Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 399–421 (2007) Published online 13 December 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.
interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.429
Emotional intelligence and individual performance: evidence of direct and moderated effects
JOSEPH C. RODE 1*, CHRISTINE H. MOONEY 2, MARNE L. ARTHAUD-DAY3, JANET P. NEAR2, TIMOTHY T. BALDWIN 2, ROBERT S. RUBIN 4 AND WILLIAM H. BOMMER 5
1 2 3
Miami University of Ohio, Laws Hall, Oxford, OH, U.S.A. Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, U.S.A. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, U.S.A. 4 DePaul University, 1 E. Jackson, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. 5 Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
We examined the direct and moderated effects of an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence (MSCEIT# V2.0) on individual performance in a sample of business undergraduates. Controlling for general mental ability and personality, emotional intelligence explained unique incremental variance in performance ratings on only one of two measures of interpersonal effectiveness (public speaking effectiveness). However, the interaction of emotional intelligence with conscientiousness explained unique incremental variance both in public speaking and group behavior effectiveness, as well as academic performance (cumulative GPA). We conclude that the effects of emotional intelligence on performance are more indirect than direct in nature. Individuals must not only have emotional intelligence, but also must be motivated to use it. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Several theorists have proposed that emotional intelligence (EI) predicts individual performance in a variety of contexts, beyond the effects of established predictors such as general mental ability and personality (e.g., Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004). Empirical analyses of the relationship between EI and performance, however, have produced conﬂicting results. Close examination of the existing EI research reveals at least four factors that may be limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the data generated thus far. The ﬁrst two factors are methodological in nature, while the second two address the potential presence of boundary conditions on the EI-performance relationship. To begin with, the measurement of EI varies widely across studies. For example, Brackett, Mayer, and Warner (2004), Barchard (2003), and O’Connor and Little (2003) followed the ‘mental abilities’
* Correspondence to: Joseph C. Rode, Miami University of Ohio, Laws Hall, Oxford, OH 45056-3628, U.S.A. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 21 February 2005 Revised 9 March 2006 Accepted 21 September 2006
J. C. RODE ET AL.
model of EI (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1997) and used corresponding problem-based measures of the construct. Conversely, other have followed broader ‘mixed’ or ‘trait’ models of EI, utilizing various self-report measures. This is notable, given research indicating that self-report and performance-based measures of EI share a relatively small amount of variance (r ¼ 0.15 to 0.31; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004), leading several authors to conclude that they tap into different constructs. Indeed, several popular self-report measures of EI have been criticized for lacking discriminant validity from measures of personality (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2003). Moreover, results from previous studies appear to vary depending on the control variables included in the research models. In the academic arena, for example, some researchers have found EI to be correlated with individual performance (GPA; Brackett et al., 2004; Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004; Van Der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002), while others have found that the relationship lost signiﬁcance after controlling for general mental ability and personality (Barchard, 2003; Newsome, Day, & Catano, 2000). Similarly, at least two studies have found a signiﬁcant relationship between EI and job performance (Bar-On, 2000; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004), but only one controlled for personality and neither took general mental ability into account. These differences in study design are notable given that both personality and general mental ability have strong, established relationships with individual performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Ree & Earles, 1992; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Empirical inconsistencies may also be accounted for by inadequate consideration of potential boundary conditions surrounding the relationship between EI and performance. Interestingly, researchers have not carefully delineated and compared the various types of individual performance that are likely to be related to EI, even though performance is known to be a multidimensional construct. EI may be especially pertinent whenever performance requires a high degree of interpersonal interaction. Preliminary research concerning the relationship between EI and group processes (Jordan & Troth, 2004) and quality of social interactions (Lopes et al., 2004) supports this notion. Finally, additional boundary conditions may exist with respect to individual differences that moderate the effects of EI on performance. The omission of such potential moderating variables from prior models may have provided an inaccurate account of the true relationship. O’Reilly and Chatman (1994), for example, found that achievement motivation moderated the relationship between general mental ability and performance, while Witt and Ferris (2003) found a similar effect with respect to the relationship between social skills and performance. If we accept the premise that EI is an alternate form of ability (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Mayer & Salovey, 1993), then it is reasonable to hypothesize that it may interact with motivation in a similar fashion. Thus, our study contributes to the EI-performance literature in four signiﬁcant ways. First, we utilize a recently developed, behavioral measure of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT# V2.0; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), which research indicates to be a more reliable and valid instrument than those used previously (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; O’Connor & Little, 2003). Second, we control for both personality and general mental ability, two variables with well-established relationships to various measures of individual performance. Third, we test the relationship between EI and two different types of performance (interpersonal effectiveness and academic performance), utilizing the same sample. This is important because these performance measures involve different levels of interpersonal communication and because it permits a direct comparison of results across performance settings. Lastly, we examine the moderating effect of motivation, as measured by conscientiousness, to determine the presence of a potentially important boundary condition based on individual differences.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job
First. they are related to the extent that they employ similar information-processing strategies. J. verbal.EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
The ‘mental abilities’ conceptualization of EI (Mayer et al. This aspect of EI may be particularly relevant to oral communication in formal or group settings. and ineffective communication (Ellis & Ashbrook. or mathematical) considered by EI and general mental ability differ. Thus. 1988. Guerrero. & Fudge. Ltd. Lazarus & Folkman. Facilitating Thought. given that public speaking and the expression of personal opinions in group settings are considered highly stressful activities for many individuals (Daly & McCroskey. 1998). For example. EI should facilitate detachment from extreme felt stress and its associated emotional states. 1997) proposes that EI represents the intersection of general mental ability and emotions. 2002). 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. verbal. This. 2004. 28. anxiety. combined with the ability to manage one’s own emotional state (Managing Emotions). In contrast. may inﬂuence communication effectiveness. 1993.1002/job
. One of the deﬁning abilities of the Managing Emotions dimension is the capacity to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Mayer & Salovey. & Caruso. it should be noted that utilizing EI. 2000. 2002). The cognitive resource allocation model (Ellis & Ashbrook. poor decision-making. Andersen. in turn. is not a passive process. & Hartel. 1988) proposes that high levels of felt emotions can signiﬁcantly reduce the cognitive capacity available to deal with the task at hand. 1998). and nonverbal cues) facilitate the transition from one emotional state to another (Salovey.. or the ability to understand the relationships among emotions. EI should be related to the effective communication of ideas and opinions for at least two reasons. EI indicates the extent to which cognitive capabilities and processes are informed by emotions and the extent to which emotions are cognitively managed. which. Thus.. or the ability to manage emotions in oneself and others (Mayer et al. 1984) are associated with decreased focus..
EI and interpersonal effectiveness
Although many models of interpersonal effectiveness have been proposed. Miller. while the type of information (emotional vs. an integral part of the Understanding Emotions dimension is the ability to understand how environmental inﬂuences (e. Put another way. to enable one to better focus on the task at hand.g.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons.. 1999). Additionally. The theory implies that the abilities included in EI require cognitive effort for their effects to be realized (Mayer et al. fear. symbolic. Mayer & Salovey. Knapp. most support the notion that the construct consists of two general components: (1) the effective communication of ideas and opinions. we focus on oral communication and real-time interactions because of their conceptual relevance to EI. EI is thought to be related to individual adaptive coping behaviors (Jordan.g. or the ability to use information that explains felt emotions in order to prioritize and direct thinking. research shows that high levels of the negative emotions that accompany stress (e. like general mental ability. or the ability to identify emotions in the self and others. 2005). Mayer. Understanding Emotions. The mental abilities model speciﬁes four EI dimensions: Perceiving Emotions. 1984). 1993). and Managing Emotions. Organiz.. & Trost. While interpersonal interaction can involve various communication mediums and timeframes. a key characteristic of effective oral communication (Walker. and (2) the ability to facilitate productive interactions among two or more individuals (DeVito. should enable one to display appropriate passion (and restraint) when speaking. message content. and how emotions transition from one state to another. 1997). moderate amounts of stress are associated with increased attention focus (Jex. Second. Ashkanasy. Behav. 2004).
1998). 1997). task-oriented behaviors include information seeking (i. Following the mechanisms outlined previously. active listening). characteristics that are associated with felt stress (Jex. or even soliciting. Correspondingly.. Close examination reveals that the majority of the behaviors included in this taxonomy could also be classiﬁed as behaviors associated with active listening. they lessen the sender’s feelings of frustration and anxiety (Andersen & Guerrero. Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence is positively related to interpersonal effectiveness. Managing Emotions) may therefore be related to higher levels of academic performance on an ongoing basis as well as in acute situations. or behaviors designed to ensure that a communication is accurately understood and is valued (O’Rourke. and. Conversely. academic work includes a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty (Astin.. RODE ET AL. the capacity to connect or disconnect from an emotion as needed in times of stress (i. to understand how emotions transition from one state to another (Understanding Emotions). C. 1993). Benne and Sheats (1948) identiﬁed two general types of individual behaviors. and prioritize conﬂicting academic and non-academic demands.
Similarly. by extension. Ltd. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. associated with effective interpersonal interactions in small groups. the inability to adequately understand emotional meanings and the
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons.g. As a result. Relationship-oriented behaviors include encouraging (i. Task-oriented behaviors are designed to facilitate or coordinate decision-making. effective interpersonal interactions. Additionally.. supporting and praising others’ ideas) and gate keeping (assuring even participation by all group members).402
J.e. 1998). To the extent that EI includes the ability to perceive others’ emotions (Perceiving Emotions). First. 2004). asking questions and seeking relevant data or views from team mates) and summarizing (i.e. some aspects of academic work may be considered acutely stressful (e. EI may facilitate task-oriented behaviors such as information seeking because a key component of the Facilitating Thought dimension is the ability to assess a problem from multiple perspectives (Mayer & Salovey.. academic endeavors are largely self-directed and require high levels of self-management.
EI and academic performance
We expected EI to be related to academic performance for two primary reasons. others’ viewpoints. 2002). we propose a single hypothesis because in most cases the two components will exist simultaneously and will exert mutual inﬂuences on one another.e. which may predispose one to be more open to considering. adapt to differing instructor expectations.. Organiz.. work independently toward goals.1002/job
. For example. J. while relationship-oriented behaviors are designed to strengthen interpersonal relationships. Students must manage multiple assignments. task oriented and relationship oriented. as well to manage others’ emotions (Managing Emotions). Second. An integral part of the Facilitating Thought dimension is an understanding of the causes and consequences of emotions. EI should be related to effective interactions among individuals because it helps individuals monitor their own and others’ behaviors (Feyerherm & Rice. In their now classic taxonomy. 28. we would expect that EI would lead to the demonstration of behaviors associated with mitigating feelings of frustration and anxiety in others (i.e. at least one of our measures of interpersonal effectiveness (see Methods section for detailed description) encompassed both effective communication and the facilitation of interpersonal interaction. Active listening behaviors assure the sender that their message has been accurately understood as well as signal that the sender’s opinions are valued and taken seriously. Behav. Mayer and Salovey (1997) argue that this aspect of EI allows one to both direct positive emotions to maintain the energy required for high performance over longer periods of time and to redirect negative emotions into productive behaviors designed to overcome the source of the negative emotion. Although our theoretical arguments focus on two general components of interpersonal effectiveness. taking exams). reviewing others’ viewpoints and checking for common understanding). Further.e.
Several researchers have noted that ‘dutiful achievement’ is an integral component of conscientiousness (Mount & Barrick. a highly motivated person of low ability would actually make more mistakes and perform worse than an unmotivated person of low ability. 1958. several authors have suggested that personality dimensions can be used as proxies of endogenous. Such dysfunctional coping mechanisms have obvious negative implications for self-directed pursuits such as academic work. Goldberg.g. Mount. 1992.1002/job
. Schmidt & Hunter. and Strauss (1999: p. consider individuals with high EI but low conscientiousness. then. Hand. 1990).. 2001. Burke.).. p ¼ f (M Â A)].. & Meglino. Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence is positively related to academic performance. 2002. 1979). & Judge.. or ‘achievement striving’ (Digman & Inouye. Other theorists have viewed conscientiousness primarily in terms of will to achieve. Behav. Grifﬁth. such as goal setting and commitment to goals. one low in both EI and conscientiousness may be less likely to engage in unproductive interpersonal behaviors or experience increased stress levels because they are not as motivated to achieve high performance.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. avoidance of eye contact.EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
relationships between various emotional states is associated with coping strategies designed to deny or avoid emotional reactions. McMahan. Witt & Ferris. Gruys. which has been examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between ability and performance (e. Organiz. & Pauli. Judge & Ilies.g. such as withdrawal and avoidance (Lazarus & Folkman. Kacmar. For example. in part. 2001). we expected the effects of both low and high EI to be stronger when conscientiousness was high. 1991). Trapnell & Wiggins. Sackett. Conversely. 2003).. Similarly. these individuals may simply lack the motivation to put forth the cognitive effort required to utilize their EI abilities. Murray. 1958) proposed that motivation moderated the relationship between ability and job performance [i. Barrick. 2002.e. Barrick & Mount. & Deleeuw. Ltd. Hollenbeck. the desire for high achievement may amplify the stress and anxiety associated with oral communication in formal or group settings. Witt. etc.g. 1995). Whitener.g. Mobley. which in the absence of EI. 1984. individuals with low EI but high conscientiousness may be more likely to engage in unproductive interpersonal behaviors compared to individuals low in both EI and conscientiousness. For example. 1988. Pinder.
Interaction effects of EI and motivation
Early models of work performance (e. talking too fast. 1995. or to manage emotional states. Similarly.g. 28. 1998. J.g. Mount. & Ellingson. 710) posited that ‘conscientiousness inﬂuences job performance. conscientiousness may be considered a reasonable proxy measure of internally derived motivation with respect to our criterion measures. O’Reilly & Chatman. 1986.. Maier. 1984. distracting nonverbals. & Mount. Brief. a premise that has received considerable empirical support (e. We expected the relationship between EI and interpersonal effectiveness to be stronger when conscientiousness was high rather than low. To illustrate. Overall. may result in damaging interpersonal inﬂuence strategies based on manipulative use of negative emotions such as anger and fear. More recently. 1994). One commonly used proxy for trait motivation is conscientiousness (e. although they know better.. Researchers in this tradition argued that a person of high ability who is unmotivated would ﬁnd creative ways to be lazy and thus not perform well. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. Barrick. may result in decreased focus and ineffective behaviors (e. Likewise. the desire to do well combined with the inability to understand emotional meanings. these individuals may make personal attacks when frustrated because they lack the motivation to detach from their emotional state and reframe their messages more constructively. Compared to those high in both EI and conscientiousness. Moon. 1993. More speciﬁcally. each of which provided speciﬁc objective performance feedback that lends itself to goal setting and goal striving behavior. or trait motivation (e. through its relationship to motivational state mechanisms. Wright.’ Based on these arguments. based on the presumed ability-motivation interaction. Heider.
Participation was voluntary and students could earn equivalent credit through participation in other activities. Participation in the assessment center was a requirement for all students enrolled in the course (including those who did not participate in the study).S. On the other hand. citizens of European descent (90%).e. individuals with high EI but low conscientiousness may simply lack the achievement motivation to utilize their EI abilities to the greatest possible extent. 1976. and personality items. their lack of EI prevents them from effectively managing these uncomfortable and distractive emotions. EI. Conversely. 1979).e. with a mean age of 20. or to strategies associated with long-term performance (i. The interpersonal effectiveness measures were collected as part of the assessment center exercise.404
J. and resulting performance scores were used in ﬁnal course grade calculations. and juniors in college (72%). individuals with low EI and low conscientiousness may not experience such strong emotional reactions when faced with the uncertainty and challenges of academic work because they are comfortable with lower levels of achievement and will therefore be less likely to engage in such counterproductive behaviors. consisting of a variety of subjective well-being. Following the previous arguments. those with high EI and high conscientiousness will be more likely to utilize their strong EI abilities because they are motivated to do so. U. Hypothesis 4: Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance. Class time was spent preparing students for the assessment center. or even withdrawal or avoidance behaviors (Lazarus & Folkman. Unfortunately. Organiz. 28. 1991). We expected EI to display a similar interaction pattern with conscientiousness with respect to academic performance. 1984. General mental ability data were collected at the start of a 3-hour assessment center exercise that occurred 1–3 weeks after completion of the on-line questionnaires and about a month into the new semester. Mobley et al. This could be either to the task at hand (i.. Behav. individuals with low EI but high conscientiousness may utilize counterproductive coping strategies that ultimately decrease academic performance. residential Midwestern state-supported university with a traditional student body. Students enrolled in a required organizational behavior course received credit for participation in the study.7 years.1002/job
J. Their high conscientiousness may lead to high levels of negative emotions such as anxiety and fear because the uncertainties inherent in academic work are viewed as a threat to their valued achievement goals (Locke. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. C. RODE ET AL. A majority of subjects (N ¼ 378) were male (54%). which may lead to decreased task focus.
Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between emotional intelligence and interpersonal effectiveness. Conversely..
Our study was conducted in the Spring of 2002 within the Business school at a large. one per week. managing one’s emotional state to facilitate productive studying or active engagement in class discussions). such that the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance is stronger for high versus low levels of conscientiousness. Ltd. such that the relationship between emotional intelligence and interpersonal effectiveness is stronger for high versus low levels of conscientiousness. Respondents answered ﬁve on-line questionnaires.. developing strategies to overcome sources of chronic stress).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons.
Behav. we refer to these measures as ‘group behavior effectiveness’ and ‘public speaking effectiveness. this measure focused on one’s ability to organize and deliver effective formal oral communication in the presence of competing demands (i.04. or the extent to which the participant displayed behaviors associated with the promotion of effective group functioning (nine behaviors). Our raters scored public speaking effectiveness in terms of three behavior categories: communication delivery (seven behaviors). 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. We videotaped the group discussions and the speech. Henry. Academic performance We used self-reported overall college GPA to measure academic performance. as well as the extent to which the participants engaged in individual behaviors that facilitated effective group interactions.1002/job
. for the customer service and selection meetings. We provided additional information regarding the nature of the leaderless group discussions (one analyzing the merits of a proposed customer service initiative and one making a hiring recommendation for an open management position) and the content of the speech (arguing for the merits of expanding into a new market) during the simulation as part of an in-basket exercise.69) to create an overall score. well-reasoned arguments (ﬁve behaviors). respectively). and trained industrial/organizational psychology graduate students rated performance across discretely described behavior dimensions. Pairs of raters reached consensus on a behavioral checklist (Reilly.e. We standardized the aggregate score to maintain a consistent metric with the group discussion ratings. the other tasks included in the in-basket exercise) and tight time pressures. decision-making. Organiz. & Smither. decision-making. indicating that self-reported GPA was a reliable indicator. To assess the reliability of this measure. 1990) that precisely deﬁned the rating criteria. by level. or the extent to which the speech contained relevant. or the extent to which the participants’ communications contained well-reasoned arguments with respect to the business issue at hand (six and four behaviors. Ltd. and teamwork. To reduce method bias. The two sources were highly correlated (r ¼ 0. and overall planning and organizing of the speech content (six behaviors). this measure focused on the extent to which the participants effectively communicated their thoughts and opinions within the context of live. J. for each behavior. ongoing interactions. Participants were given a background packet to review a week prior to the simulation.’ respectively. 1981) and videotaped examples. participants attended two leaderless group discussion meetings (lasting 20 minutes each) and delivered a 3-minute impromptu speech. 28. p < 0. Thus. The extent to which participants demonstrated speciﬁc individual behaviors (described below) within each type of exercise was used to measure interpersonal effectiveness. Thus. Since most students were juniors majoring in Business.EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
Interpersonal effectiveness As part of the assessment center. A copy of the behavioral categories included in each checklist is included in the Appendix.01) with an average difference of less than 0. we varied the sequencing of the group discussions and speech exercises for each student. Raters were trained in a 2-day workshop with a frame of reference design (Bernardin & Buckley.. Our raters scored group behavior effectiveness on three broad categories of individual behavior: communication delivery (ﬁve behaviors).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. we compared the self-report GPA scores against university records for a random subsample of 100 respondents. We averaged the standardized total scores from the two group discussion exercises (a ¼ 0.93. this data point represented academic performance over a lengthy time frame (four to ﬁve semesters) that included assessments based on both individual and team assignments.
As recommended by Mayer et al. which was scaled with a mean of 100. 1988) and has shown strong test-retest reliability (Dodrill. The MSCEIT# V2. Control variables We measured general mental ability with the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT.93) with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale full scale (Dodrill. given a character’s emotional state (changes task).g. The advantages and disadvantages of the consensus scoring method have been examined in detail elsewhere (e. using a Likert scale.0.. after adjusting for attenuation due to scale unreliabilities).1002/job
. (2000) also reported correlations of 0. item scores ranged from 0 to 1. the blends task required the respondents to identify the basic components of complex emotions or to identify the complex emotion formed when simple emotions were aggregated. 1989).0 took approximately 30 minutes to complete and was administered via a web-based questionnaire that participants completed at their convenience during a speciﬁc time period prior to the date of the assessment center exercise. Sample items included ‘Pay attention to details’ and ‘Get chores done right away’. Salovey. A statistical ﬁrm afﬁliated with the test publisher.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons.90. 2003). as well as the fact that the four branch scores displayed high levels of intercorrelation (r ¼ 0. 2000). (2) identify possible emotional reactions. 2003).81) to create one overall measure of EI. Conscientiousness We measured conscientiousness using ﬁve items (a ¼ 0. temperature. As a result.0.
Emotional intelligence The MSCEIT# V2. Item scores were assigned based on the percentage of respondents in the normative sample (N ¼ 5000. rated on a ﬁve-point Likert scale. scored as the number of correct responses. as indicated by the results of factor analysis (described below). we averaged the eight task scores (a ¼ 0. Task scores obtained using the general consensus method have been found to correlate with scores provided by a panel of 21 experts rating emotional meaning of stimuli (r ¼ 0. and lighting characteristics (sensations task). RODE ET AL.70 or greater between expert and consensus scoring methods on scenario-based tasks similar to those utilized in the MSCEIT# V2. Finally. (2000). Dodrill & Warner. C. given speciﬁc interpersonal relationship objectives (emotional relations task).85 to 0.80) from Goldberg’s (1999) Big Five inventory. Caruso.0 consisted of 141 items divided into eight sections. ranging from ‘very inaccurate’ (1) to ‘very accurate’ (5). 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. The data supported the usage of one overall measure of EI. A third section required the respondent to select the relative effectiveness of various emotions in facilitating certain behaviors in hypothetical situations (facilitation task). J. and (4) rate the usefulness of several actions.62 to . a 12-minute timed test consisting of 50 items. It is correlated (range ¼ 0. 28. Four other sections provided scenarios in which respondents were asked to: (1) compare the emotion being felt by a character in a scenario to colors.69 to 0. utilized a general consensus method to calculate item and task scores. The Goldberg items have been validated against the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae. Ltd. & Sitarenios.406
J. indicating the validity of the general consensus scoring method. 1981. Two sections required the respondent to indicate the degree to which several emotions were present in either a series of color photographs representing faces (faces task) or pictures of other objects such as landscapes or abstract pieces of art (pictures task). or tasks. Behav. Task scores were calculated as the mean of the item scores within the task and then rescaled as a deviation from the mean of the normative sample. MacCann et al. 1985).98. weighted to mirror the demographic characteristics within the United States) who selected the same answer as the respondent. Mayer. 1983) and validity (McKelvie. Organiz. based upon a series of ﬁve multiple-choice answers. Respondents were asked to rate how well the behavioral statements described them. Mayer et al. (3) evaluate the effectiveness of a character’s response with respect to managing speciﬁc emotions (emotional management task).. Multi-Health Systems.
neuroticism. Lopes..12). The items from the remaining measures each loaded onto a single factor. we controlled for country of citizenship. to EI).EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
We also included measures of the other Big Five personality dimensions (i. Palmer. Gender was coded as ‘0’ for males and ‘1’ for females.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. Gignac. Finally.30 on any of the factors. and intellectual curiosity) using scales from Goldberg’s (1999) Big Five inventory. we centered the applicable variables before creating the interaction terms. and the interaction term for conscientiousness and general mental ability in Step 1. Behav.. as a proxy of spoken and written English skills. the results supported the discriminant validity of the measures.e.19 to 0.. EI was correlated with all three-performance criteria: group behavior effectiveness (r ¼ 0. which did not display loadings greater than 0. agreeableness. & Straus. the analysis resulted in a seven-factor solution with minimal cross loadings. & Stough. 2002). EI in Step 2. 2004. the Big Five (personality). and GPA (r ¼ 0..15. Following the recommendation of Cronbach (1987).01). J.
We tested our hypotheses by performing three hierarchical multiple regressions with group behavior effectiveness. Overall. extraversion. p < 0.’ and all other respondents as ‘0. In each of these regressions. we entered gender. 1999). 2000.e. and retaining all factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.01). p < 0. Judge et al. The eight EI items loaded onto a single factor. We performed a factor analysis to establish the discriminant validity among the EI. and displayed acceptable internal reliabilities (Table 1). 28. which has been used as a measure of social skill (Witt et al. 2002). Salovey. using common factor analysis with oblique rotation. public speaking effectiveness. so we used a single EI composite measure consisting of the arithmetic mean of the eight task scores in our subsequent analyses. None of the centered interaction terms were correlated highly with the main effects variables (r ¼ À0. citizenship. Organiz. Ltd. general mental ability. As shown in Table 1. as well as for neuroticism and extraversion. Each scale included ﬁve items. We classiﬁed respondents from the United States and from countries outside the United States where English is the ofﬁcial or most widespread spoken language as ‘1. but only gender showed sufﬁcient variance to have any effect in our sample. and interpersonal effectiveness measures.’ We planned to control for gender and age. personality. both of which have been shown to be related to EI (Day & Carroll. we controlled for the interaction term of general mental ability multiplied by conscientiousness to ensure that our interpretation of the EI-conscientiousness interaction was not confounded. to reduce multicollinearity commonly associated with the analysis of moderator effects.17. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10.
We list descriptive statistics and intercorrelations in Table 2. 2003) and performance (Hurtz & Donovan. which may have affected scores on the assessment center tasks for some students. except for the speech rating score. public speaking effectiveness (r ¼ 0. Finally. since general mental ability represents an alternate ability (i.0.16.. p < 0. both of which have been shown to be related to EI (Mayer et al. and the interaction of conscientiousness and EI in Step 3. These results were consistent with previous analyses that have found evidence of an overall EI factor (Mayer et al. Manocha. 2005).. 2002.01). We were particularly interested in controlling for agreeableness. and GPA as the respective dependent variables.1002/job
02 0.07 11.04 À0.41 À0.01 0.11 0.14 S0.01 À0.04 0.47 0.01 0.02 0.04 À0.00 0.07 À0.02 À0.01 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.00 À0. Bold indicates factor loadings greater than 0.64 0.04 0. Rotation method ¼ oblique.09 À0.02 0.08 À0.05 À0.01 À0.04 À0.08 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.59 S0.76 0.10 0.57 0.10 0.00 À0.06 0.02 0.72 0.73 0.13 2. Organiz.02 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.01 À0.00 À0.06 0.09 0.45% À0.59 0.73 0.07 0.09 À0.16 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.05 À0.33 14.09 À0.22 À0.04 À0.03 À0.11 À0.09 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.01 À0.05 0.07 À0.21 À0.69 0.05 0.59 À0.04 0.02 0.12 0.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons.06 0. C.01 À0.05 À0.01 À0.61 0.23 À0.76% 2.05 0.99 5.05 À0.03 0.08 0.72 0.05 0.01 0.03 À0.35 0.23% 2.02 0.49 À0.10 À0.05 À0. personality and interpersonal effectiveness measures
408 Extraversion 0.27 4.58 0.12 À0.11 0.14 0.09 À0.98% 2.04 0.16 0.04 À0.04 À0.03 À0.30% 1.10 À0.15 0. Ltd.08 À0.47 0.14 À0.21 0.13 À0.05 À0.02 0.02 0.72 0.10 0.30 0.15 À0.01 À0.12 À0.08 À0.76 0.59 0.07 0.03 0.56 0.00 0.01 À0.04 À0.11 À0.15 À0.06 0.00 0.78 0.05 0.02 À0. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10.17 4.03 0.04 0.09 À0.17 À0.05 À0.16 0.66 0.06 À0.09 À0.10 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.74 6.01 À0. Results of common factor analysis examining discriminant validity among emotional intelligence.59 0.10 À0.07 0.
.09 À0.01 À0.05 0.08 À0.03 À0.1002/job
Eigenvalue of rotated factor Unique variance explained
Note: Extraction method ¼ principal axis factoring.01 À0.07 À0.04 0.04 0.06 0.71 0.17 À0.00 À0.07 0.06 0.02 À0.09 0.12 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.01 À0.40% Emotional intelligence Emotional stability Conscientiousness Agreeableness Group behavior effectiveness Openness to experience
J.10 À0.11 À0.24 0.10 0.06 À0.74 S0.05 À0.02% 3.00 0. 28.13 0.01 0.68 0.01 À0.02 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.01 À0.63 0.
Talk to a lot of people at parties Life of the party Comfortable around people Center of attention Start conversations Emotional management task Emotional relations task Facilitation task Changes task Blends task Sensation task Faces task Pictures task Get upset easily (rev) Stressed out easily (rev) Frequent mood swings (rev) Relaxed most of the time Worry about things (rev) Always prepared Follow a schedule Pay attention to details Am exacting in my work Get chores done right away Insult people (rev) Interested in people Feel emotions of others Take time out for others Little concern for others Group discussion 1 rating score Group discussion 2 rating score Have rich vocabulary Have excellent ideas Different understanding of abstract ideas (rev) Quick to understand things Spend time reﬂecting on things Speech rating score
J.09 À0. RODE ET AL.02 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.96 8. Behav.55 0.19 À0.Table 1.09 0.00 0.05 À0.02 À0.07 0.03 0.07 0.04 À0.04 À0.10 3.06 0.07 0.04 À0.74 S0.02 0.02 0.04 0.80 S0.09 0.05 À0.11 À0.73 0.20 0.01 0.11 À0.00 0.04 0.30.03 À0.04 0.07 À0.55 0.38 0.14 0.03 À0.01 0.13 0.01 À0.04 0.
Means.16 0.02 0.25ÃÃ 0.90 0.44 4.26ÃÃ À0.17ÃÃ Agreeableness 3.Table 2.41ÃÃ 0.00 1.01.08 0.1002/job
Note: Cronbach’s alphas listed on diagonal.52 0.00 0.04 0. standard deviations.89) Emotional stability 3. (0.05 À0.88 0.17 0.14ÃÃ 0.02 À0.00 (0.36ÃÃ 0.60 À0.81) À0.25ÃÃ Extraversion 3.14ÃÃ À0. 28.43 0.06 À0.21ÃÃ Gender (female %) 0. Behav.93 13.29ÃÃ (0.07 À0.09 0.03 0.19ÃÃ 0.20ÃÃ Conscientiousness 3.70) À0.80 0.16ÃÃ 0.08 0.14ÃÃ Public speaking effectiveness 0.11Ã 0.74 0.02 0.84 À0.00 0.04 0.47 0.01 À0.08 0.78) 0.66 0.14ÃÃ 0.18ÃÃ 0.14ÃÃ À0.11Ã ÃÃ Ã Group behavior effectiveness 0.93 0.03 0.00 1.12Ã 0.45 0.04 0.44ÃÃ
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
J.09 0. cronbach’s alphas.23ÃÃ 0.11Ã À0.05 0.04 (0. where applicable.16ÃÃ 0.11Ã Intellectual curiosity 3.06 À0.08 0.04 0. Ã p < 0.05.
. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10.00 0. Ltd.46 0.81) General mental ability 25.15ÃÃ 0.10 0.79) 0.21 0.04 À0.09 À0.08 À0.13Ã GPA 3. and intercorrelations among variables (N ¼ 378) Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. ÃÃ p < 0.39 0.11Ã 0.04
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Emotional intelligence 92.35ÃÃ (0.10
0.13 0.99 (0.12Ã Citizenship (English-speaking %) 0. Organiz. in parentheses.15ÃÃ 0.09 0.19ÃÃ 0.
0 and À1. respectively.01). providing partial support for Hypothesis 1. However. J. Interaction terms for EI and conscientiousness were signiﬁcantly related to all outcome variables: group behavior effectiveness (b ¼ 0. we found support for both Hypotheses 3 and 4. unique incremental variance in only one of our performance measures. pathos or the ability to arouse emotions in listeners.g. Thus.01). p < 0. but not to group behavior effectiveness.05. & Ones. RODE ET AL.01.1002/job
. and GPA (b ¼ 0.
Of the three criterion measures. several factors may have mitigated the relationship between EI and group behavior effectiveness and general academic performance. Second. high EI) under these extreme conditions were presumably more effective at both creating and delivering well organized and supportive content. In the present study. speech making is an inherently emotive exercise. we found that EI explained direct. Hezlett. In contrast. public speaking creates particularly high levels of stress and anxiety for many people. Behav. First. although general academic performance is punctuated by events that are acutely stressful (e. responsibility for the process and the outcome of the group discussion tasks was shared collectively by multiple participants. 1991. not only was the linkage between EI and speech more direct by nature. Ltd. Similarly. No one person was singularly in control of either the content or the timing of the discussion. DR2 ¼ 0. this effect may have been even more pronounced as the participants were under strict time constraints and performed their speeches in front of a camera that served as a constant reminder that their performance would be replayed and rated by experts in communication. and GPA). nor was one individual ever the sole focus of the video camera. exams). The plots were consistent with our expectation that the EI-performance relationships would be stronger at high levels of motivation (i.e.0 standard deviations from the mean. DR2 ¼ 0. C. Participants who could calm their nerves and focus their mental energies (i.05. contrary to our prediction in Hypothesis 2. EI was signiﬁcantly related to public speaking effectiveness (b ¼ 0. First..
Overall. public speaking effectiveness (b ¼ 0. We would further note that academic performance is strongly related to general mental ability (Kuncel. Walker. Organiz.410
J. conscientiousness) than at low levels.19. Participants higher in EI were presumably more effective at incorporating appropriate levels of emotion into their speeches and consequently scored better on this task.
Results of the hierarchical multiple regressions are shown in Table 3. p < 0. To identify the form of the interaction effects. p < 0. 1991) of the three signiﬁcant interaction terms (Figures 1–3).. DR2 ¼ 0.16. Thus.14. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. 2004) and likely had the least emotive content of all of our performance measures.e. EI was not signiﬁcantly associated with GPA. DR2 ¼ 0. 2005).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. public speaking effectiveness. Aiken & West.02). the interaction of EI and conscientiousness was signiﬁcantly and consistently related to all three dependent variables (group behavior effectiveness. p < 0. than those with low EI.. this intensity is not maintained for the entire duration over which GPA is measured. is one of the three fundamental elements of persuasion (Aristotle.12. Presumably this resulted in less stress for the individual. interpersonal effectiveness as indicated by our measure of public speaking effectiveness. 28. but it was made even more salient by the way in which the speech task was constructed. we plotted the explanation of performance at high and low levels (1.03).01. public speaking effectiveness may be the one most overtly linked to the management and expression of emotion for two reasons.
19ÃÃ 0.03 0.Table 3.01 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.09 À0.09 0. Organiz. ÃÃ p < 0.03 0.05 0.16ÃÃ 0. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. 28.01Ã 0.14Ã 0.08 À0.01ÃÃ
Step 1 Gender (female) Citizenship (English-speaking) Emotional stability Extraversion Agreeableness Intellectual curiosity Conscientiousness General mental ability (GMA) GMA Â conscientiousness Step 2 Emotional intelligence (EI) Step 3 EI Â conscientiousness
9.04 0.02 À0.00 0.19ÃÃ 0.01 0. R2 is adjusted.10 0.06 0.09 À0. Behav.07 0.04ÃÃ 0.10 0. Ltd.01 0.03 0.05 0.01 À0.21 0.03ÃÃ 4.
.02 0. 0.07 0.1002/job
Note: Standardized regression coefﬁcients are from the full model. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis of performance measures (N ¼ 378) Group behavior effectiveness b R2 F F R2 DR2 b DR2 b Public speaking effectiveness Academic performance R2 DR2 F
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons.07 0.02ÃÃ 3.01.20 0.09 0.51ÃÃ
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
J.14ÃÃ 0.06 0.12Ã 0.00 À0. Ã p < 0.04 À0.39ÃÃ À0.07ÃÃ 0.09 À0.08 0.05.13Ã 0.
J. 28. the type of performance does matter. Ltd. J. Behav. Note: Upper and lower lines represent 95% conﬁdence intervals Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. Interaction of emotional intelligence and conscientiousness as a predictor of group behavior effectiveness. Interaction of emotional intelligence and conscientiousness as a predictor of public speaking effectiveness. we might well have concluded (prematurely) that EI is signiﬁcantly related to performance only in contexts with explicitly strong emotive content. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10.
High Conscientiousness 3
Group Behavior Effectivness
2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -1 SD Emotional Intelligence +1 SD
Figure 1. Organiz. The failure of prior studies to consistently control for both general mental ability and personality may have confounded this
High Conscientiousness Low Conscientiousness 3
Public Speaking Effectivness
2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -1 SD +1 SD Emotional Intelligence
Figure 2. RODE ET AL. In other words. Note: Upper and lower lines represent 95% conﬁdence intervals
Based on the results from our direct hypothesis tests only.1002/job
and engaging in. overall academic performance required the ongoing use of effective coping strategies under both structured and unstructured conditions. Namely. Academic success over the long term also includes a much wider array of performance contexts as students must create and maintain effective relationships with multiple professors. in spite of all these potentially confounding factors. academic performance requires a mix of both forms of interpersonal effectiveness. and time management. Thus. the same basic relationship was observed..
Assuming our results are replicable in the workplace. GPA was based on performance over a much longer time frame (2–3 years) than the few hours spent preparing for. in addition to the traditional list of desired candidate characteristics.g. The ﬁnding that the interaction between EI and conscientiousness was signiﬁcantly related to GPA is especially notable for at least two reasons. Indeed. leading researchers to overestimate the relative importance of EI with respect to individual performance.). 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10.
Such an interpretation cannot. 2004). Ltd. Organiz. and make daily decisions about personal goals. and other associated skills...1002/job
. navigate a variety of different team tasks and settings. whereas group behavior effectiveness required a broader range of interpersonal behaviors. The consistency of the results from our moderator analyses is notable. J. especially when considering the distinct nature of the three dependent variables. Law et al. Indeed. meanwhile. which relies heavily on reading comprehension. while EI alone does not appear to be strongly and directly related to individual performance. Bar-On.g. our study has some interesting implications for managers engaged in selecting. may be enhanced through careful analysis and development of the characteristic(s) they lack most. Yet. however. etc. Yet EI proved to be important in all three settings. Behav. while GPA is as real as performance can get for most college students. Second.g. may serve to increase the overall level of employee performance within the organization. The performance of existing employees. direct results tended to omit one or both of these important control variables (e. our results also suggested that motivation in the relative absence of EI could potentially have a negative effect on performance (e. Several theorists have argued that EI may be
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. training. adapt to differing classroom policies and performance expectations. 2000. as well as the facilitation of interpersonal interactions across a wide variety of contexts and situations. First. explain why we found evidence of a signiﬁcant and positive indirect relationship (1–3% incremental variance explained) between EI and individual performance (as moderated by conscientiousness) across all three performance contexts. priorities. memory. but is also heavily reliant on solitary activities (e. Public speaking effectiveness primarily involved one-way communication.. studying. above and beyond the effects of cognitive ability. 28. GPA represents a more conservative test of our hypotheses than the interpersonal effectiveness measures. The interpersonal effectiveness measures took place in a simulated and therefore constrained environment. Intriguingly. few performance measures are as objective and as explicitly dependent on general mental ability as academic performance. Our ﬁnding that EI in concert with conscientiousness explained additional unique variance in GPA. is therefore all the more striking. screening for the presence of both EI and conscientiousness. assessment center activities. and evaluating employees. prior studies with the most positive. taking exams. in cases where students had high levels of motivation. the highly motivated student who does not have the ability to deal effectively with the stress of academic work).EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
in certain instances. if performance gains are to be achieved. that programs aimed at increasing EI and motivation are not simply alternative pathways to the same end goal.6 3. Utilizing a sample of undergraduate business students provided us with a relatively homogeneous setting in which to test our proposed relationships but at the potential cost of external generalizability. J. be subjected to further empirical veriﬁcation.2 3 2. C.
Our ﬁndings should. Placing an employee with low EI into a highly motivating work environment could potentially elicit a host of undesirable behaviors. Additional studies are needed to examine whether our ﬁndings hold in the work context as well. and organizational culture change. including manipulation.4 -1 SD +1 SD Emotional Intelligence
Figure 3. of course. and/or withdrawal as a way to cope with increased stress and anxiety. The literature is likewise replete with recommendations for increasing workplace motivation. but have inferred them based on theoretical arguments and the results of our interaction analyses. our results imply that incentive systems designed to increase motivation in the absence of requisite emotional skills may. our criterion measures were of general academic performance and interpersonal effectiveness in a simulated work environment and not job performance or ratings of interpersonal effectiveness in the workplace.6 2. More research regarding this intriguing possibility is required. Organiz.4 GPA 3. Behav. Ashkanasy and Daus (2002) describe a number of methods that may increase EI. Future research is needed to determine whether our results will hold up in other samples. Rather. behavior modeling by key managers. Conversely. Ltd. It may be that EI is even more pertinent to job performance in today’s workplace.8 3. RODE ET AL. For example.414
J. including training interventions.
High Conscientiousness Low Conscientiousness 3. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. Our study suggests. we caution that we did not directly measure the potential negative effects of low EI and high motivation on performance. actually decrease performance. we found that high levels of both EI and motivation are necessary. Interaction of emotional intelligence and conscientiousness as a predictor of academic performance (GPA). which requires employees to
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. 28. Related to this. Note: Upper and lower lines represent 95% conﬁdence intervals
.8 2. Nevertheless. aggression. however.
1998.. in a study that utilized a well-supported measure of EI. may therefore yield greater insight into the predictive validity of this potentially important construct. our study makes several important contributions to the growing body of knowledge surrounding EI. J. His research interests include relationships between work and nonwork domains. we would have missed the intriguing and consistent role played by EI when it is accompanied by correspondingly high levels of motivation. our analyses of academic performance did not employ longitudinal data.0. the relationship between EI and various outcome criteria may not be adequately captured by models focusing solely on direct effects. Behav. Finally. & Matthews. Future studies that incorporate more complex models.
Joseph C. However. 1998).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. Farmer School of Business at Miami (OH) University. Most importantly. Organiz. such as the moderated analyses in the present study. a behavioral measure of EI developed and extensively validated by Mayer et al.
Despite these limitations. In sum. Such studies should pay careful attention to the evolving debate as to how best to measure EI. Ltd. Had we not considered multiplicative as well as additive effects. The authors also appreciate the thoughtful comments we received from the editor and three anonymous reviewers. methodological questions remain concerning the behavioral approach. Roberts. We expanded previous research by incorporating known predictors of performance.EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
deal with increasing levels of ambiguity and stress and is also becoming more dependent on multidisciplinary teams (e. including a broader range of outcome criteria. (2002) after a decade of research. Pfeffer. so we cannot make any deﬁnitive causal statements with respect to this criterion. and explicitly testing for boundary conditions.g. and David Caruso for permission to use their scale for data collection. We used the MSCEIT# V2.
The authors thank John Mayer. our results provide stronger evidence that EI explains additional. Rode is an assistant professor of management in the Richard T. Hogan & Shelton. This research was supported by the Coleman Chair and the Subhedar Chair Research Funds. particularly with respect to the consensus scoring procedure (e. our ﬁndings indicate that the relationship between EI and individual performance is more complex than previously thought. He received his PhD in organizational behavior from Indiana University. 2001). and the inﬂuence of attitudes and emotions on employee performance and behavior. and will require continued monitoring.1002/job
. Accordingly. Zeidner. Peter Salovey. 28. although we did use longitudinal data in our analyses of interpersonal effectiveness.. unique variance in theoretically related criteria than has previously been available.g.
MA: Harvard University Press. social and emotional individual differences and management pedagogy. RODE ET AL. Bommer is an associate professor in the management and labor relations department at Cleveland State University’s Nance College of Business. 49–96). M. Baldwin is a professor of management at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. Andersen.
Aiken. leadership development. 44.). K. (2003). & J.. corporate governance. He holds a PhD in human resource management from Michigan State University. and corporate social responsibility. Her research interests are executive succession. and (b) the relationship between work and nonwork domains of life. corporate governance.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. Barchard. P. Ashkanasy. W.and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 76–86.). & Daus. 840–859. 28. She received her PhD from Indiana University. K. Academy of Management Executive. Bar-On. J. & West. (1998). organizational citizenship. Journal of Management. L. Timothy T. His research interests include management education and employee training and development. CA: Academic Press. inside directors. Rubin is an assistant professor in the management department at DePaul University’s Kellstadt Graduate School of Business. He has published his research in journals including Academy ofManagement Journal. M. William H. Behav. 1–26. S. K. The big ﬁve personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. 16. Aristotle (1991).. C. CA: Jossey-Bass. & Mount. (1993). S. Boston. The art of rhetoric with English translation by John Henry Freese. R. A. Robert S. His current research interests include transformational/ transactional leadership.416
J. A. & Guerrero. Arthaud-Day is an assistant professor of management at Kansas State University. Andersen. leader cynicism. Her research interests include the role played by values and attitudes in strategic decision-making. He received his PhD in organizational psychology from Saint Louis University. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional quotient inventory. San Francisco. Personnel Psychology and Academy of Management Executive. Barrick. Bar-On. Organiz. Personnel Psychology. Her research concerns (a) predictors and outcomes of whistle blowing in organizations. In R. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. Guerrero (Eds. G. San Diego. N. focusing on predictors and outcomes of job and life satisfaction. Chapter 1. 368–388). CA: Jossey-Bass. Handbook of communication and emotion (pp. (2000).
Christine H. (2002). His primary research interests include transformational/transactional leadership. A. Parker (Eds. corporate wrongdoing. Mooney is a visiting scholar at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. Journal of Applied Psychology.. C. The handbook of emotional intelligence (1st ed. He has published his research work in Academy of Management Journal. In P. Janet P. & L. Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic success? Educational & Psychological Measurement. M. and research methods. Newbury Park. What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. L. 63. (1991). Marne L. Personnel Psychology. San Francisco. Near holds the Coleman Chair of Management in the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. where she received her PhD in Strategic Management. Principles of communication and emotion in social interaction. (1991). pp. Astin. D. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. A.. He received his PhD in organizational behavior from Indiana University. Book 1. Ltd. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. CA: Sage. S.1002/job
(2004). B. M. A. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Personality psychology of Europe (Vol. & Judge.. 14. P. J. 52. P. K. (2004). R. (1999). public domain. (1986). Whitener. Human Performance. & Ashbrook. general mental ability.. reticence and communication apprehension.. Brackett. P. 797–807. P. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. H. Ostendorf (Eds. M. Journal of Management. P. 1387–1402.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. K. Day. (1981). San Diego. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin... The Academy of Management Review. A. Stress and job performance. M. & F. & Trost. 29.
J. L. Guerrero. (1948). R. (2003).. Psychological Bulletin. C. NY: Bantam Books. M. 10. Personnel Psychology.EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
Barrick. (1995).. Goleman. Boston. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Digman. & Hartel. J. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Hogan. Resource allocation model of the effects of depressed mood. Davies. Dodrill. M.. 27. Beverly Hills. R. Benne. & Shelton. 28.. Academy of Management Review. Long term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Emotional intelligence. In I.. A. Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to predict individual performance. Personality and Individual Differences. R. 25–43).. In P. M. B. (1987). J. Thousand Oaks. Daly. (2004). & Pauli. Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. C. Strategies in rater training.). & Ilies. MA: Allyn & Bacon. J. M.. A. E. 1443–1458. & Inouye. (1983). J. (1981). Dodrill. J. T. 9. J. group performance. & L. & Roberts. J. (1998).. CA: Sage. J. (1993). Hollenbeck. & Warner.. A.. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. T. P. Judge. Journal of Applied Psychology. the bad and the ugly. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 316–317. E. and career success across the life span. Heider. CA: Sage. L. 85. pp. C. 36.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Organiz. A. Bernardin. Costa. Jex. 414–417. Fiedler. 11. 4. 48. & Carroll. Ltd. C. & J. 50. B. M. Cronbach. & McCrae. M. M. Personality and Individual Differences. A. cognition and social behavior (pp.). Behav. Forgas (Eds). F. Further studies of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief measure of intelligence. & Buckley. 4. The FFM personality dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses. 36. L. A. W. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis. C. and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Feyerherm. Affect. A. An economical method for the evaluation of general intelligence in adults. Handbook of communication and emotion (pp. discriminant. R. Mount. L. L. J. D. A. 343–362. L. CA: Academic Press. 116–123. & Mayer. A. Andersen.J. (2002). (1999). Communication and emotion: Basic concepts and approaches. (2004). D. & Troth. & Rice. M. Journal of Social Issues. Avoiding communication: Shyness. 989–1015. & McCroskey. (2002). DeVito. C. 41–49.. personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several ﬁve-factor models. J. Functional roles of group members. R. Judge. Convergent.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. Odessa. 75.. (2001). Mayer. New York. & Barrick. 26–34. 7–28). T. 869–879. (1984). J. 102. (1985). Human Performance. Hurtz. D. 668–673. L. F. M. H. J. H. The NEO personality inventory manual. Toronto. Personality and job performance: The ‘‘Big 5" revisited. J. Emotional intelligence and team performance: The good... De Fruyt. R. Further speciﬁcation of ﬁve robust factors of personality. & Warner. (1998). The interpersonal communication book (10th ed. Canada: C. Goldberg. E. A. American Psychologist. 9–30. 7. 316–372. S. Stankov. C. Ellis. T. Brief. J. Jordan. A broad-bandwidth. Dodrill. (1998). 205–212. M. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 621–652. Higgins. R. (1988). M.. R. 3–27)... 87. (1988). (2002). D.. S. Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. R. (1958). Thoresen.).. N.. The ‘‘Big 5" personality traits. (2000). & Sheats. 17. Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaw in analysis recently proposed. R. 56. 441–451. Brackett. Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conﬂict resolution. Mervielde. Dreary. A. In K. Emotional intelligence and its expression in everyday behavior.. 51. Ashkanasy.. 145–147. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. An empirical note on the interaction of personality and aptitude in personnel selection. (1998). K. Goldberg. 6. G. & Donovan.1002/job
. 195–218. D. Jordan. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. NY: Wiley. D. A. and group citizenship behaviors. 1147–1158. Tilburg. Andersen. 129–144.. C. K. Guerrero (Eds. New York. A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. C. (1988). I.
1893–1902... K. R. (1993). W. J. Management communication: A case-analysis approach (2nd ed.. 15. Personality and Individual Differences.418
J. Boston. 161–162.. J. Background and current trends in the study of interpersonal communication. Petrides. 277–293. (2003).. Nezlek. A. L. 89. J.. & Zeidner... M. (2002). ﬁndings. M. (1997). Emotion. Sellin. Mayer. A. G.0.. D.). V. 1297–1349). 65. Barrick. & Salovey. Ltd. Thousand Oaks. N. & Furnham.). personality and the perceived quality of social relationships. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 25.. A. In R. Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. (2004). C.. The Wonderlic Personnel Test: Reliability and validity in an academic setting. A. creativity. 641–658. (pp. M. N. Salovey. (2004). (1984). 645–662. B. (1993). O’Reilly.. McKelvie. 153–200. MacCann. Palmer. S. What is emotional intelligence? In P. S. D. (1994). (2000). Law. 285–305. 3–20). S. Sluyter (Eds. R. (2004).. P. 86. Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed. Personality and Individual Differences. The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. J. R. H. R. L. (2003). CA: Sage... H. D. J. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User’s manual.. (1976). J. UK: Cambridge University Press.. 36. I. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). 27. P. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEI V2. J. Review and conceptual analysis of employee turnover process. Behav. A psychometric evaluation of the MayerSalovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2. 603–627. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. S. Cambridge. Salovey. 86. (1999). & Salovey. Working smarter and harder: A longitudinal study of managerial success.. R. R. Mayer.. A.. Kuncel. Intelligence. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. O’Connor. C. R. (1995). A. Personality and Individual Differences. D. S. & Caruso.
J. N. D. ON: Multi-Health Systems. & Stough. Grifﬁth. (1989). 9–28. (2001). C. & G. Lazarus.0. Matthews. Models of emotional intelligence.. Mayer. Caruso. & Meglino. R. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. & Sitarenios. M. (2003). J. MA: Houghton-Mifﬂin. Personality and Individual Differences. Salovey.. Intelligence. Manocha. (pp. P. The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. P. (1991). S. 86. RODE ET AL. S. P.. NY: Springer. & D. 493–522. Mayer.. 197–215. D. P. Hezlett. Schutz. Mobley. 1018–1034. L. Dunnette (Ed. I. Organiz. 36. P. Locke. 39. & Little. Maier. Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Motivation & Emotion. Sternberg (Ed. E. pp. D. C. A. D. Gignac. O’Rourke.
Knapp. Mayer. R. Salovey. Wong. S. H. & Caruso.. and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. L. W. Miller (Eds.). M. Miller. H. Salovey. 396–420). New York. (2004). G. Personality and Individual Differences. Moon. & Straus. Academic performance. 13. K. Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Day. D. & Folkman... 97–105.. D.. In M. G. K.. Roberts. Administrative Science Quarterly. G.. Upper Saddle River. Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence (EI) tests. Hand. (2003). Newsome. Lopes. Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Brackett. (1999). & Song.1002/job
. 28. Lopes. Goal theory vs. Salovey. & Barrick. Stress appraisal and coping. D.. Toronto. (1958). M. 533–540. Knapp. J. V. & Catano. (2000). 433–442. C. J. S. Psychological Inquiry. 707–721. & Chatman.. The joint relationship of conscientiousness and ability with performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 29. E.). Mount. K. B. D. P. 15. P. Handbook of intelligence. (2005). 33. N. A. R.. & Ones. and implications. NY: Basic Books. M. 30. D. Locke. (1979). 3.. 148– 161. Psychological Reports. & Fudge. IL: Rand-McNally. Emotional intelligence. Journal of Management.). (2004). N. & Caruso. The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. The intelligence of emotional intelligence.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons... A. P. & Salovey. & Strauss. In M. 1005–1116. J. (2004).. Mayer. New York. Journal of Applied Psychology.. R. P. 35. Intelligence. Chicago. 35. R.. J. control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work motivation... M. & Salovey. D. 267–298. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. Mayer. L. 483–496.. Emotional intelligence: Theory. career potential. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Frederickson. R. Mount. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin... R. Caruso. Psychology in industry. 17. P. M.
21. 71–84. A. & Schakel. Mayer. Roberts. Emotion. (2005). M. McMahan. WPT. 103–125. We weighted behaviors to reﬂect relative importance to overall task effectiveness (e. 39. E. (2002). 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10.. Walker. K.. p ¼ f (M Â A): Cognitive ability as a moderator of the relationship between personality and job performance. J. (2000). J.. M.. Thijs. In C.
Appendix: Behaviors included in performance ratings of speech and group discussion tasks
Procedure: Participants were rated on the extent to which they displayed the following behaviors. (1998).
Communication delivery 1. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology and practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research ﬁndings. & Hunter. We aggregated and standardized scores for the speech and each leaderless group discussion separately. Van Der Zee.. Witt. Social skill as a moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. W. R.. R. The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. 159–171). S. M. Uses appropriate nonverbals 4. 1. E. R. College Student Journal. (2002). Behav. Cambridge. Ltd. Salovey. & Earles. A.. IL: Wonderlic. Murray. (1990). Uses appropriate grammar 3. Kacmar. Trapnell. (1992). P. Handbook of positive psychology (pp. The wonderlic personnel test.). 28. 124.1002/job
. Lopes (Eds. B. Journal of Management. D. 164–169.. R. Psychological Bulletin. J. F. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The positive psychology of emotional intelligence. IL: Scott. S. Journal of Applied Psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science. & Ellingson. 809–820. M. G.. Burke. staying under the time limit was relatively less important than stating the purpose in the speech). Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Work motivation: Theory. C. P. R. 277–286. & Matthews. D. & Mount. M. L. 59. 545–556. 83.. P. Current Directions in Psychological Science. Inc. (1992). G. P. & S... & Deleeuw.. Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. L. An examination of the effects of using behavioral checklists on the construct validity of assessment center dimensions. 1. (1998). Journal of Applied Psychology. Ree. (2002). The rhetoric of mock trial debate: Using logos. & Ferris. European Journal of Personality. Personnel Psychology. L. L.. Schmidt. (1990). E. We then averaged the two standardized leaderless group discussion scores to create the overall score used in the analyses. The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence and the ‘‘Big 5". J. Speaks clearly 2. G. 15. pathos and ethos in undergraduate competition. L. J. 1. Wright. Sackett. MA: Harvard Business School Press. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. issues and applications. Libertyville. 780–790. (1998).. Each behavior incorporated precisely deﬁned levels based on speciﬁc behavioral anchors. Zeidner. Glenview. K. 89–92. F. (1984). Snyder. 1129–1139. Gruys. & Caruso. J. England: Oxford University Press.g. & Hunter. The human equation: Building proﬁts by putting people ﬁrst. Causal modeling of processes determining job performance.. (2003). L. 262–274.. 87. Pinder. 196–231. Schmidt. J. 88. K. Reilly. R.. Henry. Oxford. J.. R. L.. Witt. A. F. Organiz. & Smither. 43. L. & Wiggins. A. Does not read speech
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons.. J. (2001).EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
Pfeffer. D. (1995). D. J. 86–89.. Foresman. Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the big ﬁve dimensions of personality. R. J.
Clear closing statement 6. Uses appropriate grammar 4. Monitors time remaining 9. Evaluates consequences of recommendation 6. Uses appropriate pace Planning and organizing 1. Provides multiple sources of information 2. Documents group discussion 8. Talks about assigned market 2. Makes meaningful contribution 6. Checks for common understanding 5.1002/job
J. Refocuses others 7. Speaks conﬁdently 7. C. Identiﬁes next appropriate step 2. Clariﬁes group task
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. Seeks input from others 2. Does not interrupt 4. Speaks enthusiastically 6. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. Considers impact on customers Teamwork 1. Behav. Organiz. Describes strengths and weaknesses of market 4. Identiﬁes strengths and weaknesses of initiative 4. States purpose 4. Develops an outline 5. Speaks clearly 2. Ltd. Speaks enthusiastically Decision-making 1. J. Speaks concisely 3. Uses appropriate nonverbals 5. Makes recommendations 5. Validates others 3. Deﬁnes decision criteria 3. 28. Deﬁnes decision criteria 3.
5. RODE ET AL. Under time limit 3. Asks for questions Decision-making 1. Makes appropriate recommendation 5. Addresses consequences of not following recommendation
Leaderless group discussion–customer service case
Communication delivery 1.
Identiﬁes strengths and weaknesses of candidate 4. Validates others 3. Documents group discussion 8. Deﬁnes decision criteria 3. Clariﬁes group task
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons. Organiz. Speaks concisely 3.EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
Leaderless group discussion–selection case
Communication delivery 1. 28. Seeks input from others 2. Uses appropriate nonverbals 5. Identiﬁes next appropriate step 2. 399–421 (2007) DOI: 10. Makes meaningful contribution 6. handwriting. Distinguishes between relevant and irrelevant criteria (i. Ltd.
J. Behav. Speaks clearly 2. Checks for common understanding 5. intelligence. personal information. personality) Teamwork 1. Refocuses others 7.1002/job
. Speaks enthusiastically Decision-making 1. Uses appropriate grammar 4. Does not interrupt 4.. Monitors time remaining 9.e.