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.

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

Over the last decade, ambitious claims have been made in the management literature about the contribution of emotional intelligence to success and performance. Writers in this genre have predicted that individuals with high emotional intelligence perform better in all aspects of management. This paper outlines the development of a new emotional intelligence measure, the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile, Version 3 (WEIP-3), which was designed specifically to profile the emotional intelligence of individuals in work teams. We applied the scale in a study of the link between emotional intelligence and two measures of team performance: team process effectiveness and team goal focus. The results suggest that the average level of emotional intelligence of team members, as measured by the WEIP-3, is reflected in the initial performance of teams. In our study, low emotional intelligence teams initially performed at a lower level than the high emotional intelligence teams. Over time, however, teams with low average emotional intelligence raised their performance to match that of teams with high emotional intelligence.

Studies of Cognition and Emotion in Organisations: Attribution, Affective Events, Emotional Intelligence and Perception of Emotion

This article details the author’s attempts to improve understanding of organisational behaviour through investigation of the cognitive and affective processes that underlie attitudes and behaviour. To this end, the paper describes the author’s earlier work on the attribution theory of leadership and, more recently, in three areas of emotion research: affective events theory, emotional intelligence, and the effect of supervisors’ facial expression on employees’ perceptions of leader-member exchange quality. The paper summarises the author’s research on these topics, shows how they have contributed to furthering our understanding of organisational behaviour, suggests where research in these areas are going, and draws some conclusions for management practice.

Emotional Intelligence as a Moderator of Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Job Insecurity

We present a model linking perceptions of job insecurity to emotional reactions and negative coping behaviors. Our model is based on the idea that emotional variables explain, in part, discrepant findings reported in previous research. In particular, we propose that emotional intelligence moderates employees' emotional reactions to job insecurity and their ability to cope with associated stress. In this respect, low emotional intelligence employees are more likely than high emotional intelligence employees to experience negative emotional reactions to job insecurity and to adopt negative coping strategies.

Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching

Recent research has highlighted the importance of emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in organizations, and these topics are attracting increasing attention. In this article, the authors present the results of a preliminary classroom study in which emotion concepts were incorporated into an undergraduate leadership course. In the study, students completed self report and ability tests of emotional intelligence. The test results were compared with students' interest in emotions and their performance in the course assessment. Results showed that interest in and knowledge of emotional intelligence predicted team performance, whereas individual performance was related to emotional intelligence.

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]

Emotional intelligence: On definitions, neuroscience, and marshmallows

In his timely article, Cherniss offers his vision for the future of "Emotional Intelligence" (EI). However, his goal of clarifying the concept by distinguishing definitions from models and his support for "Emotional and Social Competence" (ESC) models will, in our opinion, not make the field advance. To be upfront, we agree that emotions are important for effective decision-making, leadership, performance and the like; however, at this time, EI and ESC have not yet demonstrated incremental validity over and above IQ and personality tests in meta-analyses (Harms & Credé, 2009; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). If there is a future for EI, we see it in the ability model of Mayer, Salovey and associates (e.g, Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000), which detractors and supporters agree holds the most promise (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2008). With their use of quasi-objective scoring measures, the ability model grounds EI in existing frameworks of intelligence, thus differentiating itself from ESC models and their self-rated trait inventories. In fact, we do not see the value of ESC models: They overlap too much with current personality models to offer anything new for science and practice (Zeidner, et al., 2008). In this commentary we raise three concerns we have with Cherniss's suggestions for ESC models: (1) there are important conceptual problems in both the definition of ESC and the distinction of ESC from EI; (2) Cherniss's interpretation of neuroscience findings as supporting the constructs of EI and ESC is outdated, and (3) his interpretation of the famous marshmallow experiment as indicating the existence of ESCs is flawed. Building on the promise of ability models, we conclude by providing suggestions to improve research in EI.