Major Issues in Business Process Management: An Expert Perspective

The results presented in this report form a part of a larger global study on the major issues in BPM. Only one part of the larger study is reported here, viz. interviews with BPM experts. Interviews of BPM tool vendors together with focus groups involving user organizations, are continuing in parallel and will set the groundwork for the identification of BPM issues on a global scale via a survey (including a Delphi study). Through this multi-method approach, we identify four distinct sets of outcomes. First, as is the focus of this report, we identify the BPM issues as perceived by BPM experts. Second, the research design allows us to gain insight into the opinions of organisations deploying BPM solutions. Third, an understanding of organizations’ misconceptions of BPM technologies, as confronted by BPM tool vendors is obtained. Last, we seek to gain an understanding of BPM issues on a global scale, together with knowledge of matters of concern. This final outcome is aimed to produce an industry driven research agenda which will inform practitioners and in particular, the research community world-wide on issues and challenges that are prevalent or emerging in BPM and related areas.

Major issues in business process management: An Australian perspective

Business Process Management (BPM) is widely seen as the top priority in organizations wanting to survive competitive markets. However, the current academic research agenda does not seem to map with industry demands. In this paper, we address the need to identify the actual issues that organizations face in their efforts to manage business processes. To that end, we report a number of critical issues identified by industry in what we consider to be the first steps towards an industry-driven research agenda for the BPM area. The reported issues are derived from a series of focus groups conducted with Australian organizations. The findings point to, among others, a need for more consolidated efforts in the areas of business process governance, systematic change management, developing BPM methodologies, and introducing appropriate performance measures.

Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated

In the first of two articles presenting the case for emotional intelligence in a point/counterpoint exchange, we present a brief summary of research in the field, and rebut arguments against the construct presented in this issue.We identify three streams of research: (1) a four-branch abilities test based on the model of emotional intelligence defined in Mayer and Salovey (1997); (2) self-report instruments based on the Mayer–Salovey model; and (3) commercially available tests that go beyond the Mayer–Salovey definition. In response to the criticisms of the construct, we argue that the protagonists have not distinguished adequately between the streams, and have inappropriately characterized emotional intelligence as a variant of social intelligence. More significantly, two of the critical authors assert incorrectly that emotional intelligence research is driven by a utopian political agenda, rather than scientific interest. We argue, on the contrary, that emotional intelligence research is grounded in recent scientific advances in the study of emotion; specifically regarding the role emotion plays in organizational behavior. We conclude that emotional intelligence is attracting deserved continuing research interest as an individual difference variable in organizational behavior related to the way members perceive, understand, and manage their emotions.

The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior

In this second counterpoint article, we refute the claims of Landy, Locke, and Conte, and make the more specific case for our perspective, which is that ability-based models of emotional intelligence have value to add in the domain of organizational psychology. In this article, we address remaining issues, such as general concerns about the tenor and tone of the debates on this topic, a tendency for detractors to collapse across emotional intelligence models when reviewing the evidence and making judgments, and subsequent penchant to thereby discount all models, including the ability-based one, as lacking validity. We specifically refute the following three claims from our critics with the most recent empirically based evidence: (1) emotional intelligence is dominated by opportunistic academics-turned-consultants who have amassed much fame and fortune based on a concept that is shabby science at best; (2) the measurement of emotional intelligence is grounded in unstable, psychometrically flawed instruments, which have not demonstrated appropriate discriminant and predictive validity to warrant/justify their use; and (3) there is weak empirical evidence that emotional intelligence is related to anything of importance in organizations. We thus end with an overview of the empirical evidence supporting the role of emotional intelligence in organizational and social behavior.

Emotional Intelligence, emotional Self-Awareness, and Team Effectiveness

An issue at the forefront of recent emotional intelligence debates revolves around whether emotional intelligence can be linked to work performance. Although many authors continue to develop new and improved measures of emotional intelligence (e.g. Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2001) to give us a better understanding of emotional intelligence, the links to performance in work settings, especially in the context of group effectiveness, have received much less attention. In this chapter, we present the results of a study in which we examined the role of emotional self-awareness and emotional intelligence as a predictor of group effectiveness. The study also addresses the utility of self- and peer assessment in measureing emotional self-awareness and emotional intelligence.

Performance impacts of appraisal and coping with stress in workplace settings: The role of affect and emotional intelligence

We review the literature on stress in organizational settings and, based on a model of job insecurity and emotional intelligence by Jordan, Ashkanasy and Härtel (2002), present a new model where affective responses associated with stress mediate the impact of workplace stressors on individual and organizational performance outcomes. Consistent with Jordan et al., emotional intelligence is a key moderating variable. In our model, however, the components of emotional intelligence are incorporated into the process of stress appraisal and coping. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of these theoretical developments for understanding emotional and behavioral responses to workplace.

The case for emotional intelligence in organizational research

Since its popularization by Goleman (1995), the concept of emotional intelligence has been the subject of ongoing controversy, so it is understandable that the model we proposed, which includes emotional intelligence as a moderator variable, would attract its share of criticism.

Is emotional intelligence training for leaders justified?

In this paper, we present the results of a qualitative study of subordinate perceptions of leaders. The study represents a preliminary test of a model based on Affective Events Theory, which posits that leaders who are seen to be effective shape the affective events that determine employees' attitudes and behaviours in the workplace. Within this framework, we argue that effective leaders ameliorate employees' hassles by providing frequent, small emotional uplifts. The resulting positive affective states are then proposed to lead to more positive employee attitudes and behaviours, and more positive regard for the leader. Importantly, leaders who demonstrate these ameliorating behaviours are likely to require high levels of emotional intelligence, defined in terms of the ability to recognise, understand, and manage emotions in self and others. To investigate this model, we conducted interviews and focus groups with 10 leaders and 24 employees. Results confirmed that these processes do indeed exist in the workplace. In particular, leaders who were seen by employees to provide continuous small emotional uplifts were consistently held to be the most effective. Study participants were especially affected by negative events (or hassles). Leaders who failed to deal with hassles or, worse still, were the source of hassles, were consistently seen to be less effective. We conclude with a discussion of implications for practicing managers, and suggest that our exploratory findings provide justification for emotional intelligence training as a means to improve leader perceptions and effectiveness. [Abstract from author]