ArticlePDF Available

Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: A Critical Review

July 2004
Applied Psychology 53(3):371 - 399

July 2004
53(3):371 - 399

DOI:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00176.x

Authors:

Moshe Zeidner

University of Haifa

Gerald Matthews

University of Central Florida

Richard D Roberts

Research and Assessment Design: Science Solution

Cet article est une revue critique des théories et résultats empiriques favorables à l’intelligence émotionelle (I.E.) et à son prétendu rôle dans l’environnement professionnel. On s’intéresse au statut supposé de l’I.E. dans la performance au travail, la satisfaction et l’évaluation de la carrière et des compétences (surtout dans la domaine de la sélection et de l’orientation). Globalement, cette revue de questions prouve que les recherches récentes ont fait de grands pas dans la comprehénsion de l’utilité de l’I.E. au travail. Les preuves strictement scientifiques sont cependant insuffisantes, la littérature accordant une confiance excessive aux avis d’experts, aux anecdotes, aux études de cas et aux enquêtes privées non publiées. On propose, à la fin de l’article, quelques directives pratiques pour favoriser le développement et l’utilisation de mesures de l’I.E. dans les situations professionnelles. This paper critically reviews conceptualisations and empirical evidence in support of emotional intelligence (EI) and its claimed role in the occupational environment. Consideration is given to the purported status of EI in occupational and career assessment (with particular emphasis on personnel selection and placement), job performance, and satisfaction. Overall, this review demonstrates that recent research has made important strides towards understanding the usefulness of EI in the workplace. However, the ratio of hyperbole to hard evidence is high, with over-reliance in the literature on expert opinion, anecdote, case studies, and unpublished proprietary surveys. The review concludes by providing a number of practical guidelines for the development and implementation of EI measures within occupational settings.

Comparison of Mixed vs. Ability Models of Emotional Intelligence

…

Figures - uploaded by Gerald Matthews

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Gerald Matthews

Content may be subject to copyright.

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004,

(3), 371–399

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

-Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKAPPSApplied Psychology: an International Review0269-994X© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2004July 20045331000

Original ArticlesEI IN THE WORKPLACEZEIDNER ET AL.

Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace:

A Critical Review

Moshe Zeidner*

University of Haifa, Israel

Gerald Matthews

University of Cincinnati, USA

Richard D. Roberts

University of Sydney, Australia

Cet article est une revue critique des théories et résultats empiriques favorables

à l’intelligence émotionelle (I.E.) et à son prétendu rôle dans l’environnement

professionnel. On s’intéresse au statut supposé de l’I.E. dans la performance

au travail, la satisfaction et l’évaluation de la carrière et des compétences

(surtout dans la domaine de la sélection et de l’orientation). Globalement,

cette revue de questions prouve que les recherches récentes ont fait de grands

pas dans la comprehénsion de l’utilité de l’I.E. au travail. Les preuves strict-

ement scientiﬁques sont cependant insufﬁsantes, la littérature accordant une

conﬁance excessive aux avis d’experts, aux anecdotes, aux études de cas et aux

enquêtes privées non publiées. On propose, à la ﬁn de l’article, quelques

directives pratiques pour favoriser le développement et l’utilisation de mesures

de l’I.E. dans les situations professionnelles.

This paper critically reviews conceptualisations and empirical evidence in

support of emotional intelligence (EI) and its claimed role in the occupational

environment. Consideration is given to the purported status of EI in occupa-

tional and career assessment (with particular emphasis on personnel selec-

tion and placement), job performance, and satisfaction. Overall, this review

demonstrates that recent research has made important strides towards

understanding the usefulness of EI in the workplace. However, the ratio of

hyperbole to hard evidence is high, with over-reliance in the literature on

expert opinion, anecdote, case studies, and unpublished proprietary surveys. The

review concludes by providing a number of practical guidelines for the devel-

opment and implementation of EI measures within occupational settings.

*Address for correspondence: Moshe Zeidner, Center for Interdisciplinary Research of Emo-

tions, University of Haifa, Mt Carmel, 31905, Israel. Email: Zeidner@research.haifa.ac.il

372

ZEIDNER ET AL.

INTRODUCTION

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively new and growing area of behavioral

research, having caught the imagination of the general public, the commercial

world, and the scientiﬁc community. The concept resonates with a current

zeitgeist emphasising the importance of self-awareness and understanding,

redressing a perceived imbalance between intellect and emotion in the

life of the collective Western mind. Emotional intelligence also connects

with several cutting-edge areas of psychological science, including the

neuroscience of emotion, self-regulation theory, studies of metacognition,

and the search for human cognitive abilities beyond “traditional” academic

intelligence.

Although Thorndike (1921), Guilford (1956), and later, Gardner’s (1983)

research into social intelligence hints at the importance of emotions to

intellectual functioning, the term EI was not brought into mainstream

psychology until the 1990s (Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990; Salovey &

Mayer, 1990). Currently, Mayer, Salovey, and colleagues argue that EI

incorporates a set of conceptually related psychological processes invol-

ving the processing of affective information (see Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer

& Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990, 1994). These processes include

the appraisal and expression of emotions, assimilation of emotions in

thoughts, understanding emotion, and the regulation and management of

emotions.

For a concept that up until recently had received short shrift, the impression

that the study of EI is a pivotal area of contemporary psychology appears

difﬁcult to dispute. Thus, EI has been touted as a panacea for modern

business and the essential but often neglected ingredient of nursing, legal,

medical, and engineering practices (see Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts,

2001). In some commentators’ eyes, EI even provides the medium by which

educational reform can and ﬁnally will reach its full potential, across prim-

ary, secondary, and tertiary levels of schooling (see Zeidner, Roberts, &

Matthews, 2002, for a critical review).

The current paper provides a critical analysis of the claimed role of

emotional intelligence in the occupational environment. Following a brief

overview of the conceptualisation and measurement of EI, consideration

is given to an emerging literature that promotes the assessment, training,

and the individual’s utilisation of emotional intelligence in the workplace.

Throughout, an attempt is made to bring to the reader’s attention the scant,

and sometimes highly controversial, empirical evidence used to support

the importance of EI in the workplace. This approach naturally indicates

avenues that future research might proﬁtably explore. The paper concludes

by presenting some practical guidelines for the development of EI measures

for occupational selection purposes.

EI IN THE WORKPLACE

373

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: CONCEPTS AND

MEASUREMENT

Popular interest in EI has, at times, tended to obscure deﬁnitional clarity

(Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). The emerging literature on EI contains

disparate terminology, including not only

emotional intelligence

(Goleman,

1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), but also

emotional literacy

(Cooper &

Sawaf, 1997),

emotional quotient

(Cooper, 1997), and

personal intelligences

(Gardner, 1983). To further complicate the situation, the sub-components of

EI are variously referred to as “branches” (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey,

2000), “factors” (Bar-On, 1997), or “competencies” (Boyatzis, 1982).

Deﬁnitions of EI

No matter what its hue, the aforementioned proponents all lay claim to the

fact that their concept constitutes a generalised, far-reaching intelligence

covering an array of emotional functions. Unfortunately, thus used, the

term too often appears all encompassing and protean, such that EI is left

bereft of conceptual meaning. For example, the populist, though widely

inﬂuential account offered by Goleman (1995) appears to deﬁne EI by

exclusion: as

any

desirable feature of personal character not represented

by cognitive intelligence. More recently, Goleman (1998, 2001, see also

Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000) suggests that two domain facets deﬁne

the competencies associated with EI: (a)

ability

—awareness versus manage-

ment of emotion, and (b)

target

—whether competence relates to self versus

others. The Cartesian product of these two facets (i.e. ability by target) yields

the following four components: (a) awareness of emotions in self; (b) aware-

ness of emotions in others; (c) management of emotions in self; and (d)

management of emotions in others. However, although this analysis sug-

gests some ﬁelds of inquiry, it does not identify a unifying common element

to the different components. Furthermore, this conceptualisation does not

tell us how to distinguish EI from other, distinct abilities and personality

traits that may inﬂuence recognition and regulation of emotions (e.g. trait

anxiety, coping dispositions).

Perhaps the most widely accepted scientiﬁc deﬁnition of EI is “the ability

to monitor one’s own and others’ emotions, to discriminate among them,

and to use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey

& Mayer, 1990, p. 189). This deﬁnition identiﬁes emotional information

processing as a necessary precursor of emotional regulation, and as we have

argued elsewhere, probably constitutes the most workable contemporary

deﬁnition of EI (see Matthews et al., 2002). By contrast, another leading

researcher (Bar-On, 1997) characterises EI as “an array of non-cognitive

capabilities, competencies, and skills that inﬂuence one’s ability to succeed

374

ZEIDNER ET AL.

in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 16). This broader

deﬁnition makes no direct reference to the acquisition, retrieval, and instantia-

tion (through appropriate behaviors) of emotional information. It appears to

exclude cognitive skills that might contribute to emotion management,

although, confusingly, Bar-On also lists apparently cognitive abilities such

as problem solving and reality testing as components of EI. Conversely,

Bar-On’s deﬁnition places more emphasis on adaptation to environmental

demands.

Models of EI

Mayer and colleagues distinguish between (1) “mental ability models”,

focusing on aptitude for processing affective information, and (2) “mixed

models” that conceptualise EI as a diverse construct, including aspects of

personality as well as the ability to perceive, assimilate, understand, and

manage emotions. These “mixed models” include motivational factors and

affective dispositions (e.g. self-concept, assertiveness, empathy; see Bar-On,

1997; Goleman, 1995). These conceptual disagreements are mirrored by a

major disjunction in measurement paradigm. Those who conceptualise EI

as a fairly well-deﬁned set of emotion-processing skills (e.g. Mayer, Caruso,

& Salovey, 1999, 2000) aim to assess EI through objective, performance

tests. Conversely, those who view EI as encompassing multiple aspects of

personal functioning (e.g. Bar-On, 1997; Boyatzis et al., 2000; Goleman,

1995) aim to measure EI through self-report protocols. By and large, these

tests are designed to assess beliefs and perceptions about an individual’s

competencies in speciﬁc domains (Salovey, Woolery, & Mayer, 2001).

Table 1 summarises some of the cardinal differences among mixed and

ability models of EI along a number of dimensions, such as conceptual

context, focus, dimensionality, measurement procedures, and their psycho-

metric properties. The manifest differences, contained in this table, should

alert the reader to a particularly problematic feature associated with current

theories of EI—whatever is being measured within “mixed models”, it is

unlikely the same type of EI as that assessed by “mental ability models”.

We take up this notion still further in the passages that follow.

A number of problems and serious omissions currently plague the research

on EI conducted under the “mixed-model” banner, which employs self-report

methodologies (see Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Matthews et al., 2002;

Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). According to Barrett, Miguel, Tan, and

Hurd (2001), self-report measures of ability suffer from low reliability, low or

no criterion-related validity, limited construct validity, and are easily faked. It

is also questionable whether items asking students to self-appraise intellectual

ability (e.g. “I am an extremely intelligent student”) would make for a valid

measure of any intelligence. Moreover, tests of EI that assess non-cognitive

EI IN THE WORKPLACE

375

TABLE 1

Comparison of Mixed vs. Ability Models of Emotional Intelligence

Dimension Model of Emotional Intelligence

Mixed Models Ability Models

Conception of EI EI viewed as melange of competencies

and general dispositions for adaptive

personal functioning

and coping

with environmental demands. The

construct encompasses multiple

aspects of emotional and personal

knowledge and personal functioning

that are rather loosely related to

emotion, including: motivation,

personality traits, temperament,

character, and social skills

EI is viewed as a well-deﬁned

and conceptually related set

of cognitive

abilities

for the

processing of emotional

information and regulating

emotion adaptively

Psychological focus Affective Cognitive

Theoretical model Personality/Psychological adjustment Intelligence/Performance

Typical facets Self-awareness, self-motivation,

self-regulation, empathy, social

skills, assertiveness, stress tolerance,

impulse control, coping with

stress, reality testing, social

problem solving, etc.

Emotion identiﬁcation,

understanding of emotions,

assimilation of emotion in

thought and use of emotions

to enhance thought, emotion

regulation

Number of

competencies

Anywhere from 4 to 2 dozen

abilities. These can be grouped

into 4 core areas: self-awareness,

self-regulation/management,

social awareness, relationship

management and social skills

(Cherniss & Goleman, 2001)

4 major branches:

identiﬁcation, understanding,

usage, and self-regulation

(Salovey et al., 2000)

Morphological

structure

Nonhierarchical—“oligarchic”

organisation

Hierarchical model—from basic

psychological processes to

higher more psychologically

integrated processes

Key proponents Goleman (1995), Bar-On (1997) Mayer et al. (2000a)

Measurement

approaches

Quasi-personality

(self-report,

Likert-type scales)

Competency

(performance type

items such as identiﬁcation of

emotions in pictures, identifying

progressions and blends of

emotions, solving problems, etc.)

Examples of scales Bar-On’s EQ-i, Schutte’s EI scale,

Boyatzis and Goleman’s Emotional

Competence Inventory, Cooper’s

EQ Map

Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey’s

MEIS, MSCEIT

Scoring of scales No veridical scoring criteria. Scores

obtained by linear sum of Likert-

type scale response categories

scored in direction of high EI

Consensus, Expert, and

Target scoring protocols,

with presumable veridical or

“objective” scoring criteria

376

ZEIDNER ET AL.

Factor structure Little empirical data. General

factor found for individual

published scales, but little

evidence to support claims

of multiple factors (cf. Petrides

& Furnham, 2000)

Inconsistent with 4-branch

model. Exploratory factor

analytic data consistent with 3

factor models of perception,

understanding, regulation

(Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey,

2000; Roberts et al., 2001)

Reliability of scales Satisfactory (Bar-On, 1997;

Dawda & Hart, 2000)

Low to Moderate (Roberts

et al., 2001); inconsistency

among scoring procedures

and low subtest reliabilities

Susceptibility of items

to response sets

Inconsistent data; some evidence

for extreme item endorsement

(Dawda & Hart, 2000)

Not relevant

Convergent validity

(vis-a-vis ability)

Very low—negligible correlations

with IQ (Bar-On, 2000;

Derksen et al., 2002)

Moderate correlations

of about .30 with ability

(Mayer et al., 2000; Roberts

et al., 2001)

Divergent validity

(vis-a-vis personality)

Low discriminant validity

vis-a-vis personality measures,

particularly N

Good discriminant validity,

with low correlations with

“Big 5” personality facets

(Roberts et al., 2001)

Predictive validity Good, but may reﬂect confounding

with personality (Janovics &

Christiansen, 2001)

Good, but may reﬂect

confounding with ability

(Janovics & Christiansen,

2001)

Dimension Model of Emotional Intelligence

Mixed Models Ability Models

TABLE 1

Continued

traits (e.g. assertiveness, optimism, impulse control) seem to be tapping

dimensions of individual differences that relate to established personality con-

structs rather than to “intelligence” (Matthews et al., 2002).

In view of the foregoing problems associated with the use of self-report

measures, Mayer, Salovey, and colleagues have advocated the development of

objective, performance-based ability indicators of EI (see e.g. Mayer, Caruso

et al., 1999, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey et al., 2000a, 2000b).

Consequently, task-based measures engage participants in exercises designed

to assess abilities supporting emotionally intelligent behavior. The ability-

based mode of assessment, and its underlying four-branch conceptual model

of EI, has gained currency largely because it appears to be performance-

EI IN THE WORKPLACE

377

oriented and empirically based. Unfortunately, there is considerable difﬁculty

in determining objectively correct responses to stimuli involving emotional

content, and in applying truly veridical criteria in scoring tasks of emotional

ability (Roberts et al., 2001). Proponents of EI as a type of cognitive ability

have promoted alternative scoring procedures in order to discriminate

right from wrong answers on performance-based measures of EI (consensual,

expert, target; see Mayer, Caruso et al., 2000). While still in their infancy

and requiring stringent empirical studies to ascertain certain shortcomings

and alternatives the rather novel approach adopted to measurement in ability

models, along with positive results to be discussed shortly, suggests that they

may be the focus of research on EI for some time.

Emotional Competencies

Another approach, sharing more in common with “mixed models” but moving

beyond a rigid conceptualisation of EI, advocates differentiation between

emotional intelligence (a dispositional aptitude) and emotional

competencies

(learned capabilities) (Boyatzis, 1982; Goleman, 2001). Based on a host of case

studies, anecdotal accounts, and evaluation studies, Goleman (1998) con-

cludes that the major qualities differentiating successful from unsuccessful

executives are the competencies underlying (or presumably nested within)

EI. Failing executives, apparently, have poorer emotional control, despite

strengths in cognitive abilities and technical expertise.

Under this formulation, EI encompasses such characteristics as motives,

traits, and aspects of one’s self-image. In short, EI designates the potential

to become skilled at learning certain emotional responses. By contrast,

emotional

competencies

are learned capabilities, based on EI, that result in

outstanding performance at work (Goleman, 2001). Akin to the distinc-

tion between

ﬂuid

and

crystallised

ability (cf. Matthews et al., 2002), EI (as

a ﬂuid ability) does not guarantee that individuals will actually manifest

competent behaviors at the workplace. That is, there is no guarantee that

the individual has been exposed to essential environmental experiences or

learning situations and practices necessary to acquire speciﬁc emotional com-

petencies or skills (e.g. assertiveness, service orientation, initiative). Whereas

EI may determine a person’s potential for learning practical job-related

emotional and social skills, the level of emotional competencies (as a crystal-

lised ability) manifested by that person shows how much of that potential

she or he has actually realised. It is emotional competence then that aids the

learning of job-related skills and which translates EI into on-the-job capab-

ilities. For example, in order to be able to actually empathise with another’s

plight, one needs to have learned the speciﬁc empathic skills that translate

into caring and compassionate pastoral counseling, bedside-nursing, or effective

psychotherapy (cf. Cherniss & Goleman, 2001).

378

ZEIDNER ET AL.

Within this general framework, a large array of competencies have been

claimed to be critical for success in occupational settings (see e.g. Boyatzis

et al., 2000; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Weisinger, 1998). For example, Goleman

(1998) lists 25 different competencies necessary for effective performance in

various occupational contexts. Thus, conﬁdentiality is touted as important

for loan ofﬁcers and priests, while trust and empathy appear vital for psycho-

therapists, social workers, and marriage counselors. Among the speciﬁc

competencies claimed to be of critical importance in a variety of occupational

settings are the following:

Emotional self-awareness.

This competence includes identiﬁcation of emotion

and understanding how emotions are related to one’s goal, thoughts, behaviors,

and accomplishments (Goleman, 1998; Weisinger, 1998).

Regulation of emotions in the self.

This competence involves intentionally

eliciting and sustaining pleasant and unpleasant emotions when considered

appropriate, effectively channeling negative affect, and restraining negative

emotional outbursts and impulses (Boyatzis, 1982; Goleman, 1998).

Social awareness of emotions and empathy

, which includes awareness of

others’ feelings, needs, and concerns, understanding and sympathising with

others’ emotions, and responding to others’ unspoken feelings (Goleman,

1998; Huy, 1999; cf. Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Williams & Sternberg, 1988).

Regulating emotions in others

. This competence incorporates inﬂuencing

others, effectively communicating with others, and managing conﬂicts

(Weisinger, 1998).

Motivational tendencies

, which include such components as internal

strivings, attributions, and need for achievement (Bar-On, 2000; Boyaztis

et al., 2000; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1998; Weisinger, 1998).

Character

, which includes trust and integrity (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997;

Goleman, 1998; Weisinger, 1998).

The preceding framework is not, of course, without its critics. Thus, to

some researchers, “competencies” is a confusing and ambiguous concept

(see Barrett et al., 2001). Indeed, how speciﬁc competencies are related

to the more overarching concept of EI is uncertain. Furthermore, it is

presently unclear to what extent a number of speciﬁc competencies may

be nested within each of these facets. Thus, certain competencies such as

impulse control, achievement motivation, and adaptability are subsumed

under regulation of emotions in self, whereas conﬂict resolution, teamwork,

visionary leadership, and communication skills are nested within manage-

ment of emotions in others (cf. Goleman, 2001). Whether placing all such

concepts under the EI banner confuses, rather than clariﬁes, the role of

Mayer, Caruso and Salovey (2000) see this construct as a “shadow variable”—one that

mimics EI in several respects, but that seems conceptually and ontologically distinct.

EI IN THE WORKPLACE

379

emotional competencies in the workplace would seem a contentious

point. Because the ﬁeld of EI remains new, many of the aforementioned

concepts—which have been studied in organisational psychology for some

time (often with mixed results)—are in fact better understood than this ﬂedgling

concept. We are cautious, however, of being deﬁnitive in making a ﬁnal

judgment of this approach. On one hand, the process of reconceptualising

each of the preceding concepts as forms of EI (or competencies) may

lead to obfuscation. On the other hand, dealing with distinct but possibly

interrelated competencies may be more tractable for research and practical

purposes.

EI AND OCCUPATIONAL ASSESSMENT, SELECTION,

AND PLACEMENT

Recently, the use of EI measures for career selection and placement pur-

poses has begun to gather momentum in many organisations in the Western

world. Thus, more and more companies are realising that EI skills may

be a vital component of any organisation’s management philosophy (and

subsequent success). A survey of benchmark practices among major cor-

porations found that four out of ﬁve companies are now trying to promote

EI in their organisations. The concept of EI is thought to be useful when

evaluating ongoing functioning and the well-being of employees at critical

stages of their careers (i.e. selection, training, placement, and promotion).

As one group of writers has argued: “If the driving force of intelligence in

twentieth century business has been IQ, then . . . in the dawning twenty-ﬁrst

century it will be EQ” (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997, p. xxvii).

Overview

Gowing (2001) traces the roots of EI in organisational settings to classic

management theory and practice. Indeed, many of the strategies used in early

assessment centers evaluated non-cognitive abilities akin to EI (e.g. social

awareness, understanding others, communication). These abilities were found

to be predictive of successful performance in managerial positions in many

corporations. Furthermore, over three decades of psychological assessment

research has vindicated the importance of taking social and emotional

competencies into consideration when attempting to predict occupational

effectiveness (e.g. Boyatzis, 1982; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weich,

1970; Howard & Bray, 1988; Kotter, 1982). In a now classic study, Kotter

(1982) identiﬁed a number of personal characteristics discriminating more

from less successful general managers, including such social-emotional

competencies as optimism, communication and relationship skills, and need

for achievement. Furthermore, research by Boyatzis (1982) has identiﬁed a

380

ZEIDNER ET AL.

number of social competencies (i.e. socialised power, self-esteem, positive-

ness) that appear predictive of future managerial success.

Based on their survey of the intervention literature in the domain of

management, Cherniss and Goleman (2001) conclude that interventions

targeted at EI-based competencies are effective and tend to enhance such

desired outcomes as self-awareness and rapport. Thus, they conclude: “Taken

together, all these interventions demonstrate that it is possible for adults to

develop EI competencies” (p. 214). These authors go on to offer methods

for developing speciﬁc EI domains (e.g. developing social skills via modeling).

Furthermore, in order to maximise the effectiveness of these programs,

Cherniss and Goleman (2001) suggest a number of useful guidelines

(e.g. creating an encouraging and supportive environment for intervention;

using models of desired skills; inoculating against setback and providing

follow up support). These guidelines appear to have had some success.

Several unsubstantiated claims have appeared in the popular literature

and the media about the signiﬁcant role of EI in the workplace. Thus,

EI has been claimed to validly predict a variety of successful behaviors at

work, at a level exceeding that of intelligence (see Cooper & Sawaf, 1997;

Goleman, 1998; Hay Group, 2000; Weisinger, 1998). In the

Time

article

which helped popularise EI, Gibbs (1995) wrote, “In the corporate world . . .

IQ gets you hired but EQ gets you promoted” (p. 59). Watkin (2000) suggests,

without empirical support: “Use of EI for recruitment decisions leads to

90-percentile success rates.” He goes on to claim that “what distinguishes top

performers in every ﬁeld, in every industry sector, is not high IQ or technical

expertise, it is EI” (p. 91). Similarly, Goleman (1995) has claimed, from

research on over 500 organisations by the Hay Group, that EI (rather than

IQ) accounts for over 85 per cent of outstanding performance in top leaders.

Of note, however, Goleman is unable to cite empirical data supporting any

causal link between EI and any of its supposed, positive effects.

The Predictive Validity of EI

Much of the current interest focusing on EI in organisational settings stems

from a desire to explain differential attainment of occupational success,

which cannot adequately be accounted for by IQ alone. However, assess-

ment of EI is only cost-effective to the extent that it provides information

additional to that provided by measurement of established ability and per-

sonality constructs. Thus, EI measures must demonstrate not just criterion

and predictive validity, but also discriminant or incremental validity, with

respect to existing tests. Establishing predictive validity is made more difﬁ-

cult by the lack of convergence between different types of EI test; Bar-On’s

self-report scale, the EQ-i is only modestly correlated (at .46) with the

Mayer-Salovey MEIS ability test, for example (Bar-On, 2000). Self-report

EI IN THE WORKPLACE

381

and quasi-objective tests are also differentiated by their correlations with

other constructs. The MEIS is modestly correlated with general intelligence,

for example, but self-reports are typically independent of intelligence (see

Matthews et al., 2002, for a review of data). Self-report scales, but not

ability scales, are highly correlated with existing personality questionnaires.

Studies of the EQ-i (e.g. Dawda & Hart, 2000; Newsome, Day, & Catano,

2000) have found that most of the variance in this instrument can be attrib-

uted to the well-known Five Factor Model of personality. EQ appears to be

largely low neuroticism, with smaller contributions from extraversion, agree-

ableness, and conscientiousness. Hence, there is a problem with divergent

validity; it has not been established that questionnaire measures of EI add

much to orthodox personality assessments.

Overall, conventional intelligence tests do a very reasonable job of

predicting occupational criteria (especially when compared to personality

measures, as we shall demonstrate shortly) (see Hunter & Schmidt, 1996).

General ability predicts anywhere from about 10 per cent to 30 per cent

of the criterion variance in job performance, leaving about 90 per cent to

70 per cent of the variance in success unaccounted for (see e.g. Jensen, 1980,

1998). A review of the literature by Hunter and Hunter (1984) suggests that

cognitive abilities have a mean validity for training success of about .55

for all known job families. In addition, studies surveyed by Hunter and

colleagues show that ability tests are valid across all jobs in predicting job

proﬁciency. The validity coefﬁcients vary by both outcome criteria (higher

for job training and lower for job performance) and job complexity (higher

for greater job complexity).

According to Sjoberg (2001), one reason for the interest in the non-

cognitive factors may simply be that it has proved to be very difﬁcult to

improve, in the cognitive domain, on traditional measures of general

intelligence. As Schmidt (1994) points out:

After over 50 years of research . . . it is now evident that reﬁnements in the

measurement of abilities and aptitudes are unlikely to contribute nontrivial

increments to validity beyond that which is produced by good measures of general

ability. The areas of personality, biographical data, physical abilities, and perhaps

interests are considerably more promising in that respect. (pp. 348–349)

In general, personality measures are considerably less predictive of

job performance than are ability measures. Meta-analyses of relationships

Whereas one may object to the use of self-report measures to assess EI (which is pur-

portedly an ability and would thus require more objective performance-based measures), this

assertion does not hold with respect to personality, where self-report measures may be useful,

provided that respondents are motivated to respond truthfully.

382

ZEIDNER ET AL.

between the “Big Five” and job performance suggest that, even when

corrections are made for statistical artifact, mean validity coefﬁcients do

not exceed .2–.3 (Barrick & Mount, 1991, 1993; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein &

Reddon, 1999). However, higher correlations may be found when moderator

factors are taken into account. For example, extraversion is modestly

predictive of success for people in management and sales, but not for those

in other professions (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In general, conﬁrmatory

studies, that are guided by some a priori hypothesis, obtain higher validity

coefﬁcients than purely exploratory studies (Tett et al., 1999). Criteria other

than objective performance may be more strongly linked to personality.

These existing personality studies place some constraints on the expected

validity of questionnaire scales for EI. Generally, it seems unlikely that scales

such as the EQ-i will explain large percentages of variance in performance

criteria, although scales that are less strongly correlated with the Big Five

might potentially do so. Existing research also shows that personality traits

linked to emotion may also have both positive and negative effects depending

on context (Matthews, 1997). Neuroticism appears to relate to low EI, in that

high N persons are moody, vulnerable to stress, and tend to cope ineffectively.

However, across the board, high N is not a barrier to occupational success:

Barrick and Mount (1991) found that the corrected correlation between N and

job proﬁciency was a paltry

−

.07. High N does seem to relate to performance

impairment in highly stressful occupations such as police work, but, con-

versely, high N relates to greater work effort and sales volume in insurance

salespersons (Mughal, Walsh, & Wilding, 1996). Neuroticism may sometimes

act as a spur to occupational achievement. Agreeableness (A), another correlate

of the EQ-i, also has a near-zero overall correlation with job performance

(Barrick & Mount, 1991). However, it seems that high A may be beneﬁcial in

teamwork situations (Hough, 1992), but low A is related to superior per-

formance when managers operate under high levels of individual autonomy

(Barrick & Mount, 1993). Qualities of agreeableness such as empathy, altruism,

and interpersonal sensitivity are central to conceptions of EI, but these qualities

may mitigate against effective performance in jobs requiring ruthlessness,

toughness, and individual initiative. It follows that research on EI should be

acutely sensitive to possible moderator factors, and, unlike conventional ability,

emotional intelligence may have both positive and negative associations with

performance, depending on contextual factors.

Over the past few years, a number of studies have attempted to determine

the concurrent validity of EI in predicting job performance, either in simulated

settings or on the job. We now examine this empirical literature.

Empirical Studies: Reported Positive Results.

In one of the ﬁrst studies

of its kind, Janovics and Christiansen (2001), using an incidental sample of

176 undergraduates (70% female), found that EI (as assessed by the Mayer-

EI IN THE WORKPLACE

383

Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test—MSCEIT) was modestly

correlated with job performance (

.22)—as assessed by supervisors’ ratings

of employees on items evaluating professional work duties. Interestingly,

job performance correlated signiﬁcantly with only two of the four branches

of this test: Perception (

.14) and Understanding (

.30). This result is

curious since these higher-order factors are the least cognitive of the four-

branch model of EI. Nevertheless, when added to a regression equation

using cognitive ability and the Big Five factor of Conscientiousness, as cov-

ariates, a general EI score from the MSCEIT added 3 per cent to the incre-

mental variance of the job performance criterion. Janovics and Christiansen

(2001) conclude (we might argue, contentiously): “While EI measurement is

unlikely to be as useful as popular authors may suggest, empirical evidence

using the most advanced available measure suggests that EI offers some

additional contribution beyond measures of existing constructs” (p. 6).

Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) reanalysed data from a seven-year study of

the career progress of 58 managers in the UK and Ireland assessing three

domains of self-reported ability: EQ, IQ, and managerial competency. Emo-

tional competencies were derived from a job competency inventory (e.g.

perceptive listening, integrity, stress tolerance, motivating others). EI was

found to contribute to the prediction of the job advancement criterion

above and beyond managerial EI and self-reported intellectual perform-

ance, adding about 36 per cent incremental variance to the prediction of

level of advancement over a seven-year period. Taken together self-reported

cognitive and emotional intelligence accounted for 52 per cent of the cri-

terion variance. Unfortunately, this study failed to assess the full spectrum

of EQ and did not cover classic facets identiﬁed with EI such as emotion

awareness and emotion regulation. Moreover, the fact that intelligence level

was self-reported renders highly problematic any claims that EQ shared

higher correlation with the criterion than IQ.

Bachman, Stein, Campbell, and Sitarenios (2000) hypothesised that emo-

tional competencies enable account ofﬁcers to achieve greater success in

collections. Based on a small sample of 36 account ofﬁcers, a “best prac-

tices” group was found to possess a level of EI signiﬁcantly higher than

that of the North American population at large. These individuals also

performed better than a less successful group—particularly in the area of

problem solving skills. The “best practices” group scored higher on the EQ-i

scales of Optimism and Happiness. In a second study, based on 34 account

ofﬁcers, the high cash collectors group performed better than did the low

cash collectors group on all EQ-i sub-scales, with the exception of Empathy

and Impulse Control. However, no effort was made to control for IQ or

personality factors that may, in part, account for the observed differences.

Indeed, a number of studies based on Bar-On’s EQ-i purportedly support

the validity of EI in the workplace. In fact, the publishers of the Bar-On test

384

ZEIDNER ET AL.

assert that it is a better predictor of job success than IQ, referring to a few

(as yet unpublished) studies in support of this claim. For example, Bar-On

(1997) cites a study conducted on a sample of 81 chronically unemployed

individuals. These individuals had unusually low EQ-i scores, with the lowest

scores on Assertiveness, Reality Testing, and Happiness. Similarly, Bar-On

(1997) found that individuals from the Young President’s Organization

(i.e. whose membership is dependent on individuals reaching top leadership

positions in expanding companies) obtained scores on the EQ-i (on virtu-

ally all sub-scales) exceeding the average by signiﬁcant amounts. According

to Bar-On, this group’s success was dependent on an ability to be very

independent and to assert their individuality, while being able to withstand

various stressors occurring within the job.

The direction of causality in each of these instances raises some concerns.

In particular, low EI scores among the unemployed are likely to be a con-

sequence (rather than a cause) of being chronically unemployed. Similarly,

those performing well in their job are likely to report high levels of emo-

tional stability.

This argument notwithstanding, Bar-On (2000) reports that in a survey

of nearly 100,000 employees in 36 countries, social responsibility surfaced

as one of the most important factors determining effectiveness at work.

However, according to Barrett et al. (2001), the latter study is little else but

a typical name-catching exercise, whereby the authors claim that social

responsibility is important for success and because their test supposedly

measures social responsibility, it is valid for predicting success. Bar-On,

however, does not cite any predictive or concurrent studies in this chapter

to support his claims. In the EQ-i technical manual (1997), Bar-On asserts

that the data “indicate a strong connection between EQ-i scores and job

‘performance’, based on a self-rating scale tapping a worker’s sense of com-

petence” (p. 140). This assertion is based on a study of 324 workers from

the US and Canada, who performed the EQ-i and a (self-reported) Sense of

Competence Questionnaire. The correlation between the tests while high

(

.51), needs to be qualiﬁed by the fact that both measures are based on

self-reports, presumably having considerable overlap with the Big Five

personality constructs, especially neuroticism, which predicts self-efﬁcacy.

Notably, no objective measure of job performance criteria, which might

have elucidated the veracity of this claim, was collected.

Finally, Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, and Hooper (2002) have demon-

strated that coaching can improve the effectiveness of low EI teams so that

their performance is functionally identical to that of high EI teams.

Empirical Evidence: Negative or Mixed Results.

In a recent review, Dulewicz

and Higgs (2000) noted that while the concept of EI is purportedly based

on extensive research evidence, the organisational applications of EI “tend

EI IN THE WORKPLACE

385

to be based on derivative arguments and largely anecdotal descriptions”

(p. 341). Barrett at al.’s review (2001) concurs that much of the existing

evidence bearing on the role of EI in occupational success is anecdotal,

impressionistic, or collected by consulting companies and not published in

the peer-reviewed literature. While proprietary data collected in organisa-

tional settings may be the surface of a rich and deep research tradition, it

is nevertheless of uncertain validity. When a study is submitted for publica-

tion in a peer-review journal, although the process is imperfect, it does

provide some quality control for the methods and results and conclusions

(Cherniss, 2001).

Barrett at al. (2001), one of the most vociferous group of critics of the EI

construct, have argued that the irrational exuberance surrounding EI stems

from the concept being inappropriately linked to past research, exaggerated

claims, and the fact that its major proponents come from particularly pres-

tigious colleges. Barrett et al. have identiﬁed a number of glaring incongru-

ities between assertions made by key proponents regarding EI and the results

of the actual research they cite. As a case in point, consider Goleman’s

(1995, 1998) reference to a study of Bell Laboratory engineers in which the

top performers were reportedly more emotionally intelligent than their

peers (although not differing in level of general intelligence). A careful

reading of the original report shows that this is pure conjecture—the

Bell Laboratory engineers were

never

actually tested with any instrument

designed to assess EI. Nevertheless, the conclusions of this study, in support

of the important role of EI in occupational studies, have been accepted

uncritically. More damaging to the ﬁeld, perhaps, is the fact that these

unsubstantiated claims have been recycled in numerous popular books and

articles on EI in the workplace (e.g. Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Gibbs, 1995;

Hay Group, 2000).

In fact, several studies examining the predictive validity of EQ in organisa-

tional studies show negative results. In the study by Janovics and Christiansen

(2001), two self-report measures of EI, the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (Salovey

et al., 1995) and the Schutte EQ test (Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty,

Cooper, Golden, & Dornheim, 1998), were uncorrelated with assessed job

performance. Self-reported EI showed very little convergent validity with

cognitive ability, correlated weakly with performance-based measures, and

failed to demonstrate criterion-related validity.

Fox and Spector (2000) assessed the concurrent validity of three compon-

ents of EI (empathy, emotion regulation, and self-presentation), affective traits

(positive and negative affectivity), and general and practical intelligence,

against the decision to hire (based on the simulated interview), as criterion.

Whereas some of the affective and ability measures were related to interview

outcomes, both directly and mediated by the interviewer’s response, mood

regulation was not signiﬁcantly related to interview outcomes. A mean

386

ZEIDNER ET AL.

“Decision to Hire” index, based on a combined measure of hire and

qualiﬁcation ratings and two interviews, was only modestly related to proxy

measures of EI, such as self-regulation (

.17), perspective-taking (

.21),

and personal distress (

−

.19). No effort was made to partial out the effects

of cognitive ability or personality in examining the unique effects of EI in

predicting outcomes.

Slaski (2001) studied 224 middle and senior managers from the UK’s largest

supermarket chain. Data were gathered on EI (via the EQ-i) along with

bio-data and measures of distress, morale, quality of working life, and

general mental health. Management performance was gauged by assess-

ments of immediate line managers who were asked to rate the frequency of

speciﬁc behaviors based on a critical success factor model relating to aspects

of performance (e.g. setting objectives, planning and organising, team

work, etc.). Whereas the total EQ-i score was moderately related to morale

(r = .55), distress (r = −.57), general mental health (r = −.50), and quality of

work satisfaction (r = .41), it was only very modestly related to managerial

performance (r = .22). Managerial performance correlated modestly with

the Interpersonal factor of the EQ-i (r = .23), but negligibly with the Inter-

personal Factor (r = .01) and weakly with Stress Management (r = .15) and

Adaptability (r = .18). Even these weak relationships need to be quali-

ﬁed since no correlation was partialled with general ability or personality

factors. More puzzling is an intervention study that was subsequently

conducted with this sample. As one might expect, compared to a control

group, those who underwent an EI training program scored higher on EQ

six months following completion of the EQ-i—even when statistically control-

ling for initial EQ scores. However, the Management Performance measure

showed no signiﬁcant improvements in performance.

The Direct Effect of EI in the Workplace

EI is claimed to affect a wide array of work behaviors, including employee

commitment, teamwork, development of talent, innovation, quality of ser-

vice, and customer loyalty. According to Cooper (1997), research attests

that people with high levels of emotional intelligence experience more career

success, build stronger personal relationships, lead more effectively, and

enjoy better health than those with low EQ. Why is this so?

First, more emotionally intelligent individuals presumably succeed at

communicating their ideas, goals, and intentions in interesting and assertive

ways, thus making others feel better suited to the occupational environment

(Goleman, 1998). Second, EI may be related to the social skills needed

for teamwork, with high EI individuals particularly adept at designing pro-

jects that involve infusing products with feelings and aesthetics (Mayer &

Salovey, 1997; Sjoberg, 2001). Third, organisational leaders who are high

EI IN THE WORKPLACE 387

on EI, in concert with a supportive organisational climate and the human

resources team, may affect the relationship in the work setting, which, in

turn, impacts upon group and individual EI and organisational commit-

ment (Cherniss, 2001). EI may also be useful for group development since

a large part of effective and smooth team work is knowing each others’

strengths and weaknesses and leveraging strengths whenever possible

(Bar-On, 1997). Finally, EI is claimed to inﬂuence one’s ability to succeed in

coping with environmental demands and pressures, clearly an important set

of behaviors to harness under stressful work conditions (Bar-On, 1997).

EI has also been claimed to be an important factor in organisational

leadership. George (2000) used the Salovey, Mayer, and Caruso four-

branch model of EI as a heuristic framework for outlining the importance

of EI in effective leadership. George asserts that by accurately identifying

how followers feel, leaders better appraise and inﬂuence followers’ emotions

so they are supportive of leaders’ goals and objectives, thus insuring a

shared vision. Leaders can use intense emotions as signals to direct their

attention to issues in need of immediate attention, and can use emotions to

prioritise demands. They can also better anticipate how well their followers

will react to different circumstances and changes. High EI leaders are

claimed, according to this model, to generate excitement, enthusiasm, and

optimism in the work environment and are said to be able to maintain an

atmosphere of cooperation and trust through the development of high

quality interpersonal relations. Leaders can also effectively instill in others

an appreciation of the importance of work activities and convey the message

to their followers that they are optimistic about their personal contributions.

Nevertheless, the awareness of negative mood may foster systematic and

careful information processing and may be disadvantageous when leaders

are dealing with complex problems in which errors carry high risk. Unfortu-

nately, no empirical data have been provided in support of any of George’s

(2000) claims. Clearly, what is required is empirical research testing the

ideas proposed in this paper.

A recent theoretical model proposed by Jordan, Ashkanasy, and Hartel

(2002) implicates EI as a moderator variable that predicts employee emo-

tional and behavioral responses to job insecurity. According to this model,

employees low in EI are hypothesised to be more susceptible than employees

high in EI to negative emotions resulting from job insecurity. Therefore,

they are more likely to behave defensively and negatively (e.g. hyper-

vigilance, “copping out”, “buck passing”, avoidance), lowering affective

commitment and increased job-related tension in response to their insecurity.

These two emotional reactions then lead to negative coping (e.g. distancing,

wishful thinking) and defensive decision making behaviors. By contrast,

high EI employees are better able to deal emotionally with job insecurity

and will be able to ameliorate the effect of job insecurity on their affective

388 ZEIDNER ET AL.

commitment. This frequently leads to increased work commitment and

effort, positive coping behaviors (problem-focused), and reframing of per-

ceptions of insecurity as an existing challenge. Unfortunately, no empirical

data were provided in support of this theoretical model and its validity

remains to be vindicated.

Empirical Evidence. Empirical research supporting the direct role of EI

in the workplace, as the preceding account perhaps implies, is meager.

Nevertheless, some research relating EI to occupational satisfaction and

commitment has been conducted. Thus, Bar-On (1997) reports a modest

relationship between total EI scores and job satisfaction in a sample of 314

participants (mainly salespersons, teachers, college students, and nurses).

Sub-scale scores assessing Self-Regard, Social Responsibility, and Reality

Testing predicted about 20 per cent of the variance in work satisfaction.

However, the nature of that link varies from occupation to occupation.

Summary

Overall, this section of our review suggests that the current excitement sur-

rounding the potential beneﬁts from the use of EI in the workplace may be

premature or even misplaced. Whereas EI appears related to performance

and affective outcomes, the evidence for performance is very limited and

often contradictory. Much of the predictive validity of questionnaire meas-

ures of EI may be a product of their overlap with standard personality

factors. Furthermore, the literature is replete with unsubstantiated general-

isations, with much of the existing evidence bearing on the role of EI in

occupational success either anecdotal or impressionistic and/or based on

unpublished or in-house research. Thus, a number of basic questions still

loom large: Do emotionally intelligent employees produce greater proﬁts

for the organisation? Does EI enhance well-being at the workplace? Are the

effects of training in EI likely to result in increases in job performance

and/or work satisfaction?

GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND USAGE OF

EI MEASURES IN OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS

Thus far, it may be assumed that our review of EI has largely been negative.

Let us assume, however, that the preceding problems may in the future be

circumvented inside a carefully controlled (and widely disseminated) sys-

tematic program of research. What then? Prior to any widespread use of EI

for occupational and career assessment, EI measures will need to be meticul-

ously constructed, standardised (including norming), and validated for

use in speciﬁc occupational groups and for particular purposes (selection,

EI IN THE WORKPLACE 389

placement, promotion, and so forth). It is important also that assessment of EI

be cost-effective; the payoffs for psychological screening in pre-employment

selection to rule out emotional or social deﬁcits may vary according to the

nature of the job.

Ideally, the standards for developing EI measures to be used for selection

in an organisation should be similar to those of other selection predictors.

In this respect, in defence of EI, not all of the most valid predictors are

theoretically based. They evolve from job analyses and are subsequently

shown to be valid predictors of criteria. This process is not necessarily

desirable, but certainly represents something that is not uncommon in the

literature. Thus, future progress requires a developing synergy between

empirically focused attempts at improving criterion (and discriminant)

validity, and a stronger theoretical and psychometric basis for tests. The

following then are a series of recommendations for further developing the

theoretical efﬁcacy and psychometric adequacy of tests for EI in occupa-

tional environments.

A SOLID THEORETICAL RATIONALE FOR THE USE OF EI

IN ORGANISATIONAL ASSESSMENT

A vocational (or career-relevant) EI measure will ideally be one with demon-

strated theoretical and empirical relevance to a particular occupational

context. Unfortunately, the predominant view of EI as an underlying emo-

tional competence has not been clearly established, and there are other,

equally viable, conceptions of what is actually measured by EI tests (Zeidner

et al., 2001). Indeed, with so many disparate deﬁnitions of EI, the phenom-

enon being dealt with may be entirely different, although the name remains

the same (see also Zeidner et al., 2001). In general, EI and its components

should be differentiated from related constructs in the same conceptual

domain, such as wisdom, practical intelligence, emotional adaptiveness,

emotional knowledge, social intelligence, and ego resiliency (Izard, 2001).

The schism between ability- and mixed-model approaches to EI is especially

problematic.

Other important conceptual questions have been largely ignored: Is EI a

basic competence that develops early in life, or a set of acquired skills and

items of knowledge? In the ﬁeld of cognitive intelligence, Ackerman (1996)

has demonstrated that intellectual knowledge (Gk) is distinct from ﬂuid

(Gf) and crystallised (Gc) intelligences. Perhaps EI should be assessed as

acquired knowledge and, like Gk, assessed through test items tapping

speciﬁc content areas for knowledge. Informal “tacit knowledge” might also

be assessed (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000). Is EI expressed primarily as

explicit, “declarative” skills, or as “implicit” procedural skills that are

difﬁcult to express verbally? A procedural conception of EI suggests that

390 ZEIDNER ET AL.

tests relying on overt opinions and judgments should be replaced by per-

formance tests that might, for example, assess speed of response to suitable

emotional stimuli. Does EI even make sense as a purely individual attribute,

or should it be conceptualised as a ﬁt between person (P) and environment

(E)? A P–E ﬁt conception suggests assessment of EI in terms of the degree

of match between personal and organisational characteristics.

These questions call for a program of psychometric research that aims

explicitly to operationalise and discriminate different conceptions of EI.

A science of EI requires specifying the deﬁnition, number, type, and range

of primary emotional abilities within a formal psychometric model. Thus

far, this disciplined scientiﬁc approach to understanding EI has not been

realised, although Mayer et al.’s (2000a, 2000b) four-branch model is an inter-

esting beginning.

Issues of Utility: Matching the Test to the Job

An essential step in constructing EI instruments to meet organisational

requirements is to identify precisely the speciﬁc contexts, needs, and purposes

for which that EI test is being developed. Without sounding trite, different

jobs call for varying levels of social and emotional involvement and activity.

Disparate occupations also require different types of interpersonal inter-

action. In some jobs (e.g. nursing) one interacts emotionally with others

during most of their time on the job. Inside such professions, there is a real

need to have frequent interchanges with clients at an emotional level.

Incumbents within these jobs not only need to talk with others face-to-face

and exhibit positive, prosaic behavior (e.g. receptionist), but also assess the

reactions of others, and attempt to inﬂuence others’ emotions and motives

(e.g. insurance agent). Some jobs require matching one’s own behavior to

the needs of others (e.g. psychotherapist), creatively inﬂuencing others by

engaging their emotions, and transforming one’s own emotions and also

those of others. In other jobs (e.g. mathematician) one interacts with people

a smaller percentage of time, such that the need to be able to recognise and

manipulate others’ feelings is relatively unimportant, but one may need to

manage personal frustrations.

The preceding account suggests that a systematic emotional task analysis

needs to be conducted in order to match the different facets of EI to the

“criterion space” deﬁned by the demands of different kinds of occupation.

The selection of the relevant emotional competencies to be assessed

needs to be matched with the relevant career components. For example,

an analysis of the criminal justice system may suggest that police ofﬁcers

need to be able to identify and regulate their aversive emotions. Thus, a

measure of emotional regulation should be developed and included in an

assessment battery that the researcher might devise for police ofﬁcers.

EI IN THE WORKPLACE 391

This measure, in turn, should be validated against behavioral criteria for

regulating emotions at work, such as frequency of angry verbal behaviors.

It is an open question whether multifaceted general EI measures will be

adequate for this purpose. An alternative approach would be to develop

contextualised tests oriented towards the particular emotional challenges of

speciﬁc jobs. For example, an EI test for police ofﬁcers might include tests

deﬁned by job-relevant items, probing, for example, reactions to confronta-

tions, to the paperwork intrinsic to modern policing, and to dealing with

ethnic minorities.

Just as traditional job analysis is increasingly being supplemented by

cognitive task analysis, so too we may eventually need different levels of

analysis for the emotional requirements of jobs. At present, practitioners

may need to rely on a relatively superﬁcial dissection of emotional require-

ments. However, as the theory of emotional competence becomes more fully

articulated, more theory-driven analysis of emotional tasks at work may

become possible.

Validation

Choosing Appropriate Research Designs. The process of validating an

EI measure requires convincing, empirical evidence that a measure of EI

predicts career success or other important on-the-job criteria. The most

basic task for validation research is to show that EI measures reliably dif-

ferentiate between low- and high-performing groups on particular work-

related criteria. Such studies should focus on predicting success both across

jobs and within jobs, identifying the occupations for which EI is more and

less important (e.g. social workers vs. ﬁnancial analysts). The use of EI

component sub-tests also needs to be validated using large-scale, trait-

performance validation designs. It is highly plausible that effective perform-

ance in different occupations involves different patterns of emotional (or

social) characteristics.

Throughout we have emphasised the importance of discriminant validity

with respect to existing ability and personality constructs. What EI might

predict over and above IQ is still an open question. Nevertheless, as one

reviewer noted, one may take issue with the notion that EI needs only to

predict variance above and beyond ability. Thus, EI may (a) predict differ-

ent criterion behaviors than those predicted by cognitive ability or (b)

reduce the negative impact of selection based on ability measures alone for

speciﬁc social categories (ethnic, social class, gender). In other words, we

might ﬁnd that (a) it is necessary to broaden the criterion space, or (b)

systematic research is needed that demonstrates EI is somehow a less-biased

measure than IQ (of which we have doubts, see Matthews et al., 2002). Such

issues aside, EI is only one factor, along with abilities, interests, motivation,

392 ZEIDNER ET AL.

and personality traits, that encompass sets of individual difference variables

that are part of a person’s career proﬁle (Lowman, 1991). EI measures

might be used together with other variables in the predictor stock in a

multiple regression prediction equation of relevant job behaviors, or used in

a non-compensatory “multiple-hurdle” framework. In this case, a sequential

model is adopted for integration of multiple measures used in any selection

battery that assesses, in turn, job-relevant abilities, occupational issues, and

appropriate measures of EI. Under such a framework, if a person has both

the ability and interest patterns associated with a particular occupational

cluster, the EI factors may be assessed for goodness of ﬁt. While being time

consuming and expensive, this process will most likely result in more accur-

ate assessment.

Uncertainty over the causal role of EI in job success requires longitudinal

designs tracking the interplay between EI and attainment. High EI may be

an eventual consequence of working in ﬁelds that involve the problems of

others, but professional success may be guided by other variables, such as

speciﬁc skills and competencies. For example, physicians and judges

may both score high on EI, yet a person who scores high on EI will not

necessarily make a good doctor or judge. On the other hand, scoring low

on EI (e.g. low emotional regulation) may constitute grounds for exclusion

from certain occupations (e.g. social work, police work, clinicians, and

teachers), provided it can be demonstrated that low EI is meaningfully

associated with unacceptable performance in these occupations. An import-

ant task for future research is establishing cut-off points that may be used

for exclusion.

Choosing Adequate Criterion Measures. The impetus of proponents of

EI in the workplace should be on testing the validity of EI in predicting a

wide array of meaningful criteria. As a ﬁrst step, it would seem important

to look for the variance explained by EI with regard to conventional criteria

(supervisor’s ratings of performance, objective criteria such as sales, absentee-

ism, etc.) and whether EI remains predictive with IQ and personality

factors statistically controlled. It is not clear whether these criteria should

be recast somewhat to reﬂect the importance of emotional factors in the

workplace. In any case, the criteria against which EI predictors in occupa-

tional selection and placement are validated should be valid, reliable, and

uncontaminated. Questionnaire measures, in particular, may be subject to

criterion contamination: i.e. the criterion measure itself has been based, at

least in part, on predictor measures (see Cohen & Swerdlik, 1999). For

example, the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) includes scales for general mood, which

might be seen as a criterion rather than a predictor. Choice of criterion

measures requires an understanding of the relevance of the criterion to the

organisation, as we next discuss.

EI IN THE WORKPLACE 393

Assessment in the Service of the Organisation

Assessment of EI should meet the needs of the organisation: it is essential

to distinguish the well-being of the organisation from the well-being of the

employee. In the context of P–E ﬁt, Schneider, Kristof-Brown, Goldstein,

and Smith (1997) identify a “dark side” to good ﬁt. High levels of individual

satisfaction may lead to inﬂexibility and low adaptability. At the organisa-

tional level, cooperation and harmony are beneﬁcial in the short run, but,

over the longer term, lead to institutional complacency and failure to

recognise the need for change. Strategic long-term decision-making may be

especially vulnerable to such dangers. Schneider et al. recommend hiring

decision-makers for diversity of values, competencies, and inclinations.

The resulting conﬂicts and turmoil may, in the long term, support the

organisation’s capacity to adapt to changing events.

Research on coping and adaptation similarly points towards the difﬁ-

culties of deciding which coping strategies are most effective in any given

situation (Matthews & Zeidner, 2000). Although high EI is correlated with

use of coping strategies seen as desirable, such as high task-focus (Bar-On,

1997), these characteristics are not automatically beneﬁcial to the organisa-

tion. Often, choices of coping produce a pattern of costs and beneﬁts over

a period of time. For example, a task-focused employee may succeed in

ﬁnding a comfortable niche within the organisation that fails to maximise

his or her potential to make a contribution to it.

Hence, if using EI tests, organisations need to investigate exactly what

qualities are being selected, and how a preponderance of these qualities will

inﬂuence the organisation over shorter and longer time periods. Certainly,

selection of adaptable, emotionally aware, optimistic, and socially skilled

individuals has potential beneﬁts. However, there are obvious dangers should

it transpire that the organisation comes to be mainly peopled by Machiavellian,

narcissistic, or superﬁcially smooth individuals; those who can make a good

ﬁrst impression, but may lack more substantial personal qualities.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the important role attributed to a wide array of emotional com-

petencies in the workplace, there is currently only a modicum of research

supporting the meaningful role attributed to EI (and nested emotional com-

petencies) in determining occupational success. Many of the popular claims

presented in the literature regarding the role of EI in determining work

success and well-being are rather misleading in that they seem to present

scientiﬁc studies supporting their claims, while in fact failing to do so. In

short, despite some rather fantastic claims to the contrary, the guiding

principle appears presently as “caveat emptor”.

394 ZEIDNER ET AL.

Notwithstanding claims made by proponents of EI with respect to the

important role of EI in career assessment, EI should probably not currently

be included as part of standard job selection (or classiﬁcation) batteries.

Instead, EI should be used only where warranted by the job description.

Accordingly, when particular emotional skills are part of the job description

(e.g. empathy, conﬂict resolution), one might usefully assess EI, recognising

that considerable skills in professional judgment will be required to interpret

the results with respect to organisational needs. Care must be taken in using

self-report instruments especially, because of their overlap with standard per-

sonality scales. By contrast, in those jobs where adequate emotional skills

are really minimal, assessing EI is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Furthermore, EI measures should be used in occupational contexts only

if the instruments are speciﬁcally developed, normed, and validated to that

end, and demonstrate adequate occupational relevance. Thus, in occupa-

tional contexts it is probably best to avoid using some of the more prevalent

broad-brush omnibus EI measures (e.g. MEIS, EQ-i) originally designed for

research and general assessment purposes, until such time as more valida-

tion studies using occupational criteria have been published.

There is presently an urgent need for sound taxonomic research that

focuses on determining the EI constructs that are crucial for performance

in particular jobs and for identifying the relevant EI measures that best

assess these affective constructs. While EI may be shown in the future to

reduce adverse impact in selection, recent research indicates that the use of

personality testing did not compensate for the adverse impact related to

cognitive ability testing (Ryan, Ployhart, & Friedel, 1998). These authors go

on to suggest that caution be exercised in presuming a reduction in adverse

impact by the addition of personality measures.

In general, the literature shows that the predictive validity of general

mental ability (i.e. “g”) is far from perfect. Thus, looking for better predic-

tors with lower levels of adverse impact is well advised and ideologically,

legally, and politically defensible. Even so, using EI as a predictor without

validation is an erroneous and potentially damaging practice, since it

appears premature to determine that measures of EI are a worthwhile

selection tool. At the same time, while there is hype surrounding EI in organ-

isational settings, most of it without scientiﬁc basis, over time there may

constitute a body of research pointing to the usefulness of EI in the work-

place. Indeed, future research may demonstrate that EI facets provide

important dimensions otherwise missing from the conventional batteries

assessing ability and interests.

In sum, while the jury is still out on the utility of EI for occupational selec-

tion and performance it would appear rash to dismiss the potential value and

importance of EI in all occupational settings. The fact that there are domains

of work where the handling of emotional encounters is pivotal renders EI,

EI IN THE WORKPLACE 395

even if a theoretical soup-stone (see Matthews et al., 2002), highly inﬂuential

and we believe important. Systematic, validated research studies, based on

the guidelines suggested above, will inform us if, when, and how a more

clearly deﬁned EI can be effectively used in occupational settings.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P.L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, person-

ality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.

Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K., & Sitarenios, G. (2000). Emotional intelligence

in the collection of debt. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8,

176–182.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual.

Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional

Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of

emotional intelligence (pp. 363–388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barrett, G.V., Miguel, R.F., Tan, J.A., & Hurd, J.M. (2001). Emotional intelligence:

The Madison Avenue approach to science and professional practice. Unpub-

lished paper.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relation-

ships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in Emotional

Intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory. In R. Bar-On &

J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343–362). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, I.E.E., & Weick, J.R.E. (1970). Managerial

behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hll.

Cherniss, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and organizational effectiveness. In

C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 3–12).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). Training for emotional intelligence: A model.

In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace

(pp. 209–233). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, R.J., & Swerdlik, M.E. (1999). Psychological testing and assessment (4th edn.).

London: Mayberry Publishing.

Cooper, R.K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training and

Development, 51, 31–33.

Cooper, R.K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leaders

and organizations. New York: Grosset/Putnam.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search

of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.

396 ZEIDNER ET AL.

Dawda, D., & Hart, S.D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and

validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university stu-

dents. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797–812.

Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional

intelligence assess something different than general intelligence? Personality and

Individual Differences, 32, 37– 48.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation

study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341–372.

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

ledge, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It’s not

all just “G”. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 21, 203–220.

Gardner, H. (1983). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Foreward. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Educating minds and hearts. New

York: Teacher’s College Press.

George, J.M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence.

Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055.

Gibbs, N. (1995). What’s your EQ? Time, 2 October, pp. 60–68.

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. How to select for,

measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations

(pp. 27–44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gowing, M.K. (2001). Measures of individual emotional competencies. In C. Cherniss

& D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 83–131). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guilford, J.P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.

Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions

with students. Teaching Education, 16, 811–826.

Hay Group (2000). Emotional intelligence: A “soft” skill with a hard edge. <http://

ei.haygroup.com/about_ei/>

Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition. New York: Guil-

ford Press.

Hough, L.M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables—construct confusion:

Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.

Hunter, J.E., & Hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of

job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.

Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1996). Cumulative research knowledge and social

policy formulation: The critical role of meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy,

and Law, 2, 324 –347.

Huy, Q.N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change.

Academy of Management Review, 24, 325–345.

Izard, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence or adaptive emotions? Emotion, 1, 249–257.

Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of

research on role ambiguity and role conﬂict in work settings. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 66 –78.

EI IN THE WORKPLACE 397

Janovics, J., & Christiansen, N.D. (2001). Emotional intelligence at the workplace.

Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA, April.

Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

Jensen, A.R. (1998). The ‘g’ factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Hartel, C.E.J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a

moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of

Management Review, 27, 361–372.

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

emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effec-

tiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 195 – 214.

Kotter, J.P. (1982). The general manager. New York: Free Press.

Lowman, R.L. (1991). The clinical practice of career assessment. Washington, DC:

APA.

Matthews, G. (1997). Extraversion, emotion and performance: A cognitive-adaptive

model. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and

emotion (pp. 339–442). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Matthews, G., & Deary, I.J. (1998). Personality traits. New York: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence, adaptation to stressful

encounters, and health outcomes. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The hand-

book of emotional intelligence (pp. 459–489). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science

and myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets tradi-

tional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional

intelligence: The case of ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The

handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320–342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J.D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in

ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Per-

sonality Assessment, 54, 772–778.

Mayer, J.D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identiﬁcation of

emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89–113.

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. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P.R., & Caruso, D.R. (2000a). Emotional intelligence as

Zeitgeist, as personality, and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker

(Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 92–117). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2000b). Competing models of emotional

intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (2nd edn.,

pp. 396–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mughal, S., Walsh, J., & Wilding, J. (1996). Stress and work performance: The role

of trait anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 685 – 691.

398 ZEIDNER ET AL.

Newsome, S., Day, A.L., & Catano, V. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of

emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005 –1016.

Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional

intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313 –320.

Roberts, R., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G.M. (2001). Does emotional intelligence

meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions.

Emotions, 1, 196–231.

Ryan, A.M., Ployhart, R.E., & Friedel, M.L. (1998). Using personality testing to

reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,

298–307.

Salgado, J.F. (1997). The ﬁve factor model of personality and job performance in

the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30 – 43.

Salovey, P., Bedell, B.T., Detweiler, J.B., & Mayer, J.D. (2000). Current directions

in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J.M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.),

Handbook of emotions (pp. 504–520). New York: Guilford Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition

and Personality, 9, 185 –211.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1994). Some ﬁnal thoughts about personality and

intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence

(pp. 303–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional

attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait

Meta-Mood Scale. In J. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure and health

(pp. 125–154). Washington, DC: APA.

Salovey, P., Woolery, A., & Mayer, J.D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Conceptu-

alization and measurement. In G. Fletcher & M.S. Clark (Eds.), The Blackwell

handbook of social psychology (Volume 2: Interpersonal Processes) (pp. 279–307).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Schmidt, F.L. (1994). The future of personnel selection in the US Army. In M.G.

Rumsey, C.B. Walker, & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classiﬁcation

(pp. 333–350). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schneider, B., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Goldstein, H.W., & Smith, D.B. (1997). What

is this thing called ﬁt? In N. Anderson & P. Herriott (Eds.), International hand-

book of selection and assessment (pp. 393–412). Chichester: Wiley.

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.

Sjoberg, L. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A psychometric analysis. European Psy-

chologist, 6, 79–95.

Slaski, N. (2001). An investigation into emotional intelligence, managerial stress and

performance in a UK supermarket chain. Unpublished paper.

Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2000). Practical intelligence and its development.

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

(pp. 215–243). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J.R. (1990). Meta-analysis of

bidirectional relations in personality–job performance research. Human Perform-

ance, 12, 1–29.

EI IN THE WORKPLACE 399

Thorndike, E.L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195 –216, 271–275.

Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selec-

tion and Assessment, 2, 89 –92.

Weisinger, H. (1998). Emotional intelligence at work: The untapped edge for success.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Williams, W.M., & Sternberg, R.J. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are

better than others. Intelligence, 12, 351–377.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G.M., & Roberts, R. (2001). Slow down, you move too fast:

Emotional intelligence remains an “elusive” intelligence. Emotions, 1, 265 – 275.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R., & Matthews, G.M. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be

schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37, 215 –231.

THE KEY 4IR SOFT SKILLS FOR THE RAIL SECTOR

Article

Full-text available

May 2024
S AFR J IND ENG

Philani Zincume

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) has brought about significant advancements in technology that have impacted various industries, including the railway sector. This paper explores the implications of the 4IR for the railway industry and identifies the essential soft skills that rail organisations need in order to thrive in this era. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to establish a theoretical foundation, followed by a survey administered to professionals in the rail sector to prioritise the identified soft skills. Comparative methods were employed to analyse the survey data and to determine the relative importance of the 4IR soft skills. The findings revealed a range of key soft skills, such as adaptability, critical thinking, and change management, in which it is crucial that railway professionals excel in the 4IR era. The paper discusses the significance of these soft skills and their potential impact on rail organisations, and provides recommendations for fostering their development. This research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the soft skills that are necessary for the railway sector’s successful adaptation to the 4IR.

Strategies, Techniques, Applications and Resources Implications and Challenges of Incorporating Emotional Intelligence in Personnel Hiring

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Purpose: This review aims at emphasizing why emotional intelligence should be used as the consideration in hiring strategies of organization. This review paper aims at providing a theoretical platform for relevance of emotional intelligence in personnel hiring in organization. Emotional competencies must be considered as an important component of an ideal profile of important positions of the organization. Methodology: An analytical review is conducted with the objective of answering questions of H.R manager regarding emotional intelligence with reference to personnel hiring and benefit of having emotionally intelligent employees. Results: Emotional intelligence is relevant in hiring process. Hiring manager must be certain about the fact that emotional intelligence is required skill for job then it must be considered at the time of hiring decisions. A blend of the right kind of emotional intelligence questionnaire and verbal questioning should be used as a candidate may try to pretend to be highly emotionally intelligent. Conclusion: Emotional intelligence has established its relevance in an organization by demonstrating that how it affects an employee's performance, productivity, and organizational goals. It must be included in hiring policies of organizations for jobs that require technical skills and emotional skills as well. Future research should be conducted with regards to the development of emotional intelligence scale focusing on an emotional requirement of specific job.

Emotional Intelligence and Personality Traits of University Students in Dentistry, Medicine and Pharmacy Degrees

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Background: This study aimed to characterize dentistry, medicine and pharmacy students in terms of emotional intelligence (EI) and personality traits (PTs). It also sought to identify whether differences existed according to gender and degree program and the relationship between them. Methods: Students enrolled in dentistry (115), medicine (85) and pharmacy (57) degree programs participated voluntarily in the research, including 59 men and 198 women. The following questionnaires were used: (1) the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS-24) to evaluate EI; (2) the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) to assess PT. The Qualtrics XM platform was used for data collection. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between three components of EI, either according to gender or degree program. The only difference in PTs was found in neuroticism, where women scored higher than men. There were statistically significant differences between students on different degree programs in openness to experience and responsibility. The five PTs correlated significantly with the three components of EI, except responsibility and emotional attention. The strongest associations were found between neuroticism and emotional repair (−0.439). Conclusions: High percentages of the student population were observed to have weaknesses in emotional clarity and emotional repair. Neuroticism is a personality trait that seems to occur more frequently in women.

Measuring the position of human intelligence in influencing its success

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

This research explores the relationship between human intelligence and individual success in various aspects of life. We investigate the role of psychological and socio-economic factors in shaping the path to success. The main findings show that intellectual intelligence, emotional intelligence, perseverance, mindset and socio-economic background have a significant influence on the achievement of individual success. Intellectual intelligence is closely linked to academic achievement, while emotional intelligence influences an individual's ability to build strong interpersonal relationships. Perseverance and mindset, particularly growth mindset, are key factors in achieving long-term success. Socio-economic background also impacts opportunities and access to resources that support success. The findings provide deep insights into the complexity of factors that influence individual success and highlight the importance of a holistic approach in supporting human capital development. The practical and policy implications of these findings are discussed in the context of creating an inclusive and social justice-oriented environment for all individuals.

Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Organizational Performance in Commercial Banks, Itahari, Sunsari, Nepal

Article

May 2024

Pradeep KC

The ongoing debate surrounding Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Organizational Performance (OP) has been a consistent topic of discussion across various cultures worldwide. This article aims to assess the current status of EI and OP in Nepalese Commercial Banks, analyze the relationship between EI and OP, and measure the impact of EI on OP. Employing a deductive research approach, the study utilizes a descriptive and cross-sectional research design, with the population comprising all employees in commercial banks in Itahari, Sunsari, Nepal. The sample size is 167, chosen through convenience sampling, employing a structured questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale to collect primary data. Mean and Standard Deviations assess the status of EI and OP, while Pearson correlation matrix and linear regression analysis measure the impact of EI on OP. Chronbatch alpha is used to test the reliability of constructs. The results indicate a positive presentation of both EI and OP in commercial banks, with statistically significant relationships within the model. The analysis suggests that employees with high EI exhibit higher OP compared to those with lower emotional intelligence. Notably, social awareness emerges as a key construct significantly influencing OP, followed by relationship management and self-awareness. The findings propose potential benefits for banks in enhancing EI levels during recruitment, training, and development programs for their personnel.

Recognizing affective states from the expressive behavior of tennis players using Convolutional Neural Networks

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024
KNOWL-BASED SYST

This study describes an AI model by leveraging advanced Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to recognize affective states in real-world sports settings, particularly tennis matches. In contrast to prior studies that primarily utilized data acquired from actors and rudimentary statistical methods, the present research emphasizes the analysis of bodily expressions in real-life contexts, aiming for a more naturalistic representation of human emotions. Our CNN-based models demonstrate an accuracy rate of up to 68.9%, outperforming or matching human observers in many instances. Intriguingly, both the machine learning models and human observers exhibited a shared propensity to more effectively identify negative affective states, which may be attributed to the more intense and straightforward expression of these states. These results not only advance the state of the art in affective state recognition but also pave the way for broader applications, including in healthcare and automotive safety sectors, thereby constituting a significant advancement in the development of sophisticated and universally applicable emotional recognition systems.

Editorial: Emotional intelligence in applied settings: approaches to its theoretical model, measurement, and application

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2024

L'intelligence émotionnelle dans le contexte professionnel : un regard nouveau grâce à la technique Q

Article

May 2024

L’étude de l’intelligence émotionnelle est caractérisée par la controverse et la critique car elle fait face à des défis liés à la fois à sa définition et à sa mesure. La littérature managériale n’a accordé que très peu d’attention à la compréhension de la manière dont les individus donnent du sens à l’intelligence émotionnelle et évaluent ses différentes composantes dans le contexte professionnel. Ce papier illustre la technique Q comme un excellent exemple d'approche quantitative, inductive et interprétative, permettant de répondre à des questions de recherche telles que « Qu'est-ce que l'intelligence émotionnelle ? » et « Est-elle perçue différemment selon le statut professionnel ? »

Emotional Difficulties and Societal Influences as Predictors of Work-from-Home Productivity among Elementary Teachers during COVID-19 Pandemic

Article

Apr 2024

An exploration of managing emotional labour and maintaining professional integrity in children's hospice nursing

Article

Apr 2024
Int J Palliat Nurs

Background Research exploring nurse-parent relationships in children's hospices is rare. Aim To investigate how children's hospice nurses manage emotional labour and professional integrity in their long-term relationships with parents. Methods A purposive sample of six children's nurses, from hospices across England, recorded audio diaries and participated in telephone interviews. Narratives were thematically analysed. Findings Three overarching, cross-cutting themes were identified—purposeful positioning; balancing personability and professionalism; coping with and counterbalancing emotional labour. All themes were indicative of and/or built upon emotional intelligence constructs, such as self-awareness, self-regulation, appropriate (managed) empathy, social skills and intrinsic motivation. Innate features of children's hospice work were important for perpetuating intrinsic motivation and satisfaction. Conclusion This study provided an insight into the management of emotional labour and professional integrity by experienced children's hospice nurses. The identification of emotional intelligence skills merits further exploration in this environment, as well as other children's palliative care settings.

Slow Down, You Move Too Fast: Emotional Intelligence Remains an “Elusive” Intelligence

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2001

Commentators on the R. D. Roberts, M. Zeidner, and G. Matthews (2001) article on the measurement of emotional intelligence (EI) made various pertinent observations that confirm the growing interest in this topic. This rejoinder finds general agreement on some key issues: learning from the history of ability testing, developing more sophisticated structural models of ability, studying emotional abilities across the life span, and establishing predictive and construct validity. However, scoring methods for tests of EI remain problematic. This rejoinder acknowledges recent improvements in convergence between different scoring methods but discusses further difficulties related to (a) neglect of group differences in normative social behaviors, (b) segregation of separate domains of knowledge linked to cognitive and emotional intelligences, (c) potential confounding of competence with learned skills and cultural factors, and (d) lack of specification of adaptive functions of EI. Empirical studies have not yet established that the Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale and related tests assess a broad EI factor of real-world significance.

Emotional Intelligence: In Search of an Elusive Construct

Article

Full-text available

Oct 1998

The view that emotional intelligence should be included within the traditional cognitive abilities framework was explored in 3 studies (total N = 530) by investigating the relations among measures of emotional intelligence, traditional human cognitive abilities, and personality. The studies suggest that the status of the emotional intelligence construct is limited by measurement properties of its tests. Measures based on consensual scoring exhibited low reliability. Self-report measures had salient loadings on well-established personality factors, indicating a lack of divergent validity. These data provide controvertible evidence for the existence of a separate Emotion Perception factor that (perhaps) represents the ability to monitor another individual's emotions. This factor is narrower than that postulated within current models of emotional intelligence.

Slow down, you move too fast: Emotional intelligence remains an "elusive" intelligence.

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2001
EMOTION

Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale.

Chapter

Jan 1995

Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth

Book

Nov 2002

Emotional intelligence (EI) is one of the most widely discussed topics in current psychology. Although first mentioned in the professional literature nearly two decades ago, in the past five years it has received extensive media attention. The term "emotional intelligence" refers to the ability to identify, express, and understand emotions; to assimilate emotions into thought; and to regulate both positive and negative emotions in oneself and others. Yet despite the flourishing research programs and broad popular interest, scientific evidence for a clearly identified construct of EI is sparse. It remains to be seen whether there is anything to EI that researchers in the fields of personality, intelligence, and applied psychology do not already know. This book offers a comprehensive critical review of EI. It examines current thinking on the nature, components, determinants, and consequences of EI, and evaluates the state of the art in EI theory, research, assessment, and applications. It highlights the extent to which empirical evidence supports EI as a valid construct and debunks some of the more extravagant claims that appear in the popular media. Finally, it examines the potential use of EI to guide practical interventions in various clinical, occupational, and educational settings. Bradford Books imprint

Promoting Emotional Intelligence in Organizations

Book