This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ISSN 0214 - 9915 CODEN PSOTEG Copyright © 2006 Psicothema
Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work
Paulo N. Lopes, Daisy Grewal*, Jessica Kadis*, Michelle Gall** and Peter Salovey*
University of Surrey, * Yale University and ** MG Executive Coaching
The relation between emotional intelligence, assessed with a performance measure, and positive workplace outcomes was examined in 44 analysts and clerical employees from the finance department of a Fortune 400 insurance company. Emotionally intelligent individuals received greater merit increases and held higher company rank than their counterparts. They also received better peer and/or supervisor ratings of interpersonal facilitation and stress tolerance than their counterparts. With few exceptions, these associations remained statistically significant after controlling for other predictors, one at a time, including age, gender, education, verbal ability, the Big Five personality traits, and trait affect. Evidencia de que la inteligencia emocional está relacionada con el rendimiento laboral y con el estado de ánimo y las actitudes en el trabajo. La relación entre inteligencia emocional, evaluada con una medida de habilidad, y los resultados positivos en el lugar de trabajo fue examinada en 44 empleados analistas y oficinistas del departamento de finanzas de una compañía de seguros. Los individuos emocionalmente inteligentes recibieron mayores aumentos salariales por sus méritos y ocuparon puestos más altos en la compañía que sus compañeros. Además, en la evaluación realizada por sus iguales y/o por sus supervisores, fueron mejor valorados en facilitación interpersonal y tolerancia al estrés que sus compañeros. Con algunas excepciones, estas asociaciones continuaron siendo significativas tras controlar uno a uno otros predictores, incluidos la edad, el sexo, la educación, la habilidad verbal, los cinco grandes factores de personalidad y el estado de ánimo como rasgo.
Evidence is accumulating that emotional intelligence is associated with important outcomes such as high quality social relationships (Lopes, Brackett, Nezlek, Schütz, Sellin, & Salovey, 2004; Lopes, Salovey, Côté, & Beers, 2005) and represents a distinct theoretical construct (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). There is a paucity of research, however, on emotional intelligence and workplace outcomes. Recent findings suggest that emotionally intelligent persons are better performers than their counterparts (Law, Song, & Wong, 2004; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004), but most of these associations are based on self-report measures of emotional intelligence. Moreover, past research has focused on a limited set of criteria, and little is known about how emotional intelligence is related to outcomes such as salary and affect at work. Numerous authors have theorized that emotional intelligence contributes to people’s capacity to work effectively in teams and manage work stress (e.g., Caruso & Salovey, 2004; Goleman, 1998). Yet, empirical research has lagged behind both media hype and academic interest, and many critics have lamented the lack of solid empirical evidence showing that emotional intelligence is related to positive workplace outcomes (e.g., Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). The goal of the present study was to test theoretical
Correspondence: Paulo Lopes School of Human Sciences University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH (United Kingdom) E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
associations between emotional intelligence and multiple indicators of work performance (including salary, merit increase, and company rank, as well as ratings of interpersonal facilitation, and affect and attitudes at work). The present study was based on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) theory of emotional intelligence, viewed as a set of four interrelated abilities involved in the processing of emotional information. The ability to perceive emotions in oneself and others entails identifying internal cues of emotional experience and emotional information in facial expressions, voice, music, designs, and other stimuli. The ability to use emotions to facilitate thinking entails integrating emotional information with «cold» cognitive processes. The ability to understand emotions entails appreciating emotional dynamics and blends of emotions and how these influence thinking and behavior. The ability to manage emotions entails regulating emotional experience in oneself and in interpersonal situations to attain personal goals and adaptive outcomes. Emotional intelligence and work performance. Emotional intelligence may contribute to work performance (as reflected in salary, salary increase, and company rank) by enabling people to nurture positive relationships at work, work effectively in teams, and build social capital. Work performance often depends on the support, advice, and other resources provided by others (Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001). Emotional intelligence may also contribute to work performance by enabling people to regulate their emotions so as to cope effectively with stress, perform well under pressure, and adjust to organizational change.
positive interaction. and helping to coordinate social encounters (Keltner & Haidt. and cope with stress (Mayer & Salovey. Hypotheses In light of previous theory and research. Despite important exceptions (Parrott. We assured participants that all responses were confidential and that no one at their company would have access to individualized data. In the present study. negative interaction.500 (M= $40. Emotional intelligence. percent merit increase. 86% were female. position in the organization.4). affect. Participants indicated their age. Mayer. respondents identify the emotions in photographs of faces and in designs and landscapes. & Rapson. 93% were white/Caucasian.24 for the first question. and questionnaires about oneself and co-workers. The MSCEIT can be scored using both expert and consensus norms. We obtained data on salary. We administered the Mayer-SaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT V2. female= 1). Sixty-eight percent had a college degree or higher. Measures Demographics. marital status. respondents describe emotions with non-emotional vocabulary and indicate the feelings that might facilitate or interfere with the successful performance of various cognitive and behavioral tasks.192).390 to $62. Emotional intelligence. Therefore emotional intelligence should contribute to positive affect and attitudes at work. Management identified 13 different groups of 5 to 8 people who interacted frequently on the job. 4= college degree. 2003). and stress tolerance). this person obtains a raw score of . Understanding Emotions is assessed with tasks concerning the manner in which emotions evolve and transition over time and how some feelings are produced by blends of emotions. 2001). 2002). The MSCEIT assumes that people must have knowledge about emotional processes to exhibit emotionally intelligent behavior. The ability to manage emotions can help people nurture positive affect. (2005) and Mayer. The average tenure of the participants at the company was 10. Procedure We advertised the study as an opportunity to receive feedback about non-technical skills. Salaries for the year 2002 ranged from $16. in part through emotional contagion (Hatfield. such as perceiving and understanding emotions. Other emotional abilities. Leaders were asked to rate all their direct subordinates. 5= master’s degree or higher). avoid being overwhelmed by negative affect. and 4% «other». For example. instructions.000 English-speaking people from various nations. Participants’ ages ranged from 23 to 61 years (M= 40. The ability to use emotions to guide thinking can help one to consider both emotions and technical information when evaluating an interpersonal problem. if someone answers «A» to the first question and 24% of experts also answered «A». Salaries for the year 2002 were transformed by taking the base-10 logarithm to attenuate the characteristic skewness of salary distributions. The ability to manage emotions should help individuals experience and express emotions that contribute to favorable social encounters. education (1= some high school. SD= $11. The sample included 64% junior analysts and 36% clerical/administrative employees.. 2% African-American. we hypothesized that emotional intelligence is related to company indicators of job performance (salary. also contribute indirectly to the quality of emotional experience by helping people to identify and interpret cues that inform self-regulatory action. 1994). average hours worked per week. SD= 15).. gender (male= 0. Participants were asked to rate their peers from these groups. percent merit increase and company rank from company records. For Using Emotion. Cacioppo. Expert scores reflect the agreement between participants’ responses and those of an expert panel of 21 emotion researchers from various nations. conveying information about thoughts and intentions. Scores computed by the test publishers are standardized (M= 100. people are usually motivated to seek pleasant feelings and avoid unpleasant emotions. the ability to decode facial expressions of emotion can help one to evaluate how other people respond to one’s words and actions. and whether English was their native language. Consensus scores reflect the agreement between participants’ responses and those of the normative sample. mood. 1996. 2001). all analyses used expert scores because they are slightly more reliable (Mayer et al. All were native English speakers.3.EVIDENCE THAT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS RELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE AND AFFECT AND ATTITUDES AT WORK 133 Emotional intelligence and interpersonal facilitation.7). Additional information and sample items appear in Lopes et al. The MSCEIT includes eight tasks. Salovey & Caruso. For example. sociability. 3= some college. Emotionrelated abilities should help people choose the best course of action when navigating social encounters. Salovey. and liking) and affect and attitudes at work (job satisfaction. 2= high school diploma. Emotional intelligence may contribute to the quality of people’s relationships at work because emotions serve communicative and social functions. 1993). 2003). participants who belonged to one of the few groups comprising more than six people were asked to rate only five randomly selected colleagues. a consent form. We provided participants with stamped envelopes addressed to the senior investigator. SD= 10. company rank) as well as ratings of interpersonal facilitation (interpersonal sensitivity.5 years (SD= 10. Company indicators of work performance.748. which consists of 5. Company rank was assigned by the company separately for two categories of staff: administrative . Managing Emotions is assessed through a series of scenarios in which people rate the effectiveness of various strategies to regulate their own feelings and the feelings of others in social situations. 16% had some college training and 16% had a high-school diploma only. and attitudes. tenure. 526). yielding important information for adjusting one’s behavior (Nowicki & Duke. contribution to a positive work environment. Scores based on consensus norms correlate highly (r>. Due to time constraints. and a battery of assessments that included measures of emotional intelligence and verbal ability. Interpersonal facilitation pertains to «interpersonally oriented behaviors that contribute to organizational goal accomplishment» (Van Scotter & Motowidlo. All the staff in the financial division were handed an envelope containing a cover letter. We calculated the average percent merit increase for the period 2000 to 2002. To assess Perceiving Emotions.0. Caruso and Sitarenios (2003). Method Participants Participants were 44 analysts and clerical/administrative employees from the finance staff for the Eastern region of a Fortune 400 insurance company.90) with those based on expert norms (Mayer et al. 1997). p.
Court. and supervisor-rated outcomes. 1951). supervisors rated their liking of the participants on two items: «How much do you like this person?» and «How much do you and this person get on each other’s nerves?» on 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) scales. and rank that is of interest. Slopes were «fixed» across groups (i. a scale that contains 10 self-descriptive items for each of the 5 traits anchored at 1 (very inaccurate) and 5 (very accurate). Control variables. we focused on correlations to examine associations between emotional intelligence and salary. Finally. We used a five-item. To alleviate concerns related to common method biases (Podsakoff. A sample item includes: «I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. Peers rated participants’ mood on the items «Is this person often in a good mood?» and «Is this person often in a bad mood?» on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) scale. LOPES. & Tellegen. We thus took into account differences between groups and supervisors in evaluating relationships between emotional intelligence and peer. not modeled as randomly varying) because of group size. 2001). using the program HLM (Raudenbush. in comparison with an unconditional model (Raudenbush & Bryk. Peers answered 10 items (5 for positive and 5 for negative interaction) about their relationship with each member of their group. removing betweengroup variance would amount to discarding much of the variance in salary. merit increase. Groups are assembled for different functional purposes. peer-. Peers and supervisors completed the empathy and social responsibility scales (totaling 11 items) of the Bar-On EQ-360 to measure interpersonal sensitivity. 2003). In contrast.e. Also.» All ratings were provided on five-point scales ranging from «very seldom or not true of this person» to «very often true or true of this person. 2000). merit increase. Participants completed this and all other measures without supervision but were asked not to consult the dictionary or any other sources.» Participants indicated their agreement with each item on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Lee. 1997). and stress tolerance. contribution to a positive work environment. Clark. The Big Five traits of personality were assessed using the 50-item version of the International Personality Item Pool (International Personality Item Pool. We obtained three indicators of participants’ affect and attitudes at work: job satisfaction. but not to salary. Due to time constraints. negative interaction. sociability. A sample item is «This person is sociable. or cluster by group or supervisor. Interpersonal facilitation. depend on. All predictors at level 1 were group-mean centered to separate withinand between-group effects (Raudenbush & Bryk. instrumental aid. peers and supervisors provided ratings of six indicators of participants’ interpersonal facilitation: interpersonal sensitivity. positive interaction. for example. DAISY GREWAL. self-report measure of job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe. using multi-level regression models (Bliese. we used only 49 of the 66 items. Company officials confirmed that our scale reflected increasing prestige. MacKenzie. with ranks 1 to 3 representing administrative positions of increasing responsibility and ranks 4 to 6 representing analyst positions of increasing responsibility. Correlational analyses Inspection of table 1 indicates that overall emotional intelligence was positively and significantly related to percent merit increase and company rank. we used a 20-item version of the Positive and Negative Affect Scales (Watson. & Podsakoff. We estimated effect sizes by calculating the percent reduction in variance at level 1 associated with the predictor. again on 1 (very seldom or not true of this person) to 5 (very often true or true of this person) scales. A sample stress tolerance item is «This person handles stress without getting too tense» and a sample flexibility item is «This person can adjust to new situations as they arise». mood. Results Analytical strategy We used multilevel analyses to examine associations between emotional intelligence and all self-. Cheong. 2002). Peer and supervisor ratings were likely nonindependent because they could be influenced by. and liking. 1994) as an indicator of crystallized. Kenny & LaVoie. Bryk. verbal ability. some groups requiring more analysts and fewer clerical staff than others. & Raven.» Peers and supervisors completed the interpersonal relations scale of the Bar-On EQ-360 to measure sociability. JESSICA KADIS.or supervisor-rated outcomes. Managing Emotions scores correlated significantly with salary and company rank. a sample item was «How much does this person like you?» The items included for negative interaction assessed conflict and antagonism. and possibly merit increase. To measure trait affect.134 PAULO N. MICHELLE GALL AND PETER SALOVEY employees and analysts. . We administered an abridged version of the Mill-Hill vocabulary scale for adults (Raven. For example. Multilevel analyses of intelligence and outcomes relationships between emotional We tested two-level models that included individual-level data at level 1 and coded group membership (for peer-rated outcomes) or supervisor (for supervisor-rated outcomes) at level 2. on 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) scales. 2002). and admiration. 1985). 1988). 2000. The items included for positive interaction assessed liking. a sample item was «How much do you and this person get on each other’s nerves?» Both peers and supervisors rated participants’ contribution to a positive work environment using the item «Does this person contribute to a positive work atmosphere?» on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) scale.» We obtained peer reports on positive interaction and negative interaction using an adapted and abridged version of the Network of Relationships Inventory (Furman & Buhrmester. We reworded some items to adapt them to a workplace setting.. Participants indicated to what extent they had «felt this way during the past year». This measure is comprised of 20 adjectives and uses a 5-point Likert scale anchored at 1 (very slightly or not at all) and 5 (extremely). We coded company rank on a scale from 1 to 6. 1985). We examined relationships between emotional intelligence and outcomes by entering one predictor in each model. Interpersonal sensitivity and sociability were assessed using the Bar-On EQ-360 (Bar-On. & Congdon. Differences in group composition lead to differences in salaries and company rank. There were numerous relationships between the emotional intelligence subscales and outcome variables. excluding 17 of the more difficult items. and company rank. Affect and attitudes at work. In these circumstances. peers and supervisors rated participants’ stress tolerance on the 11 items from the stress tolerance and flexibility scales of the Bar-On EQ-360. A sample item is «This person is sensitive to the feelings of others.
08 .19 .23 .02 0.44** 20 (.32* .15 4. Emotional intelligence understanding emotion 08.30* -.24 -.21 -.19 .02 .44** -.36* 17 (.10 .89 14.17 .01 -. Peer-rated sociability 23.19 -.39* .64 100.10 -. Peer-rated stress tolerance 27.23 .13 -.28 b -. Supervisor-rated positive work environment 32.11 .17 -.84 3. Self-rated job satisfaction 21.21 .25 .05 -.64 3.33* .20 .19 15 (.98 96.17 -.01 .07 -. a Gender was coded as 0= Male.27 b .16 .13 -. Emotional intelligence understanding emotion 08. Education 04.40** .02 . .79 4.04 .23 .11 -.26 b .21 -.07 .66 1.22 .04 .01 .21 -.27 b .06 -.16 -.15 0.35* -.28 b .06 5.03 .12 3.00 -.22 -.22 .14 .28 b .40** .35 0.32* . Supervisor-rated sociability 30.34* -.45** .14 . Supervisor-rated stress tolerance SD 10.17 -.09 -.09 .07 (.84** .18 .17 -.44** .10 .90 3.32* -.24 .11 -.09 .57 5.01 -.03 -.02 -.67** .10 .54** .02 -. Peer-rated negative social interaction 25.59 0.12 -.65** -.12 .25 b .36* .11 .18 3.48 0. Peer-rated positive work environment 26.29 1.01 .03 .19 .70 3.25 -.21 -.06 .03 -.39* .23 .19 .37* .03 -.20 -.18 .20 -.10 .23 .76) . Company rank 20.08 -.04 -.24 -. * p<.05 -.36* .06 .17 .28b -.24 17.18 .13 3.52 0.34* -51** -. Extraversion 12.22 -.08 .04 . Agreeableness 14.18 19 (.96) . Peer-rated positive social interaction 24.60 4.02 .06 .08 .66 0.19 .16 .29 b .19 .37* -. predictors are listed first and criteria second. Age 02.47** -.25 .08 – .43** -.85 0.07 .39* .12 -.26 .08 -.08 0.EVIDENCE THAT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS RELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE AND AFFECT AND ATTITUDES AT WORK Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix M 01.10 -.14 .79) . For the emotional intelligence and verbal ability scales.07 -.57** .00 .01 .17* .24 -.01.32 b .71) .05 .18 -.08 .41 30.43** .01 .04 .17 -.02 (.28 b -.16 . Supervisor-rated interpersonal sensitivity 29. Trait positive affect 16. Verbal ability 10.03 .43 0.13 -.38* .17 -.67 3. Peer-rated interpersonal sensitivity 22.31* .02 -. Trait negative affect 17. Supervisor-rated liking 31. Emotional intelligence total 05.21 . Supervisor-rated interpersonal sensitivity 29.02 -.87 12 1 – -.10 .09 -.28 b . Supervisor-rated positive work environment 32.43** -.01 .14 .05 .12 . Company rank 20. Trait negative affect 17.59 0.93 0.72 0. Conscientiousness 15.08 .32* .32* -.21 21 (.38* .08 .16 .26 .34* .00 . Log salary 18.08 . Education 04.18 -.33 4.22 -.05 -.06 .29 b -.05 . Cronbach alpha is reported for all scales except ability measures.18 102.17 -.00 -. b p<.31 b -.03 .16 -.13 .86 3. Neuroticism 11.30 b .78) .34* .54 4.29 b .61** .61 4.33* .17 (.92) .12 -.18 .34* .91) -.41** .36* .15 .22 .36* . Age 02.16 -.89) -.41** -.37* – .16 .84** .88) -.15 .38* -.21 .30* .59** .32* .24 .19 .19 -.13 . we report split-half reliabilities corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula due to item heterogeneity (the verbal ability scales includes items of varying levels of difficulty and each emotional intelligence scale comprises two different tasks).22 .21 -.27 b -.06 -.19 18 (.02 Note: 38 ≤ N ≤ 44 due to missing data (except for percent merit increase.16 .71** -. Emotional intelligence managing emotion 09.19 . Peer-rated interpersonal sensitivity 22.10 .08 -.07 -.08 .28 b .01 -.94) . Trait positive affect 16.20 -.20 .05 -.10 -.23 .17 .29 b .32* -.23 .02 -.20 .52 102.17 .47** 22 (.10.49 1.23 .96 1.29 b -.19 (.02 -.30 b .04 .08 .32* .75** .13 -.18 .85 0.49** 14 – .33* -. % Merit increase 19.07 -.16 -. Emotional intelligence managing emotion 09.31* -. Extraversion 12. ** p<.66 13.19 -.39** .20 -.68 2.09 .30* .02 .29 b .31* .50 0.06 .45** .68** -.22 .22 .18 .69 0.15 .18 .07 -.10 .16 -.37* .30 b .45* .63** .22 .12 (. Agreeableness 14.31* .29 b .09 .01 .23 -.26 b .18 .02 .05.31* .20 4.08 -.17 .19 -.32* .06 -.14 .10 .33* . Emotional intelligence using emotion 07.22 . Peer-rated negative social interaction 25.88 13.04 .53** -.41** .17 .14 -.21 . Supervisor-rated liking 31.73** .20 -.06 .70 11 01.10 -.06 -.32 0.15 .18 -. Peer-rated mood 28.03 -.16 .09 .28 b -.15 . Supervisor-rated sociability 30.12 .17 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 135 10 – -.17 -.58** .09 .44* .21 -.08 .03 .57** .01 .02 -.53 0.36* -.01 .08 .19 .41* 16 (.10 .98 1.45** .19 .21 -.19 -.26 .02 -. Emotional intelligence total 05. % Merit increase 19.21 .42** .31* .23 .34* .19 .42** -.68** . Openness/Intellect 13.20 -.48** . For ease of interpretation.10 .06 -.05 -. Correlations for total emotional intelligence scores are set in bold.30 b .39 -.15 .11 -. Emotional intelligence using emotion 07.17 . Peer-rated mood 28.32* .29 3. Emotional intelligence perceiving emotion 06.16 .69) -.06 .26 .06 -.20 .13 .27 b .14 .01 .36* .48** .13 . Peer-rated positive social interaction 24.28 b -.35* .16 -.39* .01 5.32 b .36* .71 0.31 b (.05 (.81) .37* .23 -.33* .72) .04 .40** .15 .07 -. where 33 ≤ N ≤ 37).17 .17 -.03 .14 .72) .12 -.36* .34* .20 .26 b . Log salary 18.44** -.02 .52 103. Reliabilities are reported along the diagonal.08 -.13 .95 5.27 b .72 0.34* . 1= Female.91) .00 -. Neuroticism 11.51** . Supervisor-rated stress tolerance 40. Peer-rated stress tolerance 27. Gendera 03.28 b .11 .02 -.04 (.28 b .06 . Gendera 03.91) . Openness/Intellect 13.60 0.21 .01 . Verbal ability 10.18 .01 -.27 .02 .12 -.03 . Peer-rated sociability 23.53** .14 -.14 -.08 4.13 -.17 .11 .29 b .21 -.19 .18 5.17 -.13 -.72** .92 2.08 . Conscientiousness 15.11 – . Self-rated job satisfaction 21.37* .39* -.18 .23 . Emotional intelligence perceiving emotion 06.40** . Peer-rated positive work environment 26.44** .31 13.
p<. b p<.17 -. We included one control variable at a time in separate models because of our small sample size. Supervisor-rated stress tolerance (.42** . Conscientiousness 15.06 . Reliabilities are reported along the diagonal.12 . JESSICA KADIS.58** (. MICHELLE GALL AND PETER SALOVEY Table 1 (continued) Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1. and contribution to a positive work environment) and supervisor-rated stress tolerance.95) . * p<. Self-rated job satisfaction 21.136 PAULO N.and supervisor-ratings). p<.36.85) .10.17 . Emotional intelligence understanding emotion 8. we do not report these analyses here. Agreeableness 14. a Gender was coded as 0= Male.07 (.97) Note: 38 ≤ N ≤ 44 due to missing data (except for percent merit increase.05].43. p<.19 . Trait negative affect 17. Relationships between emotional intelligence and outcomes controlling other predictors We controlled for other predictors to verify that observed associations were not spuriously caused by third variables.87) .03 .46** . emotional intelligence remained significantly associated with supervisor-rated outcomes controlling other predictors. Peer-rated positive work environment 26.69) . Next we conducted separate multilevel analyses to identity which control variables were significantly associated with peer. Supervisor-rated liking 31. liking. We report only the analyses examining associations between emotional intelligence and criteria.05). Associations between emotional intelligence and company rank remained significant controlling both education [r(40)= . Peer-rated interpersonal sensitivity 22. Emotional intelligence was also associated with three supervisor-rated indicators of interpersonal facilitation (sociability. Peer-rated positive social interaction 24. Education 4.49** -. predictors are listed first and criteria second. This relationship remained significant controlling extraversion [r(34)= .43** -.05) and contribution to positive work environment (γ10= . p<.05 . when examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and percent merit increase.70** . % Merit increase 19.29 b -. With one exception. table 1 indicates that company rank correlated significantly with education and trait positive affect.22 .12 -. Age 2.82** . Openness/Intellect 13. Emotional intelligence managing emotion 9.35* -.48** .05] and trait positive affect [r(40)= . Trait positive affect 16. For the sake of parsimony. Emotional intelligence total 5.46** -. Peer-rated stress tolerance 27.37* – . Supervisor-rated interpersonal sensitivity 29.52** . 1= Female.87) -. where 33 ≤ N ≤ 37).39* .01 -.83** .38.05] and marginally significant controlling age [r(34)= . Supervisor-rated positive work environment 32. Therefore we controlled for these variables. Verbal ability 10. we report split-half reliabilities corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula due to item heterogeneity (the verbal ability scales includes items of varying levels of difficulty and each emotional intelligence scale comprises two different tasks).58** (. Emotional intelligence perceiving emotion 6. For the sake of parsimony. Cronbach alpha is reported for all scales except ability measures. Inspection of table 2 reveals that emotional intelligence was related to three peer-rated indicators of interpersonal facilitation (interpersonal sensitivity. Inspection of table 1 suggests that percent merit increase correlated significantly with extraversion and age.80) . For ease of interpretation.09 -. Peer-rated sociability 23. Correlations for total emotional intelligence scores are set in bold.57** . Company rank 20. LOPES.09 . controlling for other predictors: Controlling for education.16 . .and supervisor-ratings.31 b . one at a time. Gendera 3.01.60** .37.06].39* — . Peer-rated negative social interaction 25. Log salary 18.29 b .33.33* (. Peer-rated mood 28.43** -.32 b (. p= . and contribution to a positive work environment) and peer-rated mood.05. Similarly.32. Supervisor-rated sociability 30.70** . p= . sociability.32 b (.74** .55** (. Neuroticism 11.52** .70** .04 -. Emotional intelligence using emotion 7. DAISY GREWAL. ** p<. For the emotional intelligence and verbal ability scales. Extraversion 12.97) . we only report results involving global emotional intelligence and control variables that were significantly related to each criterion (based on correlational analyses for objective criteria and multilevel analyses for peer. emotional intelligence remained significantly associated with two of the four peer-rated indicators of interpersonal facilitation: peer-rated sociability (γ10= .
25 .14 . p<. 2004) and between ability measures of emotional intelligence and the quality of social interactions outside of the workplace (e.16 . with supervisor-rated contribution to a positive work environment controlling verbal ability.14 .20 .08 .14 .38 a .11 .09 .00 .13 .03 . 2004). and the Donaghue Women’s Health Investigator Program at Yale to Peter Salovey.06 . Discussion We assessed the emotional intelligence of analysts and administrative employees with a performance test and assessed work outcomes through peer and supervisor ratings and company data to avoid common method biases..04 .15 .11 .15 .20 .18 .29a . were associated with some of the outcomes. John D. including: company rank.50** . p<.16 .11 .34 .48** .16 .19 .02 . The present study is limited by its small sample size. we should note that we did not measure work performance directly and that there are questions about the measurement of emotional intelligence that we could not address in this paper.10.27 .36* .01 .fixed effects Emotional intelligence total γ 10 137 Emotional intelligence perceiving emotion γ 10 Emotional intelligence using emotion γ 10 Emotional intelligence understanding emotion γ 10 Emotional intelligence managing emotion γ 10 SE R2 SE R2 SE R2 SE R2 SE R2 Peer ratings Interpersonal sensitivity Sociability Positive interaction Negative interaction Positive work environment Stress tolerance Mood .34* .00 .12 .07 .16 .15 .09 .05 ..43** . a p<.20 .02 . Nonetheless.35* .18 . p= .22 . gender and education.05).01 .16 .05 .16 .g.17 . and affect and attitudes.01.06).19 -. (two-tailed t-tests).45≤γ10≤. **p<. Furthermore.14 . the National Institute of Mental Health (P01MH/DA56826). Lopes et al.20 .37* . Emotional intelligence remained associated with supervisor-rated sociability controlling neuroticism (γ10= .39* .05) and marginally so controlling trait negative affect (γ10= .22 .38 .17 .31* .27 a . .43* .35.06 .00 .28 a .16 .18 . and trait negative affect in separate models (.16 .56** .24 .14 .00 .27 . Law et al.27 .24 .00 .16 .00 .51. Author note We are especially grateful for the extensive help provided by Stéphane Côté.50** . Singer.43** .05 .06 . Most relationships remained significant when controlling for other predictors.06 . We would also like to thank David Caruso.15 .17 .04 -.39* . and trait negative affect in separate models (. This research was supported in part by funding from Portugal’s Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia and the European Social Fund to Paulo Lopes and by grants from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA68427). and ratings of interpersonal facilitation.00 .14 . and 11 groups or 13 supervisors at level 2.00 .29.00 .35* .34a . In line with theoretical predictions.18 .00 .05.17 . p<.08 Supervisor ratings Interpersonal sensitivity Sociability Liking Positive work environment Stress tolerance . extraversion.16 .41* .35. measured as a set of abilities.44. percent merit increase.13 .15 . We could not disentangle possible confounds associated with membership in these professional groups.10 . all variables were standardized except age. Jerome L.27 -. we found that all four emotional intelligence subscales.18 .03 .31* .13 . R2 is an estimate of effect size: the percent reduction in variance at level 1 associated with the predictor (negative estimates were set to 0). is associated with important positive work outcomes. The coefficient γ10 represents the regression slope. Emotional intelligence remained associated with supervisor-rated liking controlling conscientiousness (γ10= .37* .18 .02 .00 .29 a .16 .17 .01 .05). our results provide preliminary evidence that emotional intelligence.20 . and particularly the managing emotions subscale..16 .16 .03 .04 . p= .38≤γ10≤.44* .18 .15 .19 .56** .00 .14 . extraversion. and with supervisor-rated stress tolerance controlling neuroticism. *p<.20 .15 . Our findings extend past research that revealed associations between self-report measures of emotional intelligence and criteria such as job performance (e.16 .15 .16 .19 .16 .32 .42** .14 .15 .07 -.19 .00 . The sample was drawn from only two professional groups. neuroticism. Therefore our findings should be interpreted with caution until they are replicated.33 Note: N= 38 to 43 people at level 1.10 .16 .17 .16 . which entails wide confidence intervals around the various correlations and prevented us from controlling for several predictors simultaneously.20 -.08 . National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50-DA13334).17 .10 .15 .24 . For ease of interpretation..14 .17 .21 .33* .34* .14 .12 .02 .16 .16 .20 .14 .14 .EVIDENCE THAT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS RELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE AND AFFECT AND ATTITUDES AT WORK Table 2 Multilevel analyses .19 .59** . one at a time.11 .24 .10 . emotional intelligence was related to several indicators of work performance.19 .26a . Although our main analyses focused on total emotional intelligence.10 .27a .18 .13 .33* .05). Mayer.17 .25 .37 a . and Gill Sitarenios.g.
R. 81.A. R. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Schütz. G. (2004). Salovey. (2002). Law. Beyond hedonism: Motives for inhibiting good moods and for maintaining bad moods. New York: Guilford.. MICHELLE GALL AND PETER SALOVEY References Bar-On. A. & Song. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Seibert. Lee. & Roberts. In K. Separating individual and group effects.T. discriminant and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. 339-348. Lopes.A. C. & Haidt. A social capital theory of career success.W.H. A. & Salovey. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. 185-211. Cacioppo. HLM 5 . M. J.M.L. Mayer.. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. D. J.A.S. 65. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. Salovey.W. & Viswesvaran.G. San Francisco. A. Parrott.): Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. Salovey & D. P. 879-903.): Handbook of mental control. Bliese. P. Mahwah. Mayer.K. Cognition and Personality. & Bryk. (2003).. (2004). 1016-1024.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. & Salovey. CA: Jossey-Bass. NJ: Erlbaum. (2000). CA: Jossey-Bass. Hatfield.F. (1994).P. 349-381). (1996). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. N. 89. J. Clark. 97-105. (1951). & La Voie. Wong.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Emotional intelligence. CA: Sage Publications. & Congdon. & Caruso. 29. P..R. & Podsakoff.. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.C. (2004). (1985). Oxford.). (2000). DAISY GREWAL. (2001). (1998). JESSICA KADIS. & Buhrmester. & Salovey. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence.D.D. Bryk.D. P. Inc. 30. Bernieri (eds.J..S.. 183-198). H. Kenny. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User’s manual.D.W. U. D. K. 219-237. Goleman. Van Rooy. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. D.): Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. New York: Bantam.S.J. Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales.. 525-531. non-independence and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. Salovey. R.): Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. San Francisco. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Zeidner. P. (1985). M..P. Kozlowski (eds.D. J. E. Van Scotter. 1063-1070. Emotion. What is emotional intelligence? In P. Bonanno (eds. & Raven. 54. Sellin.J.. (2002). L. Podsakoff. J. 21. Caruso. P.. 9.S. Watson. P. 44. P. (1988).. M.. Toronto. Y. & Liden.W. Internet Web Site.. P. Raven. D. L. S.R. research and methods in organizations (pp. Matthews.A. (1997). Emotion. S. MA: MIT Press. & Duke. Convergent.R. LOPES. Emotion regulation ability and the quality of social interaction. 88. Brackett. Klein and S... Lopes.org/). Emotional intelligence: science and myth. (1994).J.L..): Multilevel theory. S. Cambridge. Academy of Management Journal. In D.J.F.0. Englewood Cliffs. In T.Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Court. Pennebaker (eds. (1990). & Mayer. Social functions of emotions.. New York: Cambridge University Press. S. Mayne and G. R. J.C.T. Journal of Applied Psychology. New York: Basic Books. Furman. 5. 35. (1997). Sluyter (eds. S. Working with emotional intelligence. Côté. & Beers. (2003). L.M. C. D... M. 192-213). Salovey. Keltner. 3-31).. Hall & F. D. (1993).J. The emotionally intelligent manager.. & Rapson. J. Jr.. Cheong.ori. (2005). Caruso. M. 113-118. (2001). 1018-1034. D. S. (2002).. Brayfield.. Raven. P. (2004). 483-496. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology. . In J. Mayer.E.N. NJ: Prentice-Hall.. Inc. J. J. A. J. Nonverbal receptivity: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy (DANVA). A. Nowicki. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 3. Lincolnwood. S.. J. & Sitarenios. W. Imagination. IL: Scientific Software International. C. M.N. J.138 PAULO N. Nezlek. 71-95.A. & Rothe. & Motowidlo. Jr. MacKenzie. Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks.B. 48. G. P. Within-group agreement. & Mayer. Emotional intelligence and social interaction.. (2003).. Raudenbush. 1147-1158.D. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. R. International Personality Item Pool (2001). Emotional contagion. Kraimer. A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences (http://ipip. Brackett. I.L. Ltd. (2001). Wegner & J..A. Thousand Oaks. W. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 307-311. & Tellegen. Developmental Psychology. D.: J.D.H. Raudenbush. D.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.