31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.55415 . .
32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00204 0.03093 0.86106
33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00204 0.03093 0.86106
34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.76480 . .
35 ECI2002INI Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00000 0.00005 0.99419
36 ECI2002INI Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00000 0.00005 0.99419
37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.23456 . .
38 ECI2002INL Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.08131 0.70425 0.40506
39 ECI2002INL Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.08131 0.70425 0.40506
40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.66472 . .
41 ECI2002OA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00988 0.20024 0.65632
42 ECI2002OA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00988 0.20024 0.65632

181

43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.39560 . .
44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00704 0.15870 0.69193
45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00704 0.15870 0.69193
46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.79047 . .
47 ECI2002SC Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.08432 1.63176 0.20693
48 ECI2002SC Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.08432 1.63176 0.20693
49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.09124 . .
50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00095 0.01256 0.91117
51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00095 0.01256 0.91117
52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.97749 . .
53 ECI2002TW Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.02498 0.45312 0.50373
54 ECI2002TW Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.02498 0.45312 0.50373

182

Table H5 ANOVA for Area

Obs Competency ID NAME SOURCE TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.97956 . .
2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others area SS1 1 0.15147 2.69432 0.10663
3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others area SS3 1 0.15147 2.69432 0.10663
4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.71232 . .
5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.16493 2.35470 0.13085
6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.16493 2.35470 0.13085
7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 4.21716 . .
8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.09095 1.14298 0.28987
9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.09095 1.14298 0.28987
10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.42944 . .
11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others area SS1 1 0.06880 1.50100 0.22593
12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others area SS3 1 0.06880 1.50100 0.22593
13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 5.23872 . .
14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00066 0.00663 0.93542
15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00066 0.00663 0.93542
16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 0.77499 . .
17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00563 0.38471 0.53775
18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00563 0.38471 0.53775
19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 4.23546 . .
20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others area SS1 1 0.03183 0.39827 0.53070
21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others area SS3 1 0.03183 0.39827 0.53070
22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.27908 . .
23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others area SS1 1 0.28915 4.67359 0.03517
24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others area SS3 1 0.28915 4.67359 0.03517
25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 4.26349 . .
26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.34424 4.27933 0.04347
27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.34424 4.27933 0.04347
28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 6.25993 . .
29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others area SS1 1 0.19592 1.65880 0.20336
30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others area SS3 1 0.19592 1.65880 0.20336
31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.52631 . .
32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others area SS1 1 0.02246 0.33758 0.56369
33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others area SS3 1 0.02246 0.33758 0.56369
34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.70573 . .
35 ECI2002INI Total_Others area SS1 1 0.05736 0.82041 0.36916
36 ECI2002INI Total_Others area SS3 1 0.05736 0.82041 0.36916
37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 6.30411 . .
38 ECI2002INL Total_Others area SS1 1 0.07743 0.65100 0.42336
39 ECI2002INL Total_Others area SS3 1 0.07743 0.65100 0.42336
40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.63680 . .
41 ECI2002OA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.06658 1.33834 0.25251
42 ECI2002OA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.06658 1.33834 0.25251
43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.37940 . .
44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others area SS1 1 0.03023 0.67331 0.41558
45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others area SS3 1 0.03023 0.67331 0.41558
46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.89001 . .

183

47 ECI2002SC Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00002 0.00044 0.98331
48 ECI2002SC Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00002 0.00044 0.98331
49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.76317 . .
50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.43661 6.14911 0.01636
51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.43661 6.14911 0.01636
52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.94486 . .
53 ECI2002TW Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00438 0.07875 0.78009
54 ECI2002TW Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00438 0.07875 0.78009

184

Table H6ANOVA for Tenure

Obs Competency ID NAME SOURCE TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.18432 . .
2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00297 0.05036 0.82328
3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00297 0.05036 0.82328
4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.96285 . .
5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00411 0.05601 0.81381
6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00411 0.05601 0.81381
7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.07147 . .
8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.03283 0.43549 0.51211
9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.03283 0.43549 0.51211
10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.49387 . .
11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00875 0.18943 0.66512
12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00875 0.18943 0.66512
13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.92573 . .
14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.01426 0.15630 0.69414
15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.01426 0.15630 0.69414
16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 0.80149 . .
17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00068 0.04573 0.83148
18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00068 0.04573 0.83148
19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.00251 . .
20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.27324 3.68649 0.06014
21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.27324 3.68649 0.06014
22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.52233 . .
23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00919 0.14084 0.70892
24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00919 0.14084 0.70892
25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.58187 . .
26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.03520 0.41481 0.52226
27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.03520 0.41481 0.52226
28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.45622 . .
29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.02009 0.16807 0.68346
30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.02009 0.16807 0.68346
31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.57464 . .
32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.01411 0.21316 0.64616
33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.01411 0.21316 0.64616
34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.72862 . .
35 ECI2002INI Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00638 0.09246 0.76224
36 ECI2002INI Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00638 0.09246 0.76224
37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.27214 . .
38 ECI2002INL Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00669 0.05762 0.81121
39 ECI2002INL Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00669 0.05762 0.81121
40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.48934 . .
41 ECI2002OA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.09757 2.11653 0.15151
42 ECI2002OA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.09757 2.11653 0.15151
43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.41169 . .
44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00614 0.13740 0.71233
45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00614 0.13740 0.71233
46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.83631 . .

185

47 ECI2002SC Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.03724 0.70905 0.40347
48 ECI2002SC Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.03724 0.70905 0.40347
49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.17179 . .
50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00134 0.01731 0.89581
51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00134 0.01731 0.89581
52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.91709 . .
53 ECI2002TW Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00001 0.00013 0.99104
54 ECI2002TW Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00001 0.00013 0.99104

186

Table H7 T-Test for Educational Level
(master’s degree versus high school and bachelor’s degrees)

Competency ID Variable Method Variances t Value DF Pr > |t|

1 ECI2002ACH Total Others Pooled Equal 0.89 55 0.3761
2 ECI2002ACH Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.85 10.8 0.4148
3 ECI2002ADA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.58 55 0.5639
4 ECI2002ADA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.57 11.1 0.5788
5 ECI2002ASA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.79 55 0.4333
6 ECI2002ASA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.76 10.9 0.4623
7 ECI2002CFM Total Others Pooled Equal 1.35 55 0.1818
8 ECI2002CFM Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 1.04 9.43 0.3252
9 ECI2002CHC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.18 55 0.8616
10 ECI2002CHC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.20 13 0.8427
11 ECI2002CSO Total Others Pooled Equal -0.27 55 0.7880
12 ECI2002CSO Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.26 10.7 0.8033
13 ECI2002DEV Total Others Pooled Equal 0.22 55 0.8248
14 ECI2002DEV Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.18 9.63 0.8623
15 ECI2002EMP Total Others Pooled Equal -0.14 55 0.8877
16 ECI2002EMP Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.11 9.27 0.9186
17 ECI2002ESA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.15 55 0.8824
18 ECI2002ESA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.12 9.83 0.9042
19 ECI2002ESC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.11 55 0.9111
20 ECI2002ESC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.12 11.7 0.9085
21 ECI2002INFL Total Others Pooled Equal 0.71 55 0.4780
22 ECI2002INFL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.71 11.2 0.4917
23 ECI2002INI Total Others Pooled Equal 0.18 55 0.8607
24 ECI2002INI Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.18 11.4 0.8606
25 ECI2002INL Total Others Pooled Equal 0.69 55 0.4948
26 ECI2002INL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.71 11.6 0.4889
27 ECI2002OA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.04 55 0.9709
28 ECI2002OA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.04 11.1 0.9716
29 ECI2002OPT Total Others Pooled Equal 0.20 55 0.8413
30 ECI2002OPT Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.19 10.8 0.8515
31 ECI2002SC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.51 55 0.6142

187

32 ECI2002SC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.72 18.3 0.4791
33 ECI2002TRA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.78 55 0.4390
34 ECI2002TRA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.64 9.79 0.5349
35 ECI2002TW Total Others Pooled Equal 0.56 55 0.5802
36 ECI2002TW Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.60 12 0.5617

188

Table H8 T-Test for BA and BS

Competency ID Variable Method Variances t Value DF Pr > |t|

1 ECI2002ACH Total Others Pooled Equal -0.61 41 0.5435
2 ECI2002ACH Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.63 31.5 0.5313
3 ECI2002ADA Total Others Pooled Equal -0.68 41 0.5006
4 ECI2002ADA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.74 35.8 0.4659
5 ECI2002ASA Total Others Pooled Equal 1.47 41 0.1496
6 ECI2002ASA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 1.53 32.1 0.1365
7 ECI2002CFM Total Others Pooled Equal -2.39 41 0.0214
8 ECI2002CFM Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -2.27 24.9 0.0320
9 ECI2002CHC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.23 41 0.8160
10 ECI2002CHC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.22 23.8 0.8288
11 ECI2002CSO Total Others Pooled Equal -0.81 41 0.4220
12 ECI2002CSO Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.79 26.8 0.4361
13 ECI2002DEV Total Others Pooled Equal -0.03 41 0.9740
14 ECI2002DEV Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.04 38.3 0.9709
15 ECI2002EMP Total Others Pooled Equal 0.50 41 0.6189
16 ECI2002EMP Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.49 27.1 0.6276
17 ECI2002ESA Total Others Pooled Equal 2.29 41 0.0271
18 ECI2002ESA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 2.79 40.7 0.0080
19 ECI2002ESC Total Others Pooled Equal -0.26 41 0.7928
20 ECI2002ESC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.30 38.3 0.7692
21 ECI2002INFL Total Others Pooled Equal -0.33 41 0.7397
22 ECI2002INFL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.34 30.4 0.7352
23 ECI2002INI Total Others Pooled Equal -2.09 41 0.0431
24 ECI2002INI Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -1.95 23.7 0.0636
25 ECI2002INL Total Others Pooled Equal 0.08 41 0.9382
26 ECI2002INL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.09 39.3 0.9300
27 ECI2002OA Total Others Pooled Equal -2.10 41 0.0422
28 ECI2002OA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -2.01 25.6 0.0550
29 ECI2002OPT Total Others Pooled Equal -0.24 41 0.8093
30 ECI2002OPT Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.27 36.8 0.7912
31 ECI2002SC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.79 41 0.4340

189

32 ECI2002SC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.80 29.8 0.4297
33 ECI2002TRA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.33 41 0.7431
34 ECI2002TRA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.37 39.3 0.7100
35 ECI2002TW Total Others Pooled Equal 0.04 41 0.9716
36 ECI2002TW Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.04 29.8 0.9713

Table H9 T-test for self and total others

Ob
s

Competency
ID

Variable
1

Variable
2 Difference

T
Value DF Probt

1 ECI2002ACH Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -0.87 56 0.3888

2 ECI2002ADA Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -1.27 56 0.2094

3 ECI2002ASA Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -0.15 56 0.8827

4 ECI2002CFM Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -1.62 56 0.1107

5 ECI2002CHC Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -0.39 56 0.6985

6 ECI2002CSO Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -1.87 56 0.0671

7 ECI2002DEV Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -1.35 56 0.1830

8 ECI2002EMP Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -0.78 56 0.4366

9 ECI2002ESA Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others 1.36 56 0.1795

10 ECI2002ESC Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -3.53 56 0.0008

11 ECI2002INFL Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -2.10 56 0.0404

12 ECI2002INI Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -1.95 56 0.0566

13 ECI2002INL Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -3.45 56 0.0011

14 ECI2002OA Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -1.68 56 0.0978

15 ECI2002OPT Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -0.65 56 0.5190

16 ECI2002SC Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -2.67 56 0.0099

17 ECI2002TRA Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others 0.97 56 0.3370

18 ECI2002TW Self Total_Others Self – Total_Others -0.80 56 0.4271

190

Appendix I Consent forms

191

North Carolina State University

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of Study: Emotional Competencies of Leaders: A Comparison of Managers in One

Organization
Principal Investigator: Joni King Brooks Faculty Sponsor: Dr. James Burrow

You are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to determine if a relationship exists
between a leader’s level of emotional intelligence and his or her workplace effectiveness in one company.
The purpose of the study is to assess if leaders in a company differ on levels of emotional intelligence. The
results of the ECI may be used to identify gaps in emotional intelligence, gaps which may be limiting
maximum effectiveness, and/or to design development/training programs. Previous research indicates that
benefits of emotionally intelligent organizations include: improved financial results, improved return on
investment, improved productivity, increased retention of top talent, and increased sales.

INFORMATION

1. List all procedures, preferably in chronological order, which will be employed in the study. Be sure to use lay
language.

Each manager and others with whom he or she works closely are being asked by the
organization’s management to complete the Emotional Competency Inventory. The data will be shared with
the researcher. The identity of each manager will remain completely confidential and unknown to the
researcher. The researcher will analyze the data aggregately from the two groups using a “key” provided by
the HayGroup to address hypotheses and research questions. Each participant is asked to complete a brief
demographic form and agree to the terms of this NCSU IRB consent form.

2. It is estimated that each survey requires 20 minutes to complete.

RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts involved in this study.

BENEFITS
The results of the ECI may be used to identify gaps in emotional intelligence, gaps which may be limiting

maximum effectiveness, and/or to design development/training programs. Previous research indicates that benefits of
emotionally intelligent organizations include: improved financial results, improved return on investment, improved
productivity, increased retention of top talent, and increased sales.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The information in the study records will be kept strictly confidential. Data will be stored securely and will

be made available only to persons conducting the study unless you specifically give permission in writing to do
otherwise. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study.

COMPENSATION
There is no compensation for participating in this study.

CONTACT
If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Joni

King Brooks, at 11613 Trottenham St., Raleigh, NC 27614, jonibrooks@ipass.net, or (919-518-2081). If you feel you
have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been
violated during the course of this project, you may contact Dr. Matthew Zingraff, Chair of the NCSU IRB for the Use
of Human Subjects in Research Committee, Box 7514, NCSU Campus (919/513-1834) or Mr. Matthew Ronning,
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Research Administration, Box 7514, NCSU Campus (919/513-2148)

PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate without penalty. If you decide to

participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty and without loss of benefits to which you are
otherwise entitled. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed your data will be returned to
you or destroyed.

192

CONSENT

I have read and understand the above information. I have received a copy of this form. I agree to participate

in this study.

Subject’s signature_______________________________________ Date _________________

Investigator’s signature__________________________________ Date _________________

• UMI_PGnocr

UMI Number: 3070569
________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3070569

300 North Zeeb Road
PO Box 1346