You are on page 1of 22

ASSIGNMENT ON ADVANCED HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TOPIC- Emotional

Intelligence & Job Involvement In Various Sector

SUBMITTED BY E.Nanthitha & Sajna naryan

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (EQ)

Definition of Emotional Intelligence Emotional intelligence is the innate potential to feel, use, communicate, recognize, remember, describe, identify, learn from, manage, understand and explain emotions. Hein Definition of Emotional Intelligence Emotional intelligence is the innate potential to feel, use, communicate, recognize, remember, describe, identify, learn from, manage, understand and explain emotions. S.Hein Emotional intelligence theory (EQ - Emotional Quotient) Emotional Intelligence - EQ - is a relatively recent behavioural model, rising to prominence with Daniel Goleman's 1995 Book called 'Emotional Intelligence'. The early Emotional Intelligence theory was originally developed during the 1970's and 80's by the work and writings of psychologists Howard Gardner (Harvard), Peter Salovey (Yale) and John Mayer (New Hampshire). Emotional Intelligence is increasingly relevant to organizational development and developing people, because the EQ principles provide a new way to understand and assess people's behaviours, management styles, attitudes, interpersonal skills, and potential. Emotional Intelligence is an important consideration in human resources planning, job profiling, recruitment interviewing and selection, management development, customer relations and customer service, and more. Emotional Intelligence links strongly with concepts of love and spirituality: bringing compassion and humanity to work, and also to 'Multiple Intelligence' theory which illustrates and measures the range of capabilities people possess, and the fact that everybody has a value.

The EQ concept argues that IQ, or conventional intelligence, is too narrow; that there are wider areas of emotional intelligence that dictate and enable how successful we are. Success requires more than IQ (Intelligence Quotient), which has tended to be the traditional measure of intelligence, ignoring eseential behavioural and character elements. We've all met people who are academically brilliant and yet are socially and interpersonally inept. And we know that despite possessing a high IQ rating, success does not automatically follow. Emotional intelligence - two aspects This is the essential premise of EQ: to be successful requires the effective awareness, control and management of one's own emotions, and those of other people. EQ embraces two aspects of intelligence:

Understanding yourself, your goals, intentions, responses, behaviour and all. Understanding others, and their feelings.

Emotional intelligence - the five domains Goleman identified the five 'domains' of EQ as: 1. Knowing your emotions. 2. Managing your own emotions. 3. Motivating yourself. 4. Recognising and understanding other people's emotions. 5. Managing relationships, ie., managing the emotions of others. Emotional Intelligence embraces and draws from numerous other branches of behavioural, emotional and communications theories, such as NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), Transactional Analysis, and empathy. By developing our Emotional Intelligence in these areas and the five EQ domains we can become more productive and successful at what we do, and help others to be more productive and successful too. The process and outcomes of Emotional Intelligence development also contain many elements

known to reduce stress for individuals and organizations, by decreasing conflict, improving relationships and understanding, and increasing stability, continuity and harmony. Emotional intelligence competence framework, case studies, examples, tools, tests, information and related theory references The following excellent free Emotional Intelligence materials in pdf file format (Acrobat Reader required to view) are provided with permission of Daniel Goleman on behalf of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence, which is gratefully acknowledged: The Emotional Competence Framework - a generic EQ competence framework produced by Daniel Goleman and CREI covering in summary:

personal competence - self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation social competence - social awareness, social skills The Business Case for Emotional Intelligence - a paper by Dr Cary Cherniss

featuring 19 referenced business and organizational case studies demonstrating how emotional intelligence contributes to corporate profit performance. The paper is an excellent tool which trainers, HR professionals and visionaries can use to help justify focus, development, assessment, etc., of EQ in organizations. Guidelines for Promoting Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace - a paper chiefly constructed by Cary Cherniss and Daniel Goleman featuring 22 guidelines which represent the best current knowledge relating to the promotion of EQ in the workplace, summarised as: Paving the way

assess the organization's needs assessing the individual delivering assessments with care

maximising learning choice encouraging participation linking goals and personal values adjusting individual expectations assessing readiness and motivation for EQ development

Doing the work of change


foster relationships between EQ trainers and learners self-directed chnage and learning setting goals breaking goals down into achievable steps providing opportunities for practice give feedback using experiential methods build in support use models and examples encourage insight and self-awareness

Encourage transfer and maintenance of change (sustainable change)


encourage application of new learning in jobs develop organizational culture that supports learning

Ethical business and socially responsible leadership are strongly connected to EQ. So is the concept of love and spirituality in organisations. Compassion and humanity are fundamental life-forces; our Emotional Intelligence enables us to appreciate and develop these vital connections between self, others, purpose, meaning, existence, life and the world as a whole, and to help others do the same.

People with strong EQ have less emotional 'baggage', and conversely people with low EQ tend to have personal unresolved issues which either act as triggers (see Freud/Penfield TA roots explanation) or are constants in personality make-up. Empathy and active interpretive listening is also very relevant to EQ. Ingham and Luft's Johari Window and associated exercises on the free team building games section also help explain another perspective. That is, as a rule, the higher a person's EQ, the less insecurity is likely to be present, and the more openness will be tolerated. High EQ = low insecurity = more openness. A person's preparedness to expose their feelings, vulnerabilities, thoughts, etc., is a feature of EQ. Again the converse applies. Johari illustrates this very well (the Johari Window diagram). Maslow is also relevant - self-actualisers naturally have stronger EQ. People struggling to meet lower order needs - and arguably even middle order needs such as esteem needs - tend to have lower EQ than self-actualisers. The original 5 stage Hierarchy of Needs explains that all needs other than self-actualisation are deficiency drivers, which suggest, in other words, some EQ development potential or weakness. There is a strong thread of EQ running through Stephen Covey's 7 Habits. Other theories related to Emotional Intelligence: Love and Spirituality - how to bring compassion and humanity to work Ethical and Social Responsibility Leadership Buying Facilitation

Benziger Thinking Styles and Assessment Model McGregor XY Theory Three main models of EI:

Ability EI models Mixed models of EI Trait EI model

The ability-based model Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial definition of EI was revised to: "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth." The ability based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment.[12] The model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model proposes that EI includes 4 types of abilities: 1. Perceiving emotions the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts- including the ability to identify ones own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible. 2. Using emotions the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand.

3. Understanding emotions the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time. 4. Managing emotions the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals. The ability-based model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive validity in the workplace. [13] Measurement of the ability-based model Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree that they tap slightly different constructs. The current measure of Mayer and Saloveys model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items.Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based IQ tests. By testing a persons abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score. Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individuals answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individuals answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers. Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that

only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally 'intelligent' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence. In a study by Fllesdal the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that there were no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she was rated by the employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader effectiveness. Fllesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi-Health Systems, which administers the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing the test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems to remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring, but without stating this officially. Mixed models of EI The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model The model introduced by Daniel Goleman focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines four main EI constructs 1. Self-awareness the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions. 2. Self-management involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances. 3. Social awareness the ability to sense, understand, and react to others' emotions while comprehending social networks. 4. Relationship management the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict. Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be

worked on and developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies.[16] Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere pop-psychology (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model: 1) The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999 and the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), which was created in 2007. 2) The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment[17]. The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI) Bar-On (2006) developed one of the first measures of EI that used the term Emotion Quotient. He defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands.[18] Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it can be improved through training, programming, and therapy.[2] Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with higher than average E.Q.s are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with ones environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control. In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a persons general intelligence, which then offers an indication of ones potential to succeed in life.[2] However, doubts have been expressed about this model in the research literature (in particular about the validity of self-report as an index of

emotional intelligence) and in scientific settings (see, e.g., Kluemper, 2008).[19] it is being replaced by the trait EI model discussed below. Measurement of the ESI Model The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), is a self-report measure of EI developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior that provides an estimate of one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not meant to measure personality traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures.[2] One hundred and thirty three items (questions or factors) are used to obtain a Total EQ (Total Emotional Quotient) and to produce five composite scale scores, corresponding to the five main components of the Bar-On model. A limitation of this model is that it claims to measure some kind of ability through self-report items (for a discussion, see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, ). The EQi has been found to be highly susceptible to faking (Day & Carroll, ; Grubb & McDaniel,). The Trait EI model Petrides proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI.Trait EI is "a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality". In lay terms, trait EI refers to an individual's self-perceptions of their emotional abilities. This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities, which have proven highly resistant to scientific measurement. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework. An alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy. The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed above. Petrides et al. are major critics of the ability-based model and the MSCEIT arguing that they are based on "psychometrically meaningless" scoring procedures (e.g., Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli,).

The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it. Measurement of the Trait EI model There are many self-report measures of EI, including the EQi, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT),the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT), a measure by Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005). From the perspective of the trait EI model, none of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional intelligence (Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is an open-access measure that was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively and is currently available in 15 languages. The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides and colleagues' model that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality.[22] The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: Well-Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a recent study on a FrenchSpeaking Population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally distributed and reliable. The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning (Ravens matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively related to some of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others(alexithymia, neuroticism).

EI is too broadly defined and the definitions are unstable One of the arguments against the theoretical soundness of the concept suggests that the constant changing and broadening of its definition- which has come to encompass many unrelated elements had rendered it an unintelligible concept: "What is the common or integrating element in a concept that includes: introspection about emotions, Emotional expression, non-verbal communication with others, empathy, self-regulation, planning, creative thinking and the direction of attention? There is none." Other critics mention that without some stabilization of the concepts and the measurement instruments, meta-analyses are difficult to implement, and the theory coherence is likely to be adversely impacted by this instability. EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000) writes that Goleman's description of EI contains assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence: "Goleman exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis". Similarly, Locke claims that the concept of EI in itself is a misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence--the ability to grasp abstractions--applied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and referred to as a skill.

EI has no substantial predictive value Landy has claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI have demonstrated that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy proposes that the reason some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is in fact a methodological fallacy incomplete consideration of alternative explanations: "EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic intelligence." Landy In accordance with this suggestion, other researchers have raised concerns about the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions. Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the self-report form. Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI neuroticism and extraversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures. The interpretations of the correlations between self-report EI and personality have been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the .40 range constitute outright construct redundancy,[31] while others have suggested that selfreport EI is a personality trait in itself.[20] EI, IQ and job performance Research of EI and job performance show mixed results: a positive relation has been found in some of the studies, in others there was no relation or an inconsistent one. This led researchers Cote and Miners (2006) tooffer a compensatory model between EI and IQ, that posits that the association between EI and job performance becomes more positive as

cognitive intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of academic performance (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get higher task performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, the higher their EI.

Potential EI vs. Actual EI Skills (EI vs EQ) As written in my defintion section, I believe each child enters the world with a unique potential for these components of emotional intelligence: 1. Emotional sensitivity 2. Emotional memory 3. Emotional processing and problem solving ability 4. Emotional learning ability. The way we are raised dramatically affects what happens to our potential in each of these areas. For example a baby might be born with a very high potential for music -- he or she might be a potential Mozart -- but if that child's potential is never recognized, nurtured, and enouraged, and if the child is never given the chance to develop their musical potential, they will never become a talented musician later in life. The world will then miss out on this person's special gift to humanity. Also, a child being raised in an emotionally abusive home can be expected to use their emotional potential in unhealthy ways later in life. Because of these possibilities, I encourage you to make a distinction between a person's inborn emotional potential versus their actual emotional skills and use of emotional intelligence later in life. I suggest we use the term "emotional intelligence"

only for a person's inborn, innate emotional potential. When we want to talk about their actual emotional skills and emotional management as we see by their behavior, I suggest we use the term "EQ" since it is already often being used talk about a person's practical emotional skills.

Innate Emotional Intelligence vs "EQ" Most writers interchange the terms "EQ" and "emotional intelligence". I believe, however, it is useful to try to make distinction between a person's person's innate potential versus what act ually happens to that potential over their lifetime. I believe each baby is born with a certain potential for emotional sensitivity, emotional memory, emotional processing and emotional learning ability. It is these four inborn components which I believe form the core of one's emotional intelligence. This innate intelligence can be either developed or damaged with life experiences, particularly by the emotional lessons taught by the parents, teachers, caregivers and family during childhood and adolescence. The impact of these lessons results in what I refer to as one's level of "EQ." in other words, as I use the term, "EQ" represents a relative measure of a person's healthy or unhealthy development of their innate emotional intelligence. When I say "EQ" I am not talking about a numerical test score like IQ. It is simply a convenient name I am using. As far as I know, I am the only writer who is making a distinction between inborn potential and later development or damage. I believe it is possible for a child to begin life with a high level of innate emotional intelligence, but then learn unhealthy emotional habits from living in an abusive home. Such a child will grow up to have what I would call low EQ. I would suspect that abused, neglected and emotionally damaged children will score much lower on the existing emotional

intelligence tests compared to others having the same actual original emotional intelligence at birth. As I see it, I believe, then, that it is possible for a person to start out with high EI, but then be emotionally damaged in early childhood, causing a low EQ later in life. On the other hand, I believe it is possible for a child to start out with relatively low EI, but receive healthy emotional modeling, nurturing etc., which will result in moderately high EQ. Let me stress however that I believe it is much easier to damage a high EI child than to develop the EQ of a low EI child. This follows the principle that it is generally easier to destroy than create. In comparison to say, mathematical intelligence, it is important to note that relatively few people start out with high innate mathematical abilities and then have this ability damaged through misleading or false math training or modeling. I say relatively few because I mean in comparison to the number of emotionally sensitive children who receive unhealthy and self-destructive emotional imprinting from any number of sources. Parents and television shows don't generally teach that 2+2=968. But they do often teach emotional lessons which are as equivalent in unhealthiness as this equation is in inaccuracy. Or we might say which would be as damaging to an intimate relationship as the false equation would be to the career of an accountant. At present, all other models of emotional intelligence, including even the most "pure" of the group, the Mayer/Salovey/Caruso model, combine the measurement of the innate emotional variables (sensitivity, memory, processing and learning) with the environmental affects on those same variables. Certain writers have defined intelligence in general as "potential." I agree with this and this is why I want to distinguish between EI and EQ. 1.Ability, Skill and Potential This article discusses a key problem with the Mayer Salovey definition of EI and with the Mayer Salovey Caruso test (MSCEIT). The problem is their use of the word "ability".

2. Innate EI and emotional damage during life The Mayer Salovey definition, along with the way they discuss EI in their writing, ignores the fact that a child can start out with high innate emotional intelligence and then be emotionally damaged. (I discuss this further in my section on EI vs EQ.) I would like to see them address this more in their work. 3. Emotional Vocabulary I would like to see Mayer and Salovey address the fact that an emotionally intelligent person is capable of mastering an extensive vocabulary of what I call feeling words. By mastering I mean having the ability to not only perceive an extensive range of feelings in oneself and others, but also to quickly assign the most specific label to the feeling, for example in conversation with others or in self-reflection. In some of their writing MSC do include the ability to express emotion as part of their first branch of EI, but they seem to limit their test to only a few emotions compared with the much broader available scope of feeling words which are available in the English language. In common language we often think a person is "intelligent" when they have a large vocabulary and can use it precisely. I believe this same concept applies to emotional intelligence. But again, if a person is never specifically taught to use feeling words, it does not necessarily mean they did not have high innate emotional intelligence, nor that they cannot later expand their emotional vocabulary. 4. Emotional Knowledge In the section on emotional understanding much of this is probably better called emotional knowledge than an aspect of emotional intelligence itself. Knowledge can be taught but intelligence represents potential before any learning has taken place. Of course, if one is more intelligent, emotionally or otherwise, this learning takes place faster and can go further. 5. Testing for EI

This concern is with measuring emotional facilitation of thought and emotional management. I don't see how you can really do this with a paper and pencil test. The MSC team say they are measuring some of these things with their tests, but it is hard to say how much their test scores reflect actual ability in real life situations, or when under extreme stress. And these are the situations when highly developed emotional intelligence may be the most important.

6. Abstractness Finally their definition is a bit too abstract for me when it comes to things like identifying emotion in art and music. I found this section of their CD ROM test a little hard to take seriously when it asks you to look at a graphic design and try to guess what emotions it is conveying. Therefore I would like to see them test for something like the ability to identify emotion in tone of voice or body language instead. Adaptation of the Mayer Salovey definition 1. Emotional identification, perception and expression

The ability to perceive and identify emotions in faces, tone of voice, body language The capacity for self-awareness: being aware of your own feelings as they are occurring The capacity for emotional literacy. Being able to label specific feelings in yourself and others; being able to discuss emotions and communicate clearly and directly.

2. Emotional facilitation of thought

The ability to incorporate feelings into analysis, reasoning, problem solving and decision making The potential of your feelings to guide you to what is important to think about

3. Emotional understanding

The ability to solve emotional problems The ability to identify and understand the inter-relationships beween emotions, thoughts and behavior. For example, to see cause and effect relationships such as how thoughts can affect emotions or how emotions can affect thoughts, and how your emotions can lead to the behavior in yourself and others.

The ability to understand the value of emotions to the survival of the species

4. Emotional management

The ability to take responsibility for one's own emotions and happiness The ability to turn negative emotions into positive learning and growing opportunities The ability to help others identify and benefit from their emotions

JOB INVOLVEMENT IN VARIOUS JOB SECTOR Job involvement has been seen as influencing interrole conflict through role segmentation and time and attention devoted to the job role. This study tested both a direct and a moderated relationship using these variables. The sample consisted of 456 employees in a major American service organization who completed paper-and-pencil instruments including the Job Involvement Questionnaire and new measures of the moderators and interrole conflict. There was evidence of an indirect relationship between job involvement and interrole conflict. Segmentation explained more variance than time or attention devoted to roles. Though there was a direct correlation between job involvement and conflict, it was weak and had no unique variance when the moderators were included. Organizational Politics, Job Attitudes, and Work Outcomes: Exploration and Implications for the Public Sector

To promote understanding of employees' reactions to organizational politics. The relationship between perception of organizational politics, job attitudes, and several other work outcomes was examined among 303 public sector employees in Israel. Perception of organizational politics was found to have had a negative relationship with job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational commitment), a positive relationship with intention to leave the organization (exit), and a stronger positive relationship with negligent behavior (neglect). It is suggested that public personnel will tend to react to workplace politics with negligent behavior rather than by leaving. A weak negative relationship was found between perception of organizational politics and employees' performance as reported by supervisors. Perception of organizational politics also made a unique contribution to explaining variance among the work outcomes, beyond the variance explained by job attitudes and personal variables. Several implications and recommendations for further inquiry into perception of politics in organizations, particularly in the public sector, are noted. Strategies for Involving the Private Sector in Job Training Programs. This describes various strategies for involving the private sector in job training programs and summarizes a study conducted with prime sponsors of Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) programs in Texas. Included in a discussion of involving the private sector in job training programs are the following topics: the new mandate for private sector involvement; the benefits of business/industry involvement in job training; the purpose of private sector involvement; barriers to private sector involvement in job training; components of success (definition of goals, promotion and management, involvement, cost); and strategies for collaboration (the vocational education and CETA delivery systems). A bibliography for private sector involvement in job training is also provided. Summarized next are the results of a survey completed by a total of 24 CETA prime sponsors and Balance of State program contractors in the state of Texas in order to determine the extent of private sector involvement in job training programs and employment generating services.

Impact of Job Involvement on In-Role Job Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior The impact of job involvement on the self-report measures of in-role job performance and organizational citizenship behavior. The results of this study revealed that job involvement was positively correlated with both in-role job performance and OCB . In addition to this it was found that organizational commitment partially mediated the job involvement-performance relationship.