THE ROLE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE PLAYS IN

FOSTERING A FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT

_______________________________

A Research Project

Presented to the Faculty of

The George L. Graziadio

School of Business and Management

Pepperdine University

_______________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

in

Organization Development

_______________________________

by

Erika Cherry

August 2012

© 2012 Erika Cherry

 UMI Number: 1516342

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 1516342
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
This research project, completed by

ERIKA CHERRY

under the guidance of the Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been

submitted to and accepted by the faculty of The George L. Graziadio School of

Business and Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

Date: August 2012

Faculty Committee

Committee Chair, Ann Feyerherm, Ph.D.

Committee Member, Julie Chesley, Ph.D.

Linda Livingstone, Ph.D., Dean

The George L. Graziadio
School of Business and Management

ii
 Abstract

This study reviews the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance

management, specifically looking at feedback environments. Organizations can suffer

from a lack of properly provided feedback to their employees. This mixed-methods

research project was conducted within two groups at an advertising agency.

Subordinates assessed their feedback environment using the Feedback Environment

Scale (FES), and supervisors assessed their own emotional intelligence using the

Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). Results showed some relationships between

various components of emotional intelligence and feedback environments, suggesting

that supervisory training and an organizational culture assessment looking specifically

at how feedback is valued could be helpful.

iii
 Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................iii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................vii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of Research.............................................................................................. 3

Emotional Intelligence Constructs........................................................................ 4

Intrapersonal ............................................................................................. 4

Stress management ................................................................................... 5

General mood............................................................................................ 5

Interpersonal ............................................................................................. 6

Adaptability .............................................................................................. 6

Research Setting ................................................................................................... 7

Summary............................................................................................................... 8

2. Review of the Literature ............................................................................................ 9

Emotional Intelligence—History, Theory, and Frameworks................................ 9

Emotional Intelligence Competencies ................................................................ 11

Emotional Intelligence Measurement ................................................................. 13

Performance Management and Feedback ........................................................... 17

Emotional Intelligence and Performance Management...................................... 21

Summary............................................................................................................. 23

3. Methodology............................................................................................................ 25

Human Subjects .................................................................................................. 25

Research Design ................................................................................................. 25

iv
 Research Sample and Setting.............................................................................. 26

Measurement....................................................................................................... 26

Analysis .............................................................................................................. 27

Summary............................................................................................................. 29

4. Results ..................................................................................................................... 30

Sample Demographics ........................................................................................ 30

Survey and Interview Results ............................................................................. 30

Findings from Feedback Environment Scale.......................................... 30

Findings from Emotional Quotient Inventory ........................................ 33

Correlation analysis between feedback environment and emotional

intelligence.............................................................................................. 33

Findings from interviews ........................................................................ 36

Summary............................................................................................................. 39

5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 40

Summary of the Findings.................................................................................... 40

Discussion........................................................................................................... 41

Conclusions......................................................................................................... 44

Limitations .......................................................................................................... 45

Recommendations............................................................................................... 45

Training................................................................................................... 45

Culture .................................................................................................... 46

Performance feedback............................................................................. 46

Further Research ................................................................................................. 46

References....................................................................................................................... 48

v
Appendix: Interview Protocol......................................................................................... 52

vi
 List of Tables

Page

1. Hypotheses..................................................................................................................29

2. Feedback Environment Makeup .................................................................................31

3. Feedback Environment Scale Scores Based on Averages..........................................32

4. Emotional Intelligence Scores ....................................................................................34

5. Emotional Intelligence/Feedback Environment Correlation ......................................34

6. Correlations Between Emotional Intelligence and Feedback Environment ...............36

vii
 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Performance management is a broad topic with several interpretations. In the

workplace, it is often viewed as a single measure of performance (i.e., the annual

performance appraisal) and not as an overarching topic. However, performance

management can encompass role clarity and expectations, performance goals and

metrics, and feedback and coaching; and it typically spans the time from an employee’s

first day on the job through his or her last day of employment. As a measurement,

performance reviews receive a lot of criticism from researchers who state they are not

enough as a stand-alone measure and are oftentimes ineffective as a means of managing

performance (Halachmi, 2005; Lee, 2006; Longenecker & Gioia, 2003; Wagner &

Harter, 2008). These same researchers emphasize the importance of ongoing feedback,

which allows for increased frequency, consistency, and dialogue to shape performance

management. Supervisors play a large part in performance management and need their

own guidance, supervision, and support to be successful. The supervisor, in fact, is the

reason many employees leave their companies (Wagner & Harter, 2006). The

supervisor-subordinate relationship determines how long employees stay at a company

and how productive they are while they are there (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).

Retention and engagement are leading indicators of why it is so important for

supervisors to foster environments where feedback is a common denominator.

This study will narrow in on performance management to specifically focus on

feedback environments. Understanding the feedback environment, what Steelman,

Levy, and Snell (2004) described as the “contextual or situational characteristics of the

feedback process” (p. 166), will give organizational leadership insight into possible
 2

ways of improving performance through feedback. The other key focal point of this

study and a possible antecedent of feedback environments is emotional intelligence (EI)

(Pittman & Steelman, 2008). Extensive research, most notably by Boyatzis, Goleman,

and Bar-On, has been conducted on EI, and the literature supports a connection between

EI and leadership, which further supports the idea that training and development of

supervisors in leadership competencies can improve their ability to manage

performance and foster a positive feedback environment.

This study will focus on the role EI plays in performance management and

specifically how it impacts the feedback environment. High levels of EI and positive

feedback environments have both been linked to increased performance, independent of

one another (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006; Yuvaraj & Srivastava, 2007). If “an

emotionally intelligent leader can monitor for the better through self-management,

understand their impact through empathy, and act in ways that boost others’ moods

through relationship management” (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001, p. 48), a

positive feedback environment can be improved through development of EI. The

assumption that EI and the feedback environment are interdependent is underpinning

the focus of this research. Knowledge of the current state of a feedback environment

can provide management with insight into how it can be improved.

Ongoing feedback is critical in all organizations and, therefore, the annual

performance review as a single means of communicating feedback is ineffective.

Cascio (1995) recommended that performance management require daily, not annual,

attention; and Lee (2006), in an article aptly named “Feedback, Not Appraisal,”

communicated that “constant feedback directs performance and promotes a healthier

supervisor-employee relationship” (p. 111). Some concerns of an annual review

 3

process are a focus on past performance only, infrequent delivery, a year’s worth of

feedback, a lack of quality feedback, and one-way conversations. Fostering an

environment that welcomes consistent, frequent, and constructive feedback, while

focusing on present and future performance, creates an opportunity for dialogue to

occur between a supervisor and a subordinate. One way to foster such an environment

is improved interpersonal competence stemming from heightened EI, which improves

this dialogue when delivering or receiving feedback. Connell and Nolan (2004)

supported this point of view by showing a connection between ongoing feedback

occurring in the supervisor-subordinate relationship and the interpersonal skills of the

supervisor.

Feedback has positive and negative connotations. Some employees (supervisors

and subordinates) seek out feedback, asking for it frequently, and/or are able to deliver

feedback in a timely manner while others avoid it altogether. Similarly, some deliver

only positive or only negative feedback. All such patterns contribute to the feedback

environment. Unfortunately, if employees work within a negative feedback

environment, they are likely to learn bad habits. And just like the annual performance

review that gives feedback just once a year, bad habits can form, intensify over time,

and be passed on to others in the environment. Insight into the feedback environment

can help to avoid this scenario.

Purpose of Research

The purpose of this study is to support the conclusion made by Pittman and

Steelman (2008) that the EI of managers is related to a feedback environment. The

approach will look at the individual elements of EI and their relationship to the different

components of the Feedback Environment Scale (FES) relative to their potential

 4

influences on creating a positive feedback environment. EI is made up of interpersonal

and intrapersonal traits ranging from self-awareness, stress management, motivation,

and general mood, to empathy and adaptability. These constructs, independently and

holistically, are potential antecedents to a feedback environment. The creator of the

FES continued with her research and determined that emotional intelligence, along with

learning culture and transformational leadership, create a feedback environment that

leads to self-development behavior (Pittman & Steelman, 2008).

Emotional Intelligence Constructs

The EI constructs acknowledged here are taken directly from Bar-On’s (2006)

EI instrument. There are other typologies used to measure EI, one of which will be

highlighted in chapter 2. For the purpose of this research, only intrapersonal, stress

management, general mood, interpersonal, and adaptability will be explained.

Intrapersonal. The intrapersonal construct of EI is defined as “the ability to

recognize, understand and express emotions and feelings” (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14).

Intrapersonal aspects of an individual include self-awareness, self-regard, assertiveness,

independence, and self-actualization (Bar-On, 2006). Supervisors with heightened

intrapersonal capabilities know how they come across to others. The supervisors’

adeptness in this area could affect a feedback environment because they are aware of

the impact they have on their subordinates every time they provide feedback.

Therefore, supervisors would presumably put themselves in a position of availability

and encourage feedback seeking. Heightened self-awareness could also affect favorable

and unfavorable feedback. Favorable feedback would be consistent because the

supervisor will feel pride when the subordinate does well; unfavorable feedback would

also be consistent because the supervisor will display feelings of disappointment.

 5

Intrapersonal attributes alone do not guarantee a more positive feedback environment

though. How a supervisor conveys feelings of pride and/or disappointment leads to the

next EI construct, stress management.

Stress management. Stress management is defined as “the ability to manage

and control emotions” (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14). It is the supervisors’ ability to manage

and control their emotions that plays a big part in the supervisors’ ability to provide

feedback. Bar-On (2006) described stress management as a combination of stress

tolerance and impulse control. These traits can lead to a trustworthy relationship—a

mutual trust that the feedback provided is specific and fair and trust that feedback will

be delivered in the right way (supportive, considerate, and tactful). Stress management

could also impact a supervisor’s feedback quality by emphasizing the need for it to be

constructive. At their best, supervisors would take time to process the situation and

approach feedback delivery in a thoughtful way. Impulse control could affect

unfavorable feedback because of the difficulty involved in sharing and receiving

information that may be viewed as negative or imply wrong-doing. For delivery, those

with little ability to control their emotions may react inappropriately when a subordinate

does something wrong. In this type of situation, the recipient may come to distrust the

supervisor, which will ultimately affect the supervisor’s credibility.

General mood. General mood is defined as “the ability to generate positive

affect and be self-motivated” (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14). Constructive feedback, in and of

itself, has the purpose of encouraging good behavior and improving poor behavior.

Motivation is evident when a supervisor attempts to frame feedback in just the right

way to ensure the recipient gets information that is useful, helpful, valuable, and

accurate. Some supervisors are prone to only share favorable or unfavorable feedback
 6

and not usually both. It takes motivation to do both in a consistent and constructive

fashion. Similarly, it takes motivation to be available to subordinates while exuding

optimism and happiness, which could promote feedback seeking of their subordinates.

It is easy for time to pass after an incident that requires feedback, but motivation and a

positive mood are factors that could lead the supervisor to provide feedback and

promote feedback seeking in a timely manner.

Interpersonal. Interpersonal is defined as “the ability to understand how others

feel and relate with them” (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14). Empathy can help those providing

feedback frame the feedback in a way that acknowledges the recipient’s feelings and all

that is going on in the environment so that it is received well. It could influence a

supervisor’s credibility, quality, and delivery of feedback. Providing unfavorable

feedback could be made easier through empathy because the recipients would sense that

their supervisor is considering their emotions. Social responsibility is another area of

interpersonal capability (Bar-On, 2006). Enhanced interpersonal skills could lead to a

responsibility of the supervisors to take care of their team and ultimately their

organization. Favorable feedback could be influenced by social responsibility as a

means of encouraging positive behavior. Especially in teams, a supervisor’s

commitment to providing feedback is stronger since performance by an individual

directly affects the performance of the team. As interpersonal relationships between

supervisors and subordinates deepen, the feedback environment will improve.

Adaptability. Adaptability is defined as “the ability to manage change, adapt

and solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature” (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14).

Being adaptable is a key characteristic for anyone working in an organization these

days. For a supervisor, being adaptable to the environment and the people around him
 7

or her could make it easier to provide feedback. The ability to approach change through

problem-solving and flexibility provides a unique perspective. The quality of feedback

will likely be more substantive and delivery will be scaled to the circumstance because

of this perspective. Favorable and unfavorable feedback would be more consistent

because supervisors will see the causal relationship between consistency of feedback

and results. Similarly, supervisors would make sure they are available to provide

feedback and promote feedback seeking because they believe this will lead to

performance improvement.

Various hypotheses, which consider the analyses above, are formed and

presented in chapter 3.

Research Setting

The research setting for this study consisted of two groups within an advertising

agency. In this organization, annual performance reviews were seen as a nuisance and

despite multiple efforts at revamping the performance management system, Human

Resources continued to struggle with participation. These groups were receptive to

assessing their feedback environments to determine an appropriate avenue towards

performance management. Both supervisors and subordinates were surveyed using the

FES and EI instruments, and feedback on overall patterns will be shared with the

Human Resources director. To support better practices, EI competencies need to be

understood, so Human Resources and leadership can instill feedback processes and

individuals can be held accountable to improve feedback environments. If EI is shown

to impact the feedback environment, organizations would find it beneficial to examine

and measure performance based on EI competencies and feedback environment

components and determine suitable training offerings to further develop the workforce.
 8

This study will provide further data to the fields of EI and performance management by

investigating a connection between them and reinforcing the importance of feedback as

arguably the most important aspect of performance management.

Summary

The following chapters will include an extensive literary review (chapter 2), a

thorough description of the methodology (chapter 3), a systematic review of the

findings (chapter 4), and a discussion and conclusion with recommendations for future

research (chapter 5).

 9

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

This study will focus on the role EI plays in performance management and

specifically how it relates to the feedback environment. In order to examine this, first

the literature on the history, theory, and frameworks of EI is reviewed, followed by

discussions of EI competencies and measurement. Then, the literature on feedback

within the context of performance management is discussed. Finally, literature that

shows a relationship between EI and performance feedback is reviewed.

Emotional Intelligence—History, Theory, and Frameworks

The foundation for EI was established in 1990 when Salovey and Mayer first

introduced the idea. This debut came at a time when much emphasis was on

intelligence as determined by the intelligence quotient (IQ), which focuses on reasoning

ability and does not take into account emotions (Goleman, 1995). Wechsler’s (1958)

definition of intelligence, “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act

purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment” (p. 7),

suggests that there are multiple intelligences. In 1983, Gardner steered the public away

from a single focus on IQ with his book Frames of Mind, which introduced the idea of

multiple intelligences. Gardner alluded to an awareness of EI when he spoke to

personal intelligences in his book and described interpersonal intelligence as leadership,

ability to nurture relationships, ability to resolve conflicts, and skill at social analysis

and described intrapersonal intelligence as knowledge of self. Another type of

intelligence to point out at this juncture, because of its contribution to the framework of

EI, is social intelligence, which encompasses the interpersonal aspects of EI—empathy,

social responsibility, and relationships (Bar-On, 2006; Thorndike & Stein, 1937).
 10

Social intelligence today, as seen by the literature and assessments on the topic of EI, is,

in fact, part and parcel of EI. Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as “the subset of

social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings

and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s

thinking and actions” (p. 189). Their EI framework involved appraisal and expression

of emotion in self and other, regulation of emotion in self and other, and utilization of

emotion.

Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) work on EI laid the groundwork for what Goleman

(1995) then communicated to the masses in his book Emotional Intelligence. Arising

from the definition above, Goleman further developed Salovey and Mayer’s framework

by introducing five elements of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation,

empathy, and social skills. These elements are defined as follows:

• Self-awareness: “the ability to recognize and understand your moods, emotions, and

drives, as well as their effect on others” (Goleman, 1998, p. 95).

• Self-regulation: “the ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods;

the propensity to suspend judgment—to think before acting” (Goleman, 1998, p.

95).

• Motivation: “a passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status; a

propensity to pursue goals with energy and persistence” (Goleman, 1998, p. 95).

• Empathy: “the ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people; skill in

treating people according to their emotional reactions” (Goleman, 1998, p. 95).

• Social skills: “proficiency in managing relationships and building networks; an

ability to find common ground and build rapport” (Goleman, 1998, p. 95).
 11

Another leading researcher of EI is Bar-On. Bar-On began his research in 1997

and his model of emotional and social intelligence is based on Darwin’s work on

emotional expression and adaptation (Bar-On, 2006). Bar-On (2006) further described

his emotional and social intelligence model as having “one or more of the following

components”:

• “the ability to recognize, understand and express emotions and feelings” (p. 14).

• “the ability to understand how others feel and relate with them” (p. 14).

• “the ability to manage and control emotions” (p. 14).

• “the ability to manage change, adapt and solve problems of a personal and

interpersonal nature” (p. 14).

• “the ability to generate positive affect and be self-motivated” (p. 14).

The major difference between Goleman’s (1995) and Bar-On’s (2006)

frameworks is the area Goleman refers to as social skills and what Bar-On deems as the

ability to manage change, adapt, and problem solve.

Emotional Intelligence Competencies

Salovey and Mayer, Goleman, and Bar-On continue to make contributions to EI.

Goleman (1998) and Bar-On (2000) acknowledged that EI can be learned, and both

revealed that higher EI leads to better performance in the workplace. It is important to

acknowledge this because the workplace is changing—becoming more adaptable,

innovative, and sustainable—and, therefore, so is the workforce. Because of this,

organizations need to change their perspective on talent and recruitment by looking for

and growing EI competencies.

All the EI theorists support the belief that humans can develop EI. Bar-On

(2006) and Goleman (1995) believe EI can be developed over time through training and
 12

experience. Gardner (1983) also believes that humans have a capacity to develop their

sense of self. Scientific studies show EI residing in the limbic system of the brain,

which is known for learning and remembering and “is the specialist for emotional

matters” (Goleman, 1995, p. 15). This supports the idea that learning can take place

through motivation, extended practice, and feedback (Goleman, 1998). This is

especially important to today’s organizations, which spend much money and time on

leadership development. In 2007, organizations spent $134.39 billion on training and

development (“Estimating the Total Size,” 2009).

Competence, in this context, was first introduced by McClelland in 1973 in an

article “Testing for Competence Rather than for ‘Intelligence.’” He and others define a

competency as a capability or ability that focuses on intent. Goleman’s (1998) research

suggests that EI competencies are more important than cognitive ability or technical

know-how as causes for superior job performance, and this is especially the case with

senior-level staff. Boyatzis (2009), a colleague of Goleman’s and an important EI

theorist, found that “emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies predict

effectiveness in professional, management, and leadership roles . . . [and] these

competencies can be developed in adults” (p. 749). Bar-On’s (2006) research showed

further interrelatedness between interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies that led

to his framework and development of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i)

assessment. Some examples of emotional-social intelligence competencies are

influence, team leadership, organizational awareness, self-confidence, achievement

drive, leadership, initiative, empathy, ability to handle stress, and optimism, to name a

few (Cherniss, 2000). In summary, measuring EI is important for both the individual

and the organization. A better understanding of where an individual fits within the EI
 13

framework informs the individual and the organization of the areas needed for

development, which can lead to increased performance.

Emotional Intelligence Measurement

There are a handful of instruments available that measure EI. Because of the

different EI frameworks—ability, behavior, and trait-based approaches—and because of

self-report and 360-degree options, two measurements are reviewed below, both of

which have been empirically validated, as confirmed by the Emotional Intelligence

Consortium (www.eiconsortium.org). This EI measurement review will cover only the

instruments that make sense for this study and is not a representation of all EI

measurements available.

The main difference among the instruments relates to the different theories

behind EI and whether the tool has been made as a self-report or a multi-rater version.

The support for this study relies heavily on Goleman’s and Bar-On’s EI theories, so the

most applicable instruments to review are the Emotional and Social Competency

Inventory (ESCI), authored by Boyatzis and Goleman (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Hay

Acquisition, 2001/2007), and the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) developed by

Bar-On (1997). Both instruments measure emotionally and socially intelligent

behavior. Specifically, the ESCI assesses EI competency through questions of self-

awareness and self-management and assesses social intelligence competency through

questions of social awareness and relationship management (Boyatzis, 2009). The

ESCI, according to its authors, is the most validated measure of emotional-social

intelligence (Boyatzis et al., 2001/2007). This is likely due to its multi-rater format, as

self-report measures are known for their biases. The EQ-i assesses EI in terms of the

following scales: intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and

 14

general mood. Bar-On was the first to acknowledge the importance of EI measurement,

and so the EQ-i was the first instrument of its kind and is also the most extensively used

EI measure (Bar-On, 2004). Both instruments rely on a behavioral approach based on

emotional and social intelligence competencies.

An emotional intelligence competency is an ability to recognize, understand, and

use emotional information about oneself that leads to or causes effective or
superior performance [and] a social intelligence competency is the ability to
recognize, understand, and use emotional information about others that leads to
or causes effective or superior performance. (Boyatzis, 2009, p. 757)

Bar-On (2006) has spent more than two decades researching EI and validating

his model. The initial development spanned 17 years and included defining emotional

and social intelligence competencies based on his experience in clinical psychology,

initially generating more than 1,000 items to determine the 15 scales and final 133 items

in the instrument today and norming the instrument in 1996 on 3,831 adults in North

America. He continues to norm and validate the instrument today across cultures. The

original normative sample (n = 3,831) was used to look at the impact of age, gender,

and ethnicity; and the results ultimately strengthened the emotional and social

intelligence construct. The instrument proved consistent, stable, and reliable with an

internal consistency coefficient (measured by Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.97. Internal

consistency was studied again recently on 51,623 adults with almost identical results.

Retest reliability of the instrument showed 0.72 in males (n = 73) and 0.80 in females

(n = 279) at six months. To determine construct validity, Bar-On (2006) compared the

EQ-i’s sub-scale scores with those of other EI instruments as well as cognitive

intelligence and personality instruments and found that there was a 36% overlap to

other EI instruments, 15% for personality and 4% for cognitive. For construct validity

to have a 36% overlap with instruments in the same category is significant. The EQ-i
 15

has also tested well for predictive validity. Some 20-plus studies on more than 22,971

individuals across seven countries show that the EQ-i can predict performance in social

interactions, physical and psychological health, self-actualization, and subjective well-

being with a predictive validity coefficient of 0.59. The EQ-i produces a total EI score,

five composite scale scores, and 15 sub-scale scores as outlined below:

Intrapersonal (self-awareness and self-expression)

• Self-Regard: To accurately perceive, understand, and accept oneself
• Emotional Self-Awareness: To be aware of and understand one’s emotions
• Assertiveness: To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and
oneself
• Independence: To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others
• Self-Actualization: To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s
potential
Interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship)
• Empathy: To be aware of and understand how others feel
• Social Responsibility: To identify with one’s social group and cooperate
with others
• Interpersonal Relationship: To establish mutually satisfying relationships
and relate well with others
Stress Management (emotional management and regulation)
• Stress Tolerance: To effectively and constructively manage emotions
• Impulse Control: To effectively and constructively control emotions
Adaptability (change management)
• Reality-Testing: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with
external reality
• Flexibility: To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations
• Problem-Solving: To effectively solve problems of a personal and
interpersonal nature
General Mood (self-motivation)
• Optimism: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life
• Happiness: To feel content with oneself, others, and life in general (Bar-On,
2006, p. 21)

The ESCI instrument, created by Boyatzis et al. (2001/2007), has also been

shown to be a valid and reliable tool to assess emotional and social intelligence. The

validity and reliability of their original instrument, the Emotional Competency

Inventory-2 (ECI-2), is what will be discussed here. The reason for the introduction of

the ESCI was to address certain criticisms on the competency scales not appearing valid
 16

as separate scales and the clusters not differentiating from each other (Boyatzis et al.,

2001/2007). They addressed this by incorporating social intelligence as a measure and

ultimately included more items per scale and reduced the number of competencies from

18 to 12. The ESCI pilot study involved 1,022 raters, whereby the total ratings for the

ECI-2 were based on 22,089. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the ESCI scales ranged

from 0.74 to 0.87 and compares to the ECI-2 range of 0.73 to 0.87. Factor analysis

showed 9 of 12 competency items loaded on the expected factor; and of the three that

did not, two had five of six questions and one had four of six questions loading on the

expected factor. This is considered outstanding (Boyatzis et al., 2001/2007). The ESCI

360 measures EI along the following four scales and 12 sub-scales:

Self-Awareness

• Emotional Self-Awareness: Recognizing one’s emotions and their effects

Self Management

• Emotional Self-Control: Keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in check

• Adaptability: Flexibility in handling change

• Achievement Orientation: Striving to improve or meeting a standard of excellence

• Positive Outlook: Persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks

Social Awareness

• Empathy: Sensing others’ feelings and perspectives and taking an active interest in

their concerns

• Organizational Awareness: Reading a group’s emotional currents and power

relationships

Relationship Management

• Coach and Mentor: Sensing others’ development needs and bolstering their abilities
 17

• Inspirational Leadership: Inspiring and guiding individuals and groups

• Influence: Wielding effective tactics for persuasion

• Conflict Management: Negotiating and resolving disagreements

• Teamwork: Working with others toward shared goals. Creating group synergy in

pursuing collective goals (Boyatzis et al., 2001/2007)

Performance Management and Feedback

There is no shortage of research on the topic of performance management, and it

goes without saying that there is a lot of criticism on the subject as well. Most of the

criticism focuses on the annual performance appraisal because of the sheer fact that it is

not enough as a stand-alone measure. This includes balanced scorecards, 360-degree

feedback, self-evaluations, and forced grading systems (Connell & Nolan, 2004; Lee,

2006; Wagner & Harter, 2008). According to a Gallup poll of 80,000 interviews with

managers from 400 companies, the strength of a workplace can be measured by asking

12 questions—the eleventh question being, “In the last six months, has someone at

work talked to me about my progress?” (Wagner & Harter, 2008, “Help Me Develop

My Strengths,” para. 2). In this same article, employees stated that feedback, on its

own, is enough for them to consider their organization’s performance management

system fair (Wagner & Harter, 2008). Wagner and Harter suggested that the power of

feedback, as an autonomous process and irrespective of the performance appraisal, is

where managers should put their energy.

Ongoing feedback is a more innovative way of managing performance. If

organizations are moving toward more flexibility, regular feedback is essential. If an

organization must be nimble, so too should the employees, and hearing about their

performance just once a year is not enough to make necessary changes along the way
 18

(Connell & Nolan, 2004). Connell and Nolan’s research looked at the perceptions of

performance management, specifically feedback and a manager’s delivery of feedback

within the organization and its effect on performance. They used a qualitative case

study approach with two organizations and 52 participants. The results of this study

showed that regularly occurring, informal feedback helped make the annual

performance appraisal system more effective. The consistent communication between

manager and subordinate created an environment that fostered motivation. The study

also proved that subordinates had no need to be fearful of the formal performance

appraisal because the regularly occurring, informal feedback they received gave them

an idea of what to expect. Regardless of whether an organization decides to abolish the

performance appraisal or emphasize more regular feedback opportunities, there is a call

for more innovative ways to manage performance through feedback.

The literature has shown that feedback is critical to the performance

management process. But prior to the introduction of Steelman et al.’s (2004) FES,

there was no way to measure the context in which feedback occurred in an organization.

Steelman et al. believed that there was a need to “understand the contextual or

situational characteristics of the feedback process” as a means to better understand

feedback to ensure that management training, specifically regarding feedback delivery,

was a worthwhile objective (p. 166). The FES looks at two organizational dyads:

supervisor/subordinate and co-worker/co-worker and is comprised of the following

facets: source credibility, feedback quality, feedback delivery, favorable feedback,

unfavorable feedback, source availability, and promotes feedback seeking. Steelman et

al. further supported the validity of the FES by relating it to the following external

variables: satisfaction with feedback, motivation to use feedback, feedback-seeking

 19

frequency, and leader-member exchange quality. Prior to the FES, a feedback

environment was determined by the amount and availability of positive and negative

feedback and, despite some research on the topic, gathered inconsistent results

(Ashford, 1993). The FES has proven to be a valid measurement of the feedback

environment and is used to assess the training and development needs of managers as

related to giving better feedback within organizations (Steelman et al., 2004).

Brief descriptions of the FES components are below (Steelman et al., 2004):

• Supervisor source and co-worker source: Feedback recipients believe supervisors

and co-workers are the most genuine sources of feedback

• Source credibility: The source’s expertise and trustworthiness

• Feedback quality: The consistency and usefulness of the feedback

• Feedback delivery: The recipient’s perception of the source’s intentions

• Favorable feedback: The recipient’s perception of frequency of positive feedback

• Unfavorable feedback: The recipient’s perception of frequency of negative feedback

• Source availability: The recipient’s perceived amount of contact he or she has with

the source and the ease with which feedback can be obtained

• Promotes feedback seeking (PFS): The extent in which the environment is

supportive or unsupportive of feedback seeking

In research conducted by Sparr and Sonnentag (2008) of 345 employees from

three industries (hospitals, research and development, and public administration) in

Germany, the feedback environment was shown to have a positive effect on employees’

well-being at work, specifically job satisfaction and personal control over information

and decisions related to their job. This study also showed that a feedback environment

was negatively related to feelings of helplessness, job depression, and turnover

 20

intentions. Their research methods included use of the FES and additional measures for

personal control, helplessness, job depression and anxiety, job satisfaction, turnover

intentions, and a control variable of industry type and frequency of favorable and

unfavorable feedback from the source. The results support the idea that a positive

feedback environment improves the well-being of employees and the overall

organization. In summary, research has found that improvement of a feedback

environment improves organizational performance by increasing job satisfaction and

personal control and decreasing feelings of helplessness, depression, anxiety, and

turnover intent.

The literature on feedback also shows a relationship between the feedback

environment and role clarity of job performance. In an article by Whitaker, Dahling,

and Levy (2007), supervisor/subordinate dyads were studied and those subordinates

who perceived a positive feedback environment were more likely to show an increase in

feedback seeking, have higher role clarity, and perform better than those who worked in

a non-supportive feedback environment. The feedback-seeking behavior, designated as

“promotes feedback seeking” in the FES, is also described as inquiry (Ashford &

Cummings, 1983), and it is this behavior that is supported by a positive feedback

environment on the part of supervisors that leads to enhanced role clarity independent

of inquiry on the part of the subordinate. The findings of this study showed that

improving a feedback environment will result in enhanced role clarity because

increased feedback opportunities encourage subordinates to seek development-related

feedback, outside of the typically infrequent annual performance appraisal (Whitaker et

al., 2007).
 21

Emotional Intelligence and Performance Management

The idea that EI and performance management have a close association first

came about in an article by Goleman, Boyatzis, and Mckee (2001) called “Primal

Leadership: The Hidden Driver of Great Performance.” Their claim was that those

leaders who had high levels of self-awareness and empathy performed better than those

who did not. They specifically called out the leaders’ mood and behavior as the driving

forces that affected others and created culture. Organizations began to assess EI during

the interview process, implement EI training and development, and measure

performance based on its key elements. Training, however, must accompany a

desire and concerted effort. A brief seminar won’t help; nor can one buy a how-
to manual. It is much harder to learn to empathize—to internalize empathy as a
natural response to people—than it is to become adept at regression analysis.
But it can be done. (Goleman, 1998, p. 97)

In a research study on EI and managerial effectiveness, Shipper, Kincaid,

Rotondo, and Hoffman (2003) suggested that a manager’s self-awareness regarding

interactive and controlling skills impacts performance. Here, interactive skills are

defined as regulation of emotion and ability to read others’ emotions, effectively

communicate, and resolve conflict. Controlling skills are defined as problem-solving

behavior that leads to achievement of goals. Research on interactive and controlling

skills is relevant to the topic of EI and feedback environments because it makes the

connection between interpersonal skills and performance management, showing the

importance of a manager’s ability to provide feedback during appropriate times.

Shipper et al.’s research looked at three cultures to assess if high self-awareness would

be positively associated with high agreement between the manager and subordinate in

both interactive and controlling skills of the manager. The results showed a positive

association for both.

 22

While there is substantiated research on the link between EI and performance,

there is also evidence that a manager’s EI can affect his or her organizational climate,

and any influencing of organizational culture that is allowed is a direct function of

leadership (Goleman et al., 2001; Momeni, 2009). Organizational culture is heavily

influenced by a manager’s approach to communication, honesty, respect, gratitude,

motivation, fairness, and appropriate conflict management (Momeni, 2009). This is

much the same as a feedback environment. It is assumed that a favorable organizational

culture and feedback environment are dependent on a manager handling performance

management in a constructive manner. Momeni’s hypothesis was supported—he found

a positive correlation between managers’ EI and the organizational climate they create.

In research done by London (1995), performance-based feedback was dependent

on whether the relationship of the supervisor/subordinate focuses on control, rewards,

or affiliation. London said that the source’s self-esteem and self-control affect whether

the feedback provided is constructive or destructive. His study hypothesized that a

source’s self-control and self-esteem influence a source’s feelings and feedback

approach. This relates to EI because London defined self-control in the same manner

that Bar-On (2006) described stress management. For example, the source may be

satisfied with his or her initial reaction to an incident despite a lack of self-control;

however, the feedback recipient’s reaction could be defensive or resistant, and there is

potential for this behavior to be learned and passed on. Self-esteem is described as an

individual’s self-worth without the validation of others. London (1995) illustrated that

sources with lower self-esteem will be less motivated to provide meaningful feedback

and that negative feedback lowers the motivation of the recipient, assuming the

recipient has lower self-esteem. A recipient with higher self-esteem will be more
 23

inclined to do something positive with the negative feedback. In this regard, self-

esteem is in line with Bar-On’s (2006) EI element of intrapersonal. The results of

London’s (1995) research showed that self-control and self-esteem, together, reinforce

that constructive feedback will most likely come from a source that has higher self-

control and self-esteem; those with high self-esteem but low self-control will likely

deliver feedback that is helpful to the source but not to the recipient; those with low

self-esteem and higher self-control are not likely to provide feedback, regardless of

being constructive or destructive; and, finally, those with low self-control and self-

esteem are typically the ones who deliver destructive feedback. London stated that

sources would benefit from training and development in the areas of observation skills,

verbal communication, and an empathic manner, even further evidence that EI plays an

important role in the feedback process.

Summary

Returning to the Connell and Nolan (2004) article previously discussed in the

section on performance management and feedback, interviewees of feedback recipients

suggested that while they did request more regular, informal feedback, they believe that

not all managers have the ability to deliver constructive feedback. If this is a sentiment

among subordinates, then this further supports the idea that there may be a connection

between EI and the feedback environment. Steelman et al. (2004), the creators of the

FES, have continued to research feedback environments. Along with her colleague,

Pittman, Steelman showed that EI together with transformational leadership and a

learning culture foster a feedback environment, which leads to self-development

behaviors of the subordinate (Pittman & Steelman, 2008). Performance management is

not up to a single employee or a single manager but rather is a joint effort at addressing
 24

the human side of the organization (Halachmi, 2005). Together, managers and

employees can foster feedback environments by increasing their EI.

The following chapter describes the method of this study, which contributes

more data to the field supporting a connection between EI and feedback environments.
 25

Chapter 3

Methodology

This study focuses on the role EI plays in performance management and

specifically how it relates to a feedback environment. Exploring the EI of supervisors

within feedback environments will help confirm the relationship between EI and the

different facets of a feedback environment. This chapter outlines the research design,

provides a description of the sample and setting, and discusses the measurements and

data analysis procedures.

Human Subjects

This study has been approved by Pepperdine University’s Graduate and

Professional Schools Institutional Review Board. The organization granted permission

to do the research, and all participants consented to this study. All data will be kept

confidential, and only anonymous, aggregate data will be reported.

Research Design

In an effort to review the relationship EI has with feedback environments, the

researcher applied a mixed-methods approach. This study was done using a

combination of assessments and interviews to determine levels of EI among supervisors

and the feedback environments they foster. The quantitative aspects of this study

include data from the EQ-i, a self-assessment taken by supervisors to assess their EI,

and the FES, taken only by subordinates to assess their perceptions of the feedback

environment as created by their supervisors (Bar-On, 2006; Steelman et al., 2004).

Qualitative research included interviews with supervisors to further validate the data

collected by the assessments and decrease rater bias. The interview protocol is shown

in the Appendix.
 26

Research Sample and Setting

Research was conducted at the Los Angeles office of a global ad agency. The

research was conducted within two organizational groups, both of which were selected

for this study through convenience sampling. The first (Group A) is an account

management brand team comprised of 69 individuals, 21 of whom are supervisors who

manage a minimum of two employees each. The second (Group B) is a department

focusing on production, and this group consists of 44 individuals, 7 of whom supervise

at least two employees. A total of 13 feedback environments are represented.

Measurement

There are three measures used in this study. The first, the FES, will measure the

feedback environment as perceived by subordinates (Steelman et al., 2004). The

second, the EQ-i, will measure the supervisor’s EI via self-report; and the third, semi-

structured interviews with supervisors, will be used to validate the findings from the

assessments (Bar-On, 2006).

The research was conducted in three phases. The first phase was the collection

of data for the FES, administered through Qualtrics, a web-based survey system

provided through Pepperdine University. The beginning of the survey asked

demographic questions as follows:

• How long have you been on your current team?

• Do you report into more than one supervisor?

• Are you a supervisor?

• If you are a supervisor, how many employees do you supervise?

• If you are a supervisor, have you ever received feedback delivery training?
 27

Respondents of the FES were asked to select a numerical code corresponding to

their supervisor’s name from a list provided by the researcher, so that the researcher

could determine who would receive the EI assessment, as only those supervisors with at

least two subordinate data points were selected for the second assessment. In the

second phase, the researcher administered the EQ-i, through the Multi-Health Systems

assessment website, only to supervisors who had a minimum of two subordinates

complete the FES. The last phase of measurement for this study, which linked EI to

feedback environments, was a qualitative interview of supervisors (Appendix).

Following the collection of data from the FES and EQ-i, the researcher interviewed

supervisors who were identified by subordinates as a direct supervisor in the FES and

completed the EQ-i. Because the EQ-i assessment is a self-report with potential biases

and because the FES is derived from the point of view of the subordinate, the interviews

helped to minimize the rater bias of the EQ-i and connect the data received from the

FES. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed by the researcher.

Analysis

The FES is comprised of seven facets consisting of (a) source credibility, (b)

feedback quality, (c) feedback delivery, (d) favorable feedback, (e) unfavorable

feedback, (f) source availability, and (g) promotes feedback seeking. Responses are

based on a seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly

disagree, neutral, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree). Similarly, Bar-On’s

(2006) EQ-i is multifaceted. Respondents of the EQ-i were measured by their total EI

score; the five scales of (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, (c) stress management, (d)

adaptability, and (e) general mood; and the 15 sub-scales (a) self-regard, (b) emotional

self-awareness, (c) assertiveness, (d) independence, (e) self-actualization, (f) empathy,

 28

(g) social responsibility, (h) interpersonal relationships, (i) stress tolerance, (j) impulse

control, (k) reality-testing, (l) flexibility, (m) problem-solving, (n) optimism, and (o)

happiness. The highest number of points that can be received for any scale in the EQ-i

is 150, with the following reporting metrics:

• 0–90 area of enrichment

• 90–110 effective functioning

• 130–150 enhanced skills

In addition to reporting descriptive statistics, a correlation analysis between the

seven individual facets of the FES and the five EQ-i scales was done. Finally, the

interviews were prepped and transcribed for analysis. The researcher identified

meaning units, which were grouped according to different concepts and were then

turned into theme statements. Those theme statements were summarized. The analysis

from the interviews helped inform the researcher of discrepancies in the data from the

FES and EQ-i.

The researcher looked for an overall relationship between EI and feedback

environments which showed that both are high/positive or low/negative. Shown in

Table 1, hypotheses were made based on assumed relationships between EI constructs

and the facets of a feedback environment. At a minimum, there are two EI constructs

that are suggested to relate to at least one aspect of a feedback environment (e.g.,

credibility) and, in another case, it is suggested that all EI constructs relate to a feedback

environment facet (e.g., unfavorable). Performing a correlation analysis tested these

hypotheses. Analysis assessed whether a correlation existed; and, if so, a discussion of

variables that may influence EI and/or feedback environments will be included in

chapter 5.
 29

Table 1

Hypotheses

Interview questions assessed if supervisors are new to their role, how long they

have been in a supervisory position, if they have had any prior experience with EI, and

their point of view on feedback. These questions informed potentially low EI scores of

supervisors and negatively perceived feedback environments.

Summary

In conclusion, this mixed-method approach to determining if EI fosters a

feedback environment can add to the overall research on this topic. The FES is an

assessment tool that qualifies a feedback environment in a holistic way, inclusive of

subordinate perception. The EQ-i is a validated tool used to self-assess EI. Finally, the

correlation of these two subsets of data along with support from interviews should

confirm that a relationship exists between EI and the feedback environment.

 30

Chapter 4

Results

This study focuses on the role EI plays in performance management and

specifically how it relates to the feedback environment. Exploring the EI of supervisors

within feedback environments will help determine if there is a correlation between EI

and the different facets of a feedback environment. This chapter begins by reviewing

the sample demographics. It then provides an analysis of the relationship between EI

and a feedback environment by presenting results from the FES, the EQ-i, a correlation

analysis, and interviews.

Sample Demographics

The researcher conducted her study within two groups. Overall participation

resulted in 59% completion of the FES. Based on the identification of supervisors from

the FES and the criterion of a minimum of 2 respondents creating a feedback

environment, the EQ-i was sent to 13 supervisors (11 from Group A, 2 from Group B).

There was 100% participation of the EQ-i assessment by the identified supervisors. The

supervisor population consisted of 8 females and 5 males. The average age for this

group is 41.77 years. Length of service at the current organization for these individuals

averaged 7.67 years, with one individual having 31 years of service at the organization.

Six of the 13 supervisors could be classified as new supervisors (less than two years

having supervised other employees). Interviews were requested with all 13 supervisors;

8 consented to being interviewed.

Survey and Interview Results

Findings from Feedback Environment Scale. The FES was distributed to 113

subordinates. Of those 113 individuals, there was a 57.5% response rate; however, only
 31

40 individuals (35.4%) identified a supervisor who was also identified by another

individual who responded, thus constituting a feedback environment—whereby a

minimum of two subordinates report into a single supervisor—resulting in 13 separate

feedback environments. Of the 13 feedback environments identified, the smallest

contained two subordinates and the largest contained eight subordinates. Table 2 shows

the number of subordinates directly reporting into a single supervisor making up a

feedback environment.

Table 2

Feedback Environment Makeup

The FES assessed 13 feedback environments from the perspective of 40

subordinates. Table 3 provides averages of the subordinates’ assessment of their

supervisors based on the seven facets of a feedback environment.

Within a single feedback environment, a supervisor’s assessment by his or her

subordinates of each element can convey how consistent the supervisor is across the

feedback environment. Responses were based on a seven-point Likert scale where 1 =

strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. For example, FE13 scored 6.8 in source
 32

Table 3

Feedback Environment Scale Scores Based on Averages

credibility and feedback quality and 5.92 in favorable feedback. This range of 0.88—

the smallest of all the feedback environments studied—shows just how consistent this

supervisor is in what his or her subordinates assess to be an overall positive feedback

environment with a composite score of 6.37. On the contrary, FE1 showed a range of

3.02 between highest and lowest FES scores (6.40 in source credibility and 3.38 in

favorable feedback), and FE12 had the largest range of FES scores at 3.30 (5.50 in

unfavorable feedback and 2.20 in feedback delivery), suggesting that these supervisors

may not be as consistent with their feedback environment. The supervisor from FE12

had some of the lowest aggregate scores across all facets, yet when it came to providing

unfavorable feedback, the average was much higher, thus constituting the largest range
 33

of average responses and a sign that this particular supervisor could warrant training in

all areas of feedback. Possible reasons that a supervisor scores higher in unfavorable

feedback than favorable feedback (FE1, FE7, FE12, and FE13) could be that they do

not believe in positive reinforcement or that there is an assumption that the subordinates

know they are doing well. The range of average responses for FE2 at 1.17 (6.35 in

source credibility and 5.18 in source availability) and FE7 at 1.37 (5.51 in feedback

delivery and 4.14 in favorable feedback and source availability)—both of whom have

eight and seven subordinates respectively—suggests that these supervisors are more

consistent with all facets of their feedback across all subordinates.

Findings from Emotional Quotient Inventory. All 13 supervisors took the EI

assessment, the EQ-i. Table 4 shows all EI scores. Total EI scores ranged from 92

(FE12) to 128 (FE8), with sub-construct scores ranging from a high of 130 (FE8—

intrapersonal) to a low of 84 (FE6—stress management). Validity indicators showed

that three of the 13 respondents (FE1, FE3, and FE11) showed somewhat to markedly

elevated positive impression scores. Negative impression scores were valid, and one

respondent (FE13) scored 11 on the inconsistency index, which could mean possibly

invalid responses.

Correlation analysis between feedback environment and emotional

intelligence. The researcher correlated data from the FES (averages from 40

subordinates) with data from the EQ-i (actual EQ-i scores from 13 supervisors) to

determine the various relationships that exist. A relationship between supervisors’ EI

and the feedback environment they foster was supported as seen in Table 5, whereby

total EI and composite EI scores are correlated with composite FES scores.
 34

Table 4

Emotional Intelligence Scores

Table 5

Emotional Intelligence/Feedback Environment Correlation

Table 6 showcases the relationships between the feedback environment scales

and the EI scales and sub-scales. Only those relationships where p < 0.1 are mentioned.

Based on the hypotheses outlined in chapter 3—whereby the composite scales of EI

(intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability and general mood) have a

 35

positive relationship with some facet of FE (source credibility, feedback quality,

feedback delivery, favorable feedback, unfavorable feedback, source availability, and

promotes feedback seeking)—total EI showed a positive correlation only with source

credibility, feedback quality, and feedback delivery. A deeper analysis showed the

following hypotheses to be supported:

• H2.1 and 2.3—Interpersonal correlates with source credibility, feedback delivery,

and favorable feedback

• H4.1, 4.3, and 4.6—Adaptability correlates with feedback quality, favorable

feedback, and promotes feedback seeking

• H5.4 and 5.5—General mood correlates with source availability and promotes

feedback seeking

There were a handful of correlations that were not in the original hypotheses as

follows:

• Intrapersonal correlates with source credibility, feedback quality, and feedback

delivery.

o Self-Regard (a sub-scale of intrapersonal) correlates with source credibility

o Independence (a sub-scale of intrapersonal) correlates with source credibility

and feedback quality

o Self-Actualization (a sub-scale of intrapersonal) correlates with source

credibility, feedback quality, feedback delivery, and favorable feedback

• Interpersonal correlates with supervisor promotes feedback seeking

o Interpersonal relationships (a sub-scale of interpersonal) correlates with source

availability and promotes feedback seeking

 36

• Adaptability correlates with source credibility (note: this was the highest correlation

at 0.72)

o Reality-testing, flexibility, and problem-solving (all sub-scales of adaptability)

correlate with source credibility

• General mood’s sub-scale happiness correlates with feedback delivery

Table 6

Correlations Between Emotional Intelligence and Feedback Environment

Findings from interviews. The researcher sought to interview all 13

supervisors; however, only 8 supervisors consented to being interviewed. The feedback

environments represented by the interviewees include FE 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13.

The interview protocol (Appendix) asked questions pertaining to length of time as a

supervisor and number of direct reports. There was a request for a description of the
 37

best supervisor they ever had and the character traits that were represented as well as

their philosophy on managing. These questions were aimed at determining what these

supervisors valued, and the researcher hoped to relate these traits back to EI. The

questions then narrowed in on the feedback environment. Questions were framed

around other possible elements outside of EI that could affect a feedback environment,

how they prepare for difficult conversations, if they were more inclined to provide

favorable or unfavorable feedback, what makes for quality feedback, and what they

would change about their current approach to feedback. The goal was to understand the

supervisors’ point of view on managing performance and providing feedback

holistically. Their time as a supervisor, how many subordinates they have, what they

think about when they meet with their employees to discuss performance, and how

critical they are of their current approach—all share some facet of this relationship

between EI and the feedback environment.

When supervisors were asked to speak about their best supervisor and their

philosophy on management, most answered similarly to both questions. They learned

from their best supervisor(s) and incorporated those traits into how they currently

manage. Those responses that were repeated by multiple interviewees included a

trusting of or confidence in their work, being thoughtful, being nurturing and

supportive, freedom to work autonomously, not micro-managing, enthusiasm about the

work, coming with solutions or ideas of how to handle tricky situations, a personal

liking for them, and an interest in their growth and development.

Only one of the eight interviewees had heard of EI prior to being involved in

this study. During the interview, the researcher defined EI and its sub-scales. When

asked what other factors might contribute to a feedback environment, some responses
 38

were as follows: how a supervisor prepares for a feedback conversation, the physical

environment, and non-verbal cues.

All of the supervisors interviewed believed that preparation prior to providing

feedback was critical to the success of the conversation. Preparation looked like the

following: collecting support—examples or specifics of behavior to have on hand, a

mental dialogue—thinking about how their subordinate would respond and then

creating an appropriate response, being constructive—focusing on the future,

acknowledgement that no one is infallible and that the intention is for double-loop

learning, and consideration of time and place.

In most instances with the eight respondents, all preferred to provide favorable

feedback when warranted versus unfavorable feedback when warranted. Responses

such as “I am a big fan of positive reinforcement” and “I am the cheerleader” showcase

how natural it is to provide favorable feedback. One respondent said, “It is natural to

avoid things that are conflict ridden,” and another questioned his inability to provide

unfavorable feedback compared to his ability to provide favorable feedback, saying it

had to do with employees liking him. There were some respondents who fell in the

middle, saying “I don’t want to over-praise or over-criticize” and that the magnitude of

an incident warranting unfavorable feedback was a determining factor in how often they

shared this type of feedback. If it were small, it would be filed away; and if there were

exposure, it would be discussed right away.

Feedback quality and frequency were important to all of the respondents. One

respondent shared how important it was “to attach a why” to the feedback and

emphasize how she could do things differently moving forward. There were other

references to quality feedback being constructive. Frequency of feedback led some

 39

respondents to share about their distaste for the formal annual review process, noting

that their subordinates still desired it. Most of the supervisors interviewed stated that

they meet with their employees informally on a monthly and/or quarterly basis but

stated that they do their best to make themselves available. One of these respondents

noted that despite making herself available to her subordinates, she was told she was

intimidating to approach and that being a department head in a highly layered business

unit could be the cause.

The final interview question asked what these eight supervisors would change

about their current approach to providing feedback. Answers included the following:

more frequent, more thoughtful, nicer, more in person, increase accessibility and

availability, more consistency, full focus and engagement on the individual, and quicker

turnaround of feedback following an incident.

Summary

More than 140 correlations were analyzed and only 32 showed a correlation of

p < 0.1. Overall, there was support for a relationship between EI and feedback

environment as designated by the 0.55 (p < .05) correlation of total and composite

scores. Of the 24 hypotheses tested, nine were supported by quantitative data. Sample

size could have been a limitation. The following chapter will provide a discussion and

conclusion to the data reported here and will make recommendations regarding future

study.
 40

Chapter 5

Conclusions

This study focuses on the role EI plays in performance management and

specifically how it relates to the feedback environment. The importance of this

relationship may provide insights to strengthening the supervisor-subordinate

relationship. This chapter will provide a brief summary of the findings, a discussion on

the theoretical and practical implications of the results, conclusions, the limitations of

this particular study, recommendations, and ideas for future research.

Summary of the Findings

Chapter 1 outlined the need for a positive feedback environment stemming from

several issues. First, annual and formal performance reviews are not enough and

oftentimes are ineffective at performance management due to feedback being given just

once a year and not in close proximity to the incident or behavior that requires

feedback. Second, the relationship between supervisor and subordinate is crucial to

retention and engagement; and if this relationship is on rocky ground attributed to a lack

of trust or credibility, the employee will leave the organization. Third and finally,

supervisor behavior (good and bad) is passed along to subordinates, so there is support

for making sure that supervisors have the appropriate skills to successfully manage the

fostering of a positive feedback environment.

The researcher believes EI is one answer to fostering a more positive feedback

environment. Extant literature supports a link between EI and leadership, and feedback

is a leadership competency. Similarly, heightened EI and positive feedback

environments have both been linked to increased performance, but little research has

been done on the relationship between the two. The belief is that overall EI has a
 41

positive relationship with feedback environment, and the hypotheses suggested multiple

relationships between the EI constructs and different elements of the feedback

environment.

Discussion

This study supports a link between supervisors’ EI and the feedback

environment that they foster. This support comes from a combination of the

quantitative and qualitative data collected.

The quantitative data showed a relationship between total EI scores and source

credibility (p < .05), feedback quality (p < .1), and feedback delivery (p < .1). The

evidence shows a non-directional probability, meaning that supervisors with higher EI

scores were found to be more credible, provide higher quality, and have better

intentions with their feedback than supervisors with lower EI scores. Examining the

data in more detail showed this same relationship amongst the EI constructs of

intrapersonal (self-awareness and self-expression) and adaptability (change

management).

The intrapersonal construct of EI is made up of self-regard, emotional self-

awareness, assertiveness, independence, and self-actualization. The most notable

relationship, based on the quantitative data, was that of self-actualization having had a

positive correlation with source credibility, feedback quality, feedback delivery, and

favorable feedback. Supervisors’ drive to achieve their optimal potential might be

linked to their need to be the best possible supervisors they can be and awareness that

their influence on their subordinates and their subordinates’ perception of them is key to

getting there. Interview responses called out integrity and transparency as character

traits that would relate to a positive feedback environment. Self-esteem was designated
 42

by London (1995) to have an effect on how constructive or destructive feedback is, and

this was confirmed by the correlation made between self-regard and source credibility

(p < .1). Self-control, however, did not show a statistically significant correlation.

Adaptability had the highest correlation of all with source credibility (p < .01)

and feedback quality (p < .01). Adaptability, with the sub-constructs of reality-testing,

flexibility, and problem-solving, showed how important it is to be agile. Supervisors

who are highly adaptable can tend to their subordinates on an as-needed basis without a

cause for disruption in their workday. These supervisors have a heightened awareness

of what is going on and know how to involve themselves in a productive manner. Their

subordinates see them as trustworthy and are comfortable with them inserting

themselves into situations as needed and allowing for regularly occurring feedback.

Being adaptable suggests that supervisors innately attend to problems that arise amongst

their team members and can lead to an expectation that these supervisors address

problems through feedback. The qualitative data showed a similar relationship—

getting involved by offering support, adding value when things are going awry, and

providing context and clarity when necessary. Taking this stance will ensure that

subordinates feel their supervisors have their backs.

There was also data in this study that did not support the connection between EI

and feedback environment, specifically that of empathy, a sub-construct of

interpersonal. All literature on EI mentions empathy as an integral part of EI’s makeup.

It is possible that one of the reasons supervisors have trouble providing feedback is

because emotions are involved. Salovey and Mayer (1990), in their definition of EI,

discussed the need to differentiate between their own and others’ emotions to guide

action and behavior. Goleman (1998) shared that empathy requires understanding the
 43

emotional makeup of people, and Bar-On (2006) wrote about relating to those emotions.

Interviewees even called out empathy as an important factor for providing feedback,

saying that it comes into play when preparing for a feedback discussion and prompts a

positive response during and after. Having no quantitative support of a relationship

between empathy and feedback could highlight a possible limitation of this study—that

other factors were more important in this environment or that subordinates found it

more difficult to judge the supervisor’s empathy.

Interpersonal relationships, another sub-construct of interpersonal, did help

substantiate the relationship showing a connection with source credibility (p < .1),

feedback delivery (p < .05), favorable feedback (p < .1), source availability (p < .1), and

promotes feedback seeking (p < .05). This shows that the supervisors maintaining

satisfying relationships and relating to their subordinates went hand in hand with several

of the elements of a positive feedback environment.

Stress management and its sub-constructs stress tolerance and impulse control

showed no relationship with feedback environment. An impetus for this study was to

better understand when and how a supervisor provides favorable and unfavorable

feedback and whether their ability to manage their emotions could be a factor. It was

suggested in chapter 1 that better stress management could lead to a more trusting

relationship between supervisor and subordinate, with an expectation that feedback is

fair and considers space and time. Acknowledgement that this relationship was not

shown in this study seems contrary to the idea that a supervisor flying off the handle

when disappointed by a subordinate’s performance would have no impact on the

subordinate and potential witnesses. The same goes for the idea that a supervisor
 44

ignoring a problem that is evident (he or she is too upset to deal with it) can be

detrimental to a subordinate’s growth and development.

General mood, the final construct of EI, only showed a positive correlation of its

sub-construct happiness with feedback delivery (p < 0.1), source availability (p < 0.1),

and promotes feedback seeking (p <0.1). The premise of constructive feedback

emphasizes positivity in an effort to change behavior for the future. For no relationship

to exist between optimism and constructive feedback seems contradictory to the

purpose. Assuming the goal is improved performance, even the word improve aligns

with positivity. When a mistake is made, a dialogue occurs between supervisor and

subordinate, leading to better understanding and hope that the mistake does not repeat

itself. There were several interviewees who stressed the importance of feedback being

constructive.

Conclusions

EI has been linked to leadership dating back to the early 1990s. Pittman and

Steelman (2008) conveyed that the work of a leader includes being an effective

manager, developing employees, fostering a learning environment, being inspiring, and

improving performance. While the quantitative data did not fully support all the

hypotheses made in chapter 3, there is enough evidence to suggest that relationships

between the two exist and an investment in training in the areas of EI and feedback can

lead to better performance management. Another element to consider is that EI is

believed to develop with age (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Experience provides

an advantage here and this is why supervisors new to their roles will learn from their

supervisors, sometimes the only option available—a trickle-down effect that makes
 45

training such a wise investment. Employees learn from their supervisors, and both good

and bad habits can be formed early on in an individual’s career.

Limitations

There were a handful of limitations to this study that need to be mentioned here.

First, the sample size was small. In most cases, the feedback environments studied

consisted of just two or three subordinates to one supervisor. In the event that there

existed a poor relationship between a supervisor and subordinate, the data became

skewed. The organization and industry chosen for this study also proved to be a

shortcoming. Morale could have had an impact on response rate, which may be the

cause for responses in the FES to lean toward the positive. When the researcher sought

out participants, whole feedback environments opted out because the supervisor, in this

case, was not willing to participate. This could be a selection or sample bias. Another

potential limitation to this study was the use of the EQ-i as the EI assessment. The

researcher chose this assessment out of convenience, and it is possible that the

ESCI 360 would have provided different results.

Recommendations

Organizations looking to foster positive feedback environments as a possible

means to address the inefficiencies of the annual performance review, attrition, and the

passing along of not-so-promising behaviors should look at training, culture, and

performance feedback in general.

Training. Training and mentorship programs that focus on EI, leadership, and

feedback could address the problems outlined above. Even more impact could come

from conducting training on the individual topics and then adding a fourth training

session where the relationships between them are highlighted. Another interesting
 46

element could be a follow-up discussion a few months after the training sessions to

determine the growth supervisors are making and potentially how their subordinates are

developing as a result.

Culture. Another element to consider is how well EI, leadership, and feedback

are valued within the organization. The culture would need to support this, i.e., lead by

example. Senior leadership would need to be providing regular feedback to their direct

reports in order to tout the importance of it for employees in the organization. Results

such as retention and engagement would stem from an organizational culture that relied

on feedback as a main type of communication.

Performance feedback. Another recommendation is to actually forego the

annual performance review in lieu of informal, regularly occurring, constructive

feedback that can be utilized immediately to change behavior and result in improved

performance. With the annual review, feedback often comes too late to address certain

behaviors. The goal would be to have employees in an organization know where they

stand on any given day of the year.

Further Research

The topic of feedback and performance management is broad, and this study

looked at a very small sample in a service-oriented industry. Further research should

involve a larger sample size, different industries, and perhaps the use of another EI

instrument. An expansion of this study could look at feedback as an organizational

value, as seen with the company DaVita, a dialysis treatment operator (Hymowitz,

2006). Another possibility could be an experiment in which one compares two or three

business units or whole organizations whereby one decides to forego the annual

performance review after a feedback training intervention in lieu of a positive feedback

 47

environment and the other maintains its annual performance review process, with and

without a positive feedback environment. If this study with the same methods outlined

in chapter 3 were to be conducted again, a larger organization with more participation

and/or a whole organization would be ideal. If this were to happen, the feedback

environment should require a minimum of four subordinates to ensure results are

reliable.

The results suggested a nuanced view of the relationship between EI and a positive

feedback environment. Some important relationships were found. Adaptability, self-

actualization, and interpersonal relationships showed strong ties to the feedback

environment, yet others surprisingly showed no relationship, such as empathy and stress

management. Ultimately, the data suggest that the EI of supervisors does in fact have

an impact on fostering a positive feedback environment.

 48

References
 49

References

Ashford, S. J. (1993). The feedback environment: An exploratory study of cue use.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 201-224.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal

strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32, 370-398.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical

manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Bar-On, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale,

description, and summary of psychometric properties. In G. Geher (Ed.),
Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy (pp. 111-
142). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI).

Psicothema, 18, 13-25. Retrieved from
http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/baron_model_of_emotional_social_intelligenc
e.pdf

Boyatzis, R. E. (2009). Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional

intelligence. Journal of Management Development, 28(9), 749-770.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Hay Acquisition. (2001/2007) Emotional and Social
Competency Inventory. Boston, MA: The Hay Group.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. W. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing

world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.

Cherniss, G. (2000). Emotional intelligence: What it is and why it matters. Consortium

for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.eiconsortium.org/reports/what_is_emotional_intelligence.html

Connell, J., & Nolan, J. (2004). Managing performance: Modern-day myth or a game
people play? International Journal of Employment Studies, 12(1), 43-63.

Estimating the total size of the training industry. (2009, February 23). Retrieved from
http://www.astd.org/Publications/Blogs/ASTD-Blog/2009/02/Estimating-the-
Total-Size-of-the-Training-Industry.aspx

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

 50

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998, November-December). What makes a leader? Harvard Business

Review, 93-102.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal leadership: The hidden driver
of great performance. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 42-51.

Halachmi, A. (2005). Performance measurement is only one way of managing

performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 54(7), 502-516.

Hymowitz, C. (2006). Executives who build truth-telling cultures learn fast what
works. Wall Street Journal—Eastern Edition, B1.

Lee, C. D. (2006). Feedback, not appraisal. HR Magazine, 111-114.

London, M. (1995). Giving feedback: Source-centered antecedents and consequences of

constructive and destructive feedback. Human Resources Management Review,
5(3), 159-188.

Longenecker, C. O., & Gioia, D. A. (2003). Confronting the “politics” in performance

appraisal. Business Forum, 25(3, 4), 17-23.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Competing models of emotional
intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (2nd ed.;
pp. 396-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.” American
Psychologist, 28(1), 1-40.

Momeni, N. (2009). The relation between managers’ emotional intelligence and the
organizational climate they create. Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 35-48.

Pittman, J., & Steelman, L. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of the feedback
environment. White paper obtained from author.

Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the
context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 211-220.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition &
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.

Shipper, F., Kincaid, J., Rotondo, D. M., & Hoffman, R. C. (2003). A cross-cultural
exploratory study of the linkage between emotional intelligence and managerial
effectiveness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 171-191.
 51

Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Feedback environment and well-being at work:
The mediating role of personal control and feelings of helplessness. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 388-412.

Steelman, L., Levy, P., & Snell, A. (2004). The Feedback Environment Scale:
Construct, definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165-184.

Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social
intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275-284.

Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The elements of great managing. New York:
Gallup Press.

Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2008). The eleventh element of great managing: Why the
compulsory performance evaluation is not enough. Gallup Management
Journal. Retrieved from
http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/104644/eleventh-element-great-
managing.aspx

Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore:

Williams and Wilkins.

Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. (2007). The development of a feedback
environment and role clarity model of job performance. Journal of Management,
33, 570-591.

Yuvaraj, S., & Srivastava, N. (2007). Are innovative managers emotionally intelligent?
Journal of Management Research, 7(3), 169-178.
 52

Appendix: Interview Protocol

 53

Interview Protocol

How long have you worked here?

How long have you been a supervisor?

How many employees do you supervise?

Tell me about the best supervisor you have ever had?

Can you share your philosophy on how you manage/supervise your employee(s)?

Have you heard of Emotional Intelligence?

How would you interpret the following facets of Emotional Intelligence?

• Intrapersonal—the ability to recognize, understand and express emotions and
feelings
• Interpersonal—the ability to understand how others feel and relate with them
• Stress Management—the ability to manage and control emotions
• General Mood—the ability to generate positive affect and be self-motivated
• Adaptability—the ability to manage change, adapt and solve problems of a
personal and interpersonal nature

I will then operationally define Emotional Intelligence.

Have you ever attended any supervisor skills training or workshops?

If so, did it include feedback as a topic?

If you have to give an employee difficult feedback, can you tell me how you would go
about delivering that feedback?
What factors would you consider?
Would you typically spend time preparing for a conversation like this?
How would you prepare?

Are you more inclined to provide favorable or unfavorable feedback to your

employees?

Do you make yourself available to employees on a regular basis so they may seek out
feedback as needed? How do you go about doing this?

Do you believe your employees are satisfied with the feedback you provide? Why or
why not?

If you could change one aspect of your current approach to delivering feedback, what
would it be?