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.

Diversity and Emotion: The New Frontiers in Organizational Behavior Research

This article provides a review of recent developments in two topical areas of research in contemporary organizational behavior: diversity and emotions. In the section called “Diversity,”we trace the history of diversity research, explore the definitions and paradigms used in treatments of diversity, and signal new areas of interest. We conclude that organizational behavior in the 21st century is evolving to embrace a more eclectic and holistic view of humans at work. In the section called “Emotions,” we turn our attention to recent developments in the study of emotions in organizations. We identify four major topics: mood theory, emotional labor, affective events theory (AET), and emotional intelligence, and argue that developments in the four domains have significant implications for organizational research, and the progression of the study of organizational behavior. As with the study of diversity, the topic of emotions in the workplace is shaping up as one of the principal areas of development in management thought and practice for the next decade. Finally, we discuss in our conclusion how these two areas are being conceptually integrated, and the implications for management scholarship and research in the contemporary world.

Political science and public administration: The saga of a difficult relationship

This paper is based on 'The perennial ugly duckling-public sector education in tertiary institutions before and after Coombs, an invited contribution on management education delivered at the Sydney Academics Symposium on the Coombs Commission in Retrospect, IPAA National Conference, 28 November 2001.

Australian political discourse: Pronominal choice in campaign speeches

The intention behind language used by candidates during an election campaign is to persuade voters to vote for a particular political party. Fundamental to the political arena is construction of identity, group membership and ways of talking about self, others, and the polarizing categories of 'us' and 'them'. This paper will investigate the pragmatics of pronominal choice and the way in which politicians construct and convey their own identities and those of their political opponents within political speeches. Taking six speeches by John Howard and Mark Latham across the course of the 2004 federal election campaign, I look at the ways in which pronominal choice indicates a shifting scope of reference to creat pragmatic effects and serve political functions.

Organizational behaviour: An emotions perspective

This opening chapter provides an overview of organizational behavior theory and research and the paradigms that have dominated the field to date. Running through a discussion of rational notions of organizational behavior, to concepts of bounded rationality and most recently the call for bounded emotionality perspectives, we identify for the reader what a bounded emotionality perspective adds to the understanding of organizations. We then provide an overview of the remaining chapters in the book and how they contribute to the book's objectives.

The aesthetic turn in international political theory

This essay explores the nature and significance of aesthetic approaches to international political theory. More specifically, it contrasts aesthetic with mimetic forms of representation. The latter, which have dominated the study of international relations, seek to represent politics as realistically and authentically as possible, aiming at capturing world politics as it really is. An aesthetic approach, by contrast, assumes that there is always a gap between a form of representation and what is represented therewith. Rather than ignoring or seeking to narrow this gap, as mimetic approaches do, aesthetic insight recognises that the inevitable difference between the represented and its representation is the very location of politics. The essay, thus, argues for the need to reclaim the political value of the aesthetic; not to replace social science or technological reason, but to broaden our abilities to comprehend and deal with the key dilemmas of world politics. The ensuing model of thought facilitates productive interactions across different faculties, including sensibility, imagination and reason, without any of them annihilating the unique position and insight of the other.