25234483 Emotional Intelligence Its Measurement and Implications for the Workplace

International Journal of Management Reviews (2008)doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00220.x

International Journal of Management Reviews Volume 10 Issue 2 pp. 149–171 149

© 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,MA 02148, USA

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKIJMRInternational Journal of Management Reviews1460-8545© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007XXXORIGINAL ARTICLESEMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ITS MEASUREMENT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WORKPLACEXXXX 2007

Emotional intelligence, its measurement and implications for the workplaceSusan Cartwright1 and Constantinos PappasThe concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has attracted a huge amount of interest from bothacademics and practitioners and has become linked to a whole range of outcomes, includingcareer success, life satisfaction and health. Yet the concept itself and the way in which it ismeasured continue to fuel considerable debate. This paper takes a critical review of themethodologies and robustness of the validation and application studies that have used EImeasures. In addition, the links between EI and other related theoretical perspectives suchas emotional labour are considered.

Introduction

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI)has become immensely popular with organiza-tions and provided a lucrative new marketfor test distributors and training consultancies.According to the American Society for Trainingand Development (Goleman 1998), four outof five companies are actively trying to raisethe EI of their staff as a means of increasingsales, improving customer service (Cavelzaniet al. 2003) and ensuring that their internationalmanagers perform successfully in globalassignments (Gabel et al. 2005). There havebeen numerous claims as to the economicvalue in selecting personnel on the basis oftheir EI. For example, Goleman (1995),arguably on of the leading beneficiaries ofthe EI industry, has claimed that insurancesales agents who scored high on emotionalcompetencies achieved sales figures which

were more than twice those of their lessemotionally competent colleagues. Bachmanet al. (2000) have similarly suggested thathighly emotionally competent debt collectorsrecovered double the amount of revenuescompared with their more typical co-workers.

The link between EI and increased perform-ance is intuitively appealing to organizations,particularly to those in the service sector.However, the appeal and influence of EI inthe USA can also perhaps be explained byunderstanding the social context in which thetheory was presented and popularized. Thisoccurred against a background of resurgentdebate about the inheritability of intelligenceand its link with class structure, which hadbeen fuelled by the publication of The BellCurve (Herrnstein and Murray 1994) in themid-1990s, a provocative book restating thelink between race, IQ and social mobility,which offended the principles of liberalism

Emotional Intelligence, its measurement and implications for the workplace

150 © 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

held by many Americans and for which theauthors were accused of racism and elitism(Bouchard 1995) and criticized for usingflawed data to argue against current fertilitypolicies (Dorfman 1995). The publication ofGoleman’s book on EI a year later (Goleman1995) presented a positive counterpoint to themessage of The Bell Curve in arguing that lifesuccess was more dependent upon the way inwhich individuals handle their emotions andthe emotions of others than how smart theywere in terms of cognitive intelligence. This‘new yardstick’ (Goleman 1995, 3) by whichto assess ability, while described by someas absurd (Eysenck 2000) and weak on hardevidence (Zeidner et al. 2004), neverthelessreinforced an acceptable notion that being‘kind, warm and friendly’ was an importantpathway to success (Paul 1999), at a timewhen the profile of emotions in the workplacewas increasing in prominence (Domagalski1999).

In recent years, there has been an exponentialgrowth in the EI literature, directed at botha popular and an academic readership. Con-sequently, it would seem that EI has an impactupon an ever increasing range of workplacebehaviours from managing stress (Slaski andCartwright 2002) to devising travel solutionsfor tourists (Cavelzani et al. 2003). For avariable to have such an apparently pervasiveinfluence on human behaviour, one mightwonder why it remained undiscovered for solong. Alternatively, perhaps it is merely there-labelling and clever marketing of a conceptthat psychologists have long been able tomeasure under different guises.

While the validity and efficacy of EI hasbeen scrutinized within the psychologyliterature (Law 2004; van Rooy et al. 2005;Zeidner et al. 2004), in the main, such reviewshave focused on test construction and relatedpsychometric properties. In contrast, themanagement literature has been rather lessinclined to assess the concept critically anddisentangle the hype from the hard evidence.As non-psychological management disciplinessuch as marketing, travel and tourism have

increasingly embraced the concept and devel-oped their own interpretations of the skillsassociated with EI (Varca 2004), it would seemapposite to challenge some of the modelsand measurement tools associated with EI,their usefulness and the extent to which theyoverlap with more traditional concepts andmeasures relating to individual behaviour.

Theories of Individual Differences

Theories of individual differences have a longhistory in explaining human behaviour and thedifferent ways in which individuals respondto similar events and circumstances. For almosta century, intelligence and personality testshave been used by organizations to assess andcompare individuals on a range of factors asa means of informing selection and promotiondecisions. According to the American Societyfor Personnel Administration, almost 60% oflarge organizations and 40% of smaller com-panies employing fewer than 100 employeesregularly use personality tests for selectionand other work-related purposes (Furnham1992). The role of individual differences hasalso been emphasized in the study of morecontemporary and emergent workplace issuessuch as occupational stress and organizationalchange. Research (Barling et al. 2005; Cart-wright and Cooper 2004) has demonstratedthat differences in personality, behaviouralstyle and ways of coping account for theway in which individuals both appraise andexperience stress. Individual differences havealso been shown to relate to the extent towhich individuals respond to and embraceorganizational change (Kusstatscher andCooper 2005).

Perhaps as a result of the growing recogni-tion that organizational change and many otherwork-related experiences are emotion-elicitingevents (Mossholder et al. 2000), interest inthe role of emotions in the workplace hasincreased in prominence. In particular,growing attention has focused on the emotionaldemands of jobs in areas such as customerservice which require role occupants to exercise

June 2008

© 2007 The Authors 151Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

high levels of emotional labour (Hochschild1983; Pugh 2001) and are typically experi-enced as highly stressful (Johnson et al. 2005).As a consequence, EI has become regarded asan important source of individual difference,as being more relevant (Goleman 1998) or atleast as relevant as traditional cognitive intel-ligence (IQ) (Mayer et al. 1990) in determiningworkplace performance and organizationaleffectiveness.

Emotional intelligence is a difficult conceptto define precisely and measure, and is thesubject of much bitter debate and criticism(Paul 1999; Robertson and Smith 2001). Mayer(1990) differentiates between the ‘popular’version as advanced by writers such as Goleman(1995) and the ‘scientific’ version put forwardby himself and his colleagues. Whereas thescientific view suggests that EI is likely toaccount for between 2 and 25% of the individualvariance in certain life outcomes, the popularview tends to over-exaggerate its contribution.

Traditional Intelligence

It has become widely accepted that intelligence,or at least what is measured by traditionalintelligence tests, is a major predictor ofacademic performance and work success(Drasgow 2003; Furnham 2005). In the earlypart of the last century, two different viewsregarding the structure of intelligence wereproposed. On the one hand, Spearman (1927)conceptualized intelligence as being a singlefactor ‘g’ or general intelligence which ac-counted for the differential performance betweenindividuals in all areas of human ability.On the other hand, Thurstone (1938) arguedthat intelligence was best understood asbeing a set of seven loosely related primarymental abilities such as numerical reasoning,spatial abilities and verbal comprehensionwhich explained various different aspects ofperformance. These differences about thestructure of intelligence reflected the applicationof different statistical analysis techniquesand have been reconciled by later morecompromising hierarchical models (Vernon

1956). In contrast, there was no disagreementwithin this field as to the cognitive abilitiesand types of items that constituted a validmeasure of an individual’s intelligence. Hencethe content of intelligence tests has tradi-tionally reflected what is regarded as beingrational problem-solving abilities or ‘academicintelligence’ (Furnham 2005).

Furnham (2005), among others (Gardner1999; Harvey et al. 2002; Riggio et al. 2002),has argued that traditional IQ tests are toonarrow in their focus and that ‘other intelli-gences’ are required to succeed in the work-place. Harvey et al. (2002) recently proposedeight different kinds of intelligences importantfor managers which include socio-cultural,political, innovative and EI. In particular, inan increasing global market, the concept ofcultural intelligence as being ‘the ability toconstruct innovative ways of conceptualising,data gathering and operating in a new culture’(Earley and Ang. 2003) has become increasinglyinfluential in the selection and developmentof expatriate managers.

What is Emotional Intelligence?

Over time, emotions have been viewed undera number of lenses by a variety of disciplines,including psychology (Cornelius 1996),sociology (Williams 2001), biology (Damasio1994) and management (Fineman 2000; Herriot2001). Many researchers typically perceiveemotions in a negative way as a disorganizedinterruption of mental activity that displacesrational thought (Fineman 2000). For manyyears, this view has been strongly inherent in themanagement literature, which has traditionallyemphasized the rationality of business andhas advocated the need for organizationalleaders to ‘manage’ emotions out of theorganization, or at least relegate them to someout of the way place, out of harm’s way(Fineman 2000). For example, Young (1936)described emotions as having ‘no trace ofconscious purpose’ and subsequently definedthem as ‘acute disturbances of the individualas a whole’ (Young 1943).



In contrast, other researchers have arguedthat emotions are essential to rational thinking(Damasio 1994) because they are tied tovalues (De Sousa 1987). Easterbrook (1959)similarly viewed emotions as positive inorganizing responses which adaptively focuscognitive activities and subsequent action.Leeper (1948) draws attention to the motivat-ing force of emotions and that emotionstrigger processes which arouse, sustain anddirect attention.

The notion that individuals differ in theirmental capacity to process emotional informa-tion and use that information to act effectivelyis intuitively attractive as a specific form ofsocial or ‘other’ intelligence. The idea of socialintelligence can be traced back to Thorndike(1920) and his study of the emotionalresponses of individuals. He concluded fromhis findings that individuals differ in theirability to understand other people and actwisely in human relations. This specific anddifferent form of intelligence he defined as‘the ability to understand and manage people’,which could also be directed inwards to formthe ability to understand and manage oneselfas well (Thorndike and Stein 1937, 278).

However, for many years no researchfindings emerged to support the notion thatsocial intelligence could easily be distinguishedfrom other types of intelligence. Consequently,in 1960, it was concluded that, despite thevolume of research on the subject, social intel-ligence remained unproven (Cronbach 1960).It was not until the early 1980s (Gardner 1983)that interest in the concept of social or‘personal’ intelligence re-emerged. Based onstudies of giftedness and the effects of braindamage, Gardner (1983) argued against thesingle ‘g’ factor and proposed a theory ofmultiple intelligences which, among others,included two distinct elements described as‘interpersonal’ and ‘intrapersonal’ intelligence.Interpersonal intelligence was described asthe ability to understand and discern thefeelings and intentions of others; whereasintrapersonal related to the ability to understandone’s own feeling and motivation. Around the

same time, Sternberg (1985) proposed a triar-chic theory of intelligence, and distinguishedbetween analytical, creative and practicalintelligences. Whereas analytical intelligencewas closely equated to general intelligenceand academic problem-solving, practicalintelligence represented ‘real world’ intel-ligence, including relational abilities.

Although the current popularity and interestin the concept of EI has become closelyassociated with Goleman (1995), the term EIfirst appeared in the psychological literaturesome years earlier (Salovey and Mayer 1990).

Models of Emotional Intelligence

From the discussion so far, the theoreticalroots for the conceptual development of EIas a discrete and true form of intelligenceconnecting cognitive–emotional abilities seemrelatively clear as firmly founded within theintelligence literature. Therefore, it would seemto follow that a set of mental abilities suchas traditional intelligence should be capable ofobjective measurements, with right and wronganswers, and be distinct from personality.

Consistent with this view, Salovey andMayer (1990) first defined EI as a type ofsocial and personal intelligence involving‘the ability to monitor one’s own and others’feelings and emotions, to discriminate amongthem and to use this information to guideone’s thinking and actions’ (p. 189). Accordingto their original thinking, Salovey and Mayer(1990), the set of mental processes whichinvolve emotional information relate to:

(i) the ability to appraise and expressemotions in self and others

(ii) the ability to regulate emotion in self andothers

(iii) the ability to use emotions in adaptiveways.

Mayer et al. (2000) have since slightly refinedtheir definition of EI and moved from a three-branch to a four-branch hierarchical model(see Figure 1).

June 2008


Figure 1. The revised Emotional Intelligence Framework (as described by Mayer and Salovey, 1997).



However, they remain committed to theview that EI lies at the intersection betweenthe mental processing of emotional informationand its integration with cognitive information.This is consistent with ideas presented byother researchers (e.g. Isen et al. 1978; Russell1980) who have argued for the existence ofa ‘cognitive loop’ connecting mood and judge-ment, whereby good mood leads to positivethoughts and vice versa. Thayer (1989) has alsoargued that individuals are more positive andresourceful when they feel simultaneouslyenergetic and pleasant and that this conditionmakes them more likely to make decisionsbased on experience rather than on intel-ligence. Evidence from the stress literature alsosuggests that anxious individuals are morelikely to make decisions based on experiencerather than on rationality. Furthermore, thosewho are able to regulate their emotions aremore likely to appraise a potential threatpositively and cope with the experience inadaptive ways (Cartwright and Cooper 1997).

The approach of Mayer et al. (2000) isconsidered by many to meet the necessarystandards to be regarded as a true form ofintelligence. According to Daus and Ashkanasy(2005), they have satisfactorily providedevidence to fulfil the three specific criteria thatdenote ‘an intelligence’. These criteria are:

(i) that the set of abilities are capable ofbeing operationalized

(ii) that these abilities are inter-correlatedand relate to pre-existing intelligences,while at the same time exhibiting uniquevariance

(iii) that the intelligence shows developmentaleffects with age.

Goleman (1995) has also asserted that hismodel of EI is placed at the intersection ofemotional and cognitive processing. In hisbest-selling book, which has sold more thanfive million copies worldwide, he defines EIas consisting of:

abilities such as being able to motivate oneself andpersist in the face of frustrations, to control

impulses and delay gratification, to regulate one’smoods and keep distress from swamping the abilityto think, empathise and to hope. (p. 34)

As part of his definition, he details overtwenty-five different learned competencies,skills and abilities which constitute EI.Subsequent refinement of the model (Goleman1998; Goleman et al. 2002) has furtherbroadened the concept to accommodate awider range of personality characteristics andbehavioural competencies which compromisethe criteria required of a pure ability model ofintelligence. For this reason, unlike Saloveyand Mayer (1990), it is regarded as a ‘mixed’rather than an ‘ability’ model of EI and hasbeen widely criticized for its absurdity intending to class almost any type of behaviouras intelligence (Eysenck 2000).

An alternative but comparable ‘mixed’model has been proposed by Bar-On (1997,2000), who described EI as an ‘array ofnon-cognitive capabilities, competencies andskills that influence one’s ability to succeedin coping with environmental demands andpressures’ (p. 14).

Similarly to Goleman, Bar-On (1997) arguesthat these non-cognitive abilities include fivebroad categories and sub-categories:

(i) Intrapersonal Emotion Skills (includingself-actualization and independence)

(ii) Interpersonal Emotion Skills (includingempathy and social responsibility)

(iii) Adaptability (including reality testing andproblem solving)

(iv) Stress Management (including stresstolerance and impulse control)

(v) General Mood (including characteristicssuch as optimism and happiness).

Both Goleman’s (1998) and Bar-On’s (1997)models draw strongly on the personality andcompetency literatures rather than the intel-ligence literature. Indeed, Sternberg (2001),an advocate of split intelligence, has stronglycriticized Goleman’s (1998) conceptualizationof EI on the grounds that ‘it differs littlefrom personality and appears to be a general

June 2008


lumping together of characteristics of a “goodperson” ’.

Similarly, Cooper and Sawaf’s (1997) modelof Executive EQ and Dulewicz and Higgs’(1999) model of EI, which is based on UKrather than US research, conceptualizes EI interms of a set of traits and competencies.According to Dulewicz and Higgs (1999),workplace EI is about ‘achieving one’s goalsthrough the ability to manage one’s ownfeelings and emotions to be sensitive to andinfluence other key people and to balance one’smotives and drives with conscientiousness andethical behaviours’. For them, EI is composedof a mixture of seven elements and incorpo-rates personal characteristics and behaviours:self-awareness, emotional resilience, motivation,interpersonal sensitivity, influence, decisiveness,conscientiousness and integrity. These sevendimensions are further organized (Dulewiczand Higgs 2000, 343) into three factors namely‘drivers’, ‘constrainers’ and ‘enablers’.

It is clear that these subsequent modelshave moved away from the original pureintelligence model and muddled the initialtheoretical roots of the concept. The ability orinformation processing model strongly arguesthat EI constitutes an additional aspect ofcrystallized intelligence involving emotion,whereas the mixed model has blended EIwith numerous other characteristics such asmotivation, well-being and personality forwhich there are already a wide range of reliableand valid measures in existence. Daus andAshkanasy (2005) believe that advocates ofthe mixed model are not even talking aboutthe same construct as Mayer and colleagues;a point re-echoed by Murphy (2006), whoconsiders that the definitions of EI need to be‘cleaned up’ and not equate to a laundry listof positive qualities (Matthews et al. 2006).In contrast, Ciarrochi et al. (2000) suggestthat there may be consensus across models interms of four important shared areas: emotionperception, regulation, understanding andutilization.

Although the ability model has receivedsignificant theoretical support (Ciarrochi et al.

2001; Schutte et al. 1998), it is the mixedmodel that has been arguably more influentialin the measurement of EI in the workplace.This may be because the model has receivedmore media coverage and been more aggres-sively marketed in a way that better addressesthe language and culture of modern-daybusiness (Murphy and Sideman 2006).

However, before moving on to discuss theinstruments that have been devised to measureEI, there is an interesting interpretation ofEI which, paradoxically, is common to bothapproaches and represents a departure fromthe theoretical roots on which they draw.Theories of intelligence have traditionallyemphasized that adult IQ is relatively fixedover time. Similarly, personality theoristsconsider that personality is composed of a setof stable traits. Yet, both Mayer and Salovey(1997) and Goleman (1998) maintain that EIis potentially incremental and can be developedthrough training and experience. Indeed, it isthe idea that organizations can benefit byintervening to increase the EI of their work-place which has so engaged popular interestin the concept.

Measures of Emotional Intelligence

The Ability Model

The most comprehensive measure of the abilitymodel is the Mayer, Salovey and CarusoEmotional Intelligence test or MSCEIT,Version 2.0 (Mayer et al. 2002), which is arefinement of an earlier test, the MultifactorEmotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayeret al. 2000). In common with traditionalintelligence tests, it is a performance measure,based on the number of correct answers given,and assesses how well an individual solvesemotion-laden problems across four domains(or branches), including the perception, use,understanding and management of emotions.The MESCEIT V2 consists of 141 items,which are divided between eight tasks (twofor each of the four theoretical domains toyield four branch scores, together with an



overall score of EI). Sample tasks includeidentifying emotions and feelings expressedin faces and pictures and identifying theappropriate behavioural response whenpresented with a range of emotionally ladenscenarios. The MSCEIT is scored with bothconsensus and expert scoring methods In con-sensus scoring, respondents are given creditfor answers that match those provided by anormative sample of over 5000 individuals.Expert scoring relies on what researchersin the field regard as the correct response.There is a high level of convergence (r > 0.90)between the two methods (Mayer et al. 2003).According to the test authors, spilt half andtest–retest reliabilities for the scale scores arein the range 0.70–0.93 and its factorial struc-ture has been validated through a series ofanalyses (Brackett et al. 2006; Day andCarol 2004; Mayer et al. 2001).

Various studies (Brackett et al. 2006; Mayeret al. 2003; Peletti 2001) have found low–moderate correlations with IQ tests in therange 0.13–0.38. Other studies (Brackett et al.2006; Salovey et al. 2003) have found low–moderate correlations with personality factorssuch as extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticismand openness in the range 0.04–0.33 with agree-ableness consistently showing the strongestcorrelation with EI (Brackett et al. 2006).Evidence to date (Brackett and Mayer 2003;Brackett et al. 2006) shows low correlationsbetween MSCEIT and other self-reportmeasures of EI, based on both the abilitymodel (Brackett et al. 2006) and the mixedmodel (Brackett and Mayer 2003). Collectively,this evidence supports the view that EI isa different and independent construct frompersonality and traditional intelligence andthat performance and self-report tests of EIare largely unrelated.

Brody (2004) has questioned the predictivevalidity of MSCIET and ability tests of EImore generally, on the basis that they assessknowledge about emotions which may notnecessarily mean that an individual has theability to behave in accordance with thatknowledge in real-time social situations. In

response to this criticism, Brackett et al. (2006)recently conducted a study to assess whetherscores on MSCEIT and a self-report measureof EI predicted observable behaviours in asocial encounter, namely interacting withan ostensible stranger in a getting acquaintedmeeting. They found no relationship betweenthe self-report measure and socially com-petent behaviour, whereas they found thatMSCEIT was predictive of social competencefor men, but was not predictive in the caseof women.

Roberts et al. (2001) suggested that EImeasures are measures of conformity ratherthan abilities, primarily because of the wayin which they are scored, i.e. according tonormative ideas as to what is the ‘right’ wayto respond.

Although it is the MSCEIT measure whichhas tended to dominate the literature, thereare several other ability-based measures. Theseinclude the Levels of Emotional AwarenessScale or LEAS (Lane et al. 1990) wherebyrespondents are presented with a series ofscenarios designed to elicit four types ofemotion: fear, anger, sadness and happiness.Respondents are rated on the basis of theirperceptions of how they would feel if placedin each scenario and also how they perceivethe other person involved would feel. Thetest shows acceptable reliability and validitywith other EI measures (Ciarrochi et al. 2000)and is considered to be a good predictorof emotional recognition (Lane et al. 1998).Similar to the LEAS is the Emotional AccuracyResearch Scale or EARS (Mayer and Geher1996), which was developed to ‘afford thebenefits of both self report and laboratorymeasures of EI’ (Geher et al. 2001, 376). How-ever, this is a very short eight-item performancemeasure, which taps the ability to perceiveemotions in others accurately. Both thesemeasure focus on a narrower range of emotionalabilities and hence are not as widely used asthe MSCEIT measure.

More recently, Wong and Law (2002) devel-oped the WLEIS measure (Wong and Law EIScale) which is a short 16-item instrument

June 2008


based on the Mayer and Salovey (1997)four-branch model.

However, generally ability-based tests of EIhave poor reliability (Ciarrochi et al. 2000;Davies et al. 1998). Furthermore, because thescoring of the MESCIT is carried out by thetest publisher (Multi-Health Systems Inc.), itis not possible for independent researchers tocalculate the internal (split half) reliabilitycoefficients for each scale for their ownparticular sample. In addition, Day and Carroll(2004), in comparing differences in MESCITscores between men and women, foundevidence of a gender bias and no evidenceto support the developmental relationshipbetween age and EI.

The Mixed Model Approach

One of the most widely used measures isBar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory orEQ-I (Bar-On 1997). It comprises 133 itemsrated on a five-point scale and takes about40 minutes to complete. It provides an overallscore of EI based on five composite scales.These scales are divided into 12 subscales andthree facilitator scales. The scale structure ispresented in Table 1.

The scales have high internal consistencyreliabilities ranging from 0.69 to 0.86 and test–retest reliabilities ranging from 0.75 to 0.85(Bar-On 1997). Many studies (Bar-On 1997;Dawda and Hart 2000; Newsome et al. 2000)have reported numerous high correlationsbetween the EQ-I and established person-ality measures. Therefore, it has been argued(Davies et al. 1998; Mayer et al. 2000; New-some et al. 2000) that the EQ-I is more a

measure of ego strength or social competencethan EI.

Goleman (1995) has also developed anEmotional Quotient (EQ) questionnaire.However, the psychometric properties of thismeasure, particularly its reliability have beenheavily criticized (Davies et al. 1998).

More recently, Boyatzis et al. (2000) devel-oped the Emotional Competence Inventory(ECI), a 360-degree instrument consistingof 110 items which takes approximately 30minutes to complete. The reliability coefficientsrange from 0.61 to 0.86 for the self-reportversion and from 0.79 to 0.94 for the otherraters’ form.

There are also a number of other instru-ments which measure aspects of emotionalitybut are less well used (e.g. the EQ map(Cooper and Sawaf 1997); Emotional ControlQuestionnaire (Roger and Najaran 1989); andthe Style in the Perception of Affect (Bernet1996)).

So far, all the measures discussed havebeen North American in origin and havebeen developed for use on diverse populationsamples in a variety of settings (Dulewicz et al.2003). There are two notable exceptions, onebeing the SUEIT (Palmer and Stough 2001)a workplace measure of EI developed inAustralia and the Emotional IntelligenceQuestion (EIQ; Dulewicz and Higgs 1999)based on research conducted on UK managers.The EIQ, which consists of 69 items, demon-strates scale reliability coefficients in therange 0.51–0.77 and is considered to havegreater job-related validity than other mixedmodel tests of EI (Dulewicz and Higgs 2000;Dulewicz et al. 2003).

Table 1. Dimensions and subscales of the EQ-i

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress management General mood

Self-regard Empathy Reality testing Stress tolerance OptimismEmotional self-awareness Social responsibility Flexibility Impulse control HappinessAssertiveness Interpersonal relationships Problem solving ServiceIndependenceSelf-actualization



The Problem of Competing Models and Measurement Tools: Comparing Apples with Pears

There is no shortage of available measurespurporting to measure EI. Indeed, it wouldseem that an increasing number of researchersentering this field go on to develop their ownparticular instrument and subsequently marketit for commercial use. This commercializationof EI and its associated measures is likelyto create continuing problems for academicresearchers, particularly doctoral students,who may find the cost of restricted access tosuch measures a significant constraint on theirresearch endeavours. It is interesting to notethat the two most widely used measures of EIare based on competing models, yet distributedby the same test publisher.

As these measures are based on competingmodels of EI, this brings into question theusefulness of the concept and the difficultiesin reconciling what amounts to two verydifferent ways of operationalizing the conceptand creates a significant, if not impossible,challenge to develop a unitary body of researchevidence. As Murphy and Sederman (2006,234) point out ‘if EI is defined too broadly, asin the mixed model approach then you arelikely to create little more than a mountain offluff’. However, if EI is defined too narrowly,the resultant product may be ‘both pristineand useless’.

The purist view (Daus and Ashkanasy2005) argues that EI can only be assessed bypristine tests of objective performance andare highly critical of self-report measures.The mixed model approach has initially beenheavily reliant on the assessment of theperceived EI of respondents, although manyproponents of this model have since devel-oped measures which incorporate multi-raterassessments to circumvent the limitations ofself-report (e.g. Dulewicz and Higgs 2000).

Self-report measures are considered to belimited through inaccurate self-knowledgeand are also open to distortion by fakinggood or presenting a socially desirable self

(Woodruffe 2001). It has been observed thatperceived (self-assessed) intelligence is notnecessarily a good indicator of performanceas measured by objective cognitive intelligencetests (Levenson and Ruef 1992; Paulhus et al.1998). In a study of undergraduate students,Beloff (1992) demonstrated significant differ-ences in the self-estimated intelligence ofmen and women. She found that, whereas mentend to overestimate their own intelligenceas well as that of male relations, women tendto underestimate their own intelligence andare more generous in their rating of males.However, both objective ability tests and self-report tests have demonstrated linkages withactual work-related (Dulewicz and Higgs 2000)or academic performance (Schutte et al. 1998).

Like other psychometric tests, tests of EImay be culturally or gender biased. Mostmeasures of EI have been developed on sampleswhich are culturally similar, e.g. US, UK andAustralian respondents. Recent research hasextended to incorporate more diverse Europeanand Asian samples and have, to date, demon-strated satisfactory psychometric propertiesand a degree of universality of the concept(e.g. Bar-On 2000; Nicholaou and Tsaousis2003; Tsaousis 2003).

The consistent overlap between the mixedmodel measures of EI and personality traitsand interpersonal competencies makes itdifficult to ascertain the extent to which EImeasures may contribute something over andabove the established measures traditionallyused in occupational settings. Indeed, in anearlier review, Davies et al. (1998) concludedthat EI amounts to nothing more than ‘theability to perceive emotional information invisual and auditory stimuli’. However, a grow-ing body of recent research evidence drawingon both the ability and mixed models of EIwould seem to suggest an incremental validityof EI over and above traditional cognitiveintelligence and personality tests (Petrides andFurnham 2000).

Finally, some instruments are generic,whereas others have been designed for usespecifically in a workplace context; this raises

June 2008


the question as to whether organizationalculture may play a role in promoting orinhibiting the display of emotionally intelligentbehaviours.

It is clear that the choice of measurementtool determines the model of EI that is beingtested and therefore has to be taken intoaccount when evaluating the research evidencewhich follows on the validity of EI and itsimplications for the workplace (Petrides andFurnham 2000).

Implications for the Workplace

EI and Performance

One of the earliest areas of research addressedin the EI literature was the link betweenperformance and success, interest in whichwas generated by findings showing the verylow predictive value of traditional IQ in workperformance. For example, Hunter and Hunter(1984) estimated that, at best, IQ accountsfor 25% of the variance in job performance.Sternberg (1996) suggested that 10% is a morerealistic estimate. Similarly, Snarey and Vaillant(1985) reported the results of a 40-yearlongitudinal study of 450 boys, which foundthat IQ was little related to how well the boysperformed at work as adults. Instead, workperformance was more closely influencedby their abilities to handle frustration, controlemotions and get along with other people.Several studies have been conducted demon-strating a relationship between EI and academicsuccess (Nowicki and Duke 1992; Schutte et al.1998; Shoda et al. 1990). In an organizationalsetting, Kelley and Caplan (1993) examinedEI and the performance of research groupsin the Bell Laboratories. Their findingssupported the notion that EI differentiatesbetween high and average performers. Eventhough all team members had high IQ scores,some individuals were rated by others as‘stars’. Kelley and Caplan (1993) showed thatneither IQ nor past academic performancewere good predictors of ‘stars’. Instead, EIabilities seemed to differentiate and predict

the performance and ‘star’ ratings of suchindividuals better.

More recently, Dulewicz and Higgs (1998)compared the relative contribution of cognitiveand EI competencies with work performance asmeasured by career advancement. They foundthat EI accounted for 36% of the total variancein organizational achievement, whereas IQaccounted for 27%. However, given the highlyintelligent nature of the sample, this studysuffers from a restriction of range. Rice (1999)measured the EI of 164 employees and their11 team leaders in a US insurance companyusing the MEIS (Mayer et al. 2000). Theleaders’ MEIS scores significantly correlated(r = 0.51) with their effectiveness measures,as rated by their departmental manager.Furthermore, the average team MEIS scoresand rating of team performance in customerservice were significantly positively correlated(r = 0.46). Team leaders’ EI scores were alsofound to correlate positively (r = 0.58) withtheir team’s performance.

Jordan et al. (2002) investigated the relation-ship between EI and the performance of 44Australian work teams over a period of nineweeks. It was found that, in the early weeks,the teams scoring high on EI performedsignificantly better than the lower scoringteams. However, by the end of the nine weeks,the performance levels of all the teams weresimilar. They concluded that emotionallyintelligent individuals were able to formcohesive and effective work teams morequickly than less emotionally intelligentcolleagues. Slaski and Cartwright (2003) alsofound a positive but weak correlation betweenEI scores and performance measures amonga managerial group in the UK retailing sector.However, restriction of range may also be aninherent limitation of this study.

More recently, Day and Carroll (2004) foundthat only one scale of the MSECIT, EmotionalPerception, was predictive of performanceon a decision task in a sample of over 200college students. In addition, they found thatEI scores were not predictive of the level oforganizational citizenship behaviour exhibited



by individuals in relation to the task. Incontrast, Law et al. (2004) found evidencethat supervisor ratings of EI were predictiveof job performance among Chinese workers.In a meta-analytical study, van Rooy andViewesvaran (2004) found a significant butmoderate correlation of 0.23 between EI andPerformance. However, it should be noted thatthe meta-analysis included both ability-basedand personality-based tests of EI.

Recent evidence (Semadar et al. 2006) usingthe SUEIT measure of EI (Palmer and Stough2001) alongside more generic measures ofsocial effectiveness found that measures suchas political skill were more valid predictorsof job performance than EI. In addition,evidence from Downey et al. (2006) suggeststhat there is an overlap between measures ofintuition (Allinson and Hayes 1996) and somedimensions of EI.

Taken overall, there is some evidence thatcertain elements of EI do seem to influenceperformance. However, it may be that EIonly becomes a differentiating factor in jobperformance when it is combined withabove-average IQ.

EI and Leadership Effectiveness

Transformational Leadership (Bass 1990) isperceived to be different and more effectivethan the traditional transactional approach,because it engages the follower’s emotions.There is a growing body of research evidencewhich has examined the relationship betweenEI and Transformational Leadership. Barlinget al. (2000) assessed transformational leader-ship behaviours, using the Multifactor Leader-ship Questionnaire (MLQ: Bass and Avolio1995), and EI using the EQ-i (Bar On 1997)among 49 managers in a large pulp and paperorganization. Results indicated that highoverall EI scores were associated with threeout of four transformational leadership factors.These were Idealized Influence, InspirationalMotivation and Individualized Consideration.No relationship was found between EI andthe fourth factor, Intellectual Stimulation.

Intellectual Stimulation involves presentingfollowers with an intellectual challenge:getting people to think about problems innovel ways. As the researchers note, thisfactor relies more on cognitive than emotionalabilities, and therefore it is not surprising thatthere was no association with EI. An earlierstudy conducted by Sosik and Megerian (1999)had found rather similar results in a study of63 managers.

In another study, Palmer et al. (2001)assessed the EI of 43 Australian managers,using an adapted version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (Salovey et al. 1990), and theirleadership style, once again using the MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995). The results wereweaker but in a similar direction to Barlinget al. (2000). More recently, Gardner andStough (2002) found that EI, as measuredby the 65-item self-report inventory, SUEIT(Palmer and Stough 2001) was positivelyrelated to all four component factors oftransformational leadership.

Duckett and MacFarlane (2003) have alsodemonstrated a relationship between measuredEI, transformational leadership and objectiveperformance measures in a small sample ofretail managers. Similar results have beenupheld in simulated studies such as Barsdale(1998). While the results of these studies haveinteresting implications for the selection anddevelopment of leaders, the sample sizes onwhich the studies are based are very small. Inthe case of Duckett and MacFarlane (2003),the sample size was less than 20.

In a study of Chinese managers, Wong andLaw (2002) found that EI was positivelycorrelated with follower satisfaction andwillingness to engage in extra-role behaviourbut did not affect job performance. However,in a study also using the EQ-1 (Bar-On 1997),Brown et al. (2006) found no significant linkbetween EI and effectiveness, satisfactionwith supervisor and willingness to investextra effort.

In contrast, Kerr et al. (2006) found a strongpositive correlation between certain scales ofthe MSCEIT and leadership effectiveness in

June 2008


a sample of 38 supervisors. This study is con-sistent with two earlier studies using MSCEIT(Leban and Zulauf 2004; Rosete and Ciarrochi2005) which found linkages between EI andleadership effectiveness. In all three studies, thestrongest predictor of leadership effectivenesswas the ability to perceive emotion.

Overall, the research evidence concerningEI and leadership effectiveness is somewhatmixed, which may be an artefact of themeasurement tool employed. However, it wouldseem that the ability to perceive emotion,perhaps not surprisingly, is a factor associatedwith effective leadership. In the context ofinternational leadership, there is likely to besome overlap with what is now termed culturalintelligence (Earley and Ang 2003).

EI and Dysfunctional Behaviour

It has been suggested that EI plays a moderat-ing role in aggressive behaviours and work-place stress (Slaski and Cartwright 2003).Mayer et al. (2000) found negative correlationsbetween EI and violent, bullying and troubleprone behaviours. This is an interestingfinding, given that workplace bullying isrecognized to play a contributory role in poorwork performance and negative workplacerelations (Sheehan and Jordan 2002).

According to Martin et al. (1998), EItraining can positively affect an organizationwhich has a problem with bullying. Throughincreased understanding of the impact of theiremotional outbursts on others, it is believedthat bullies will be better able to address theirnegative behaviours. In addition, by increasingthe EI of the victims of bullying, employeeswill reach a better understanding of the reasonsfor the bully’s behaviour and its impact onthem and their emotions. Furthermore, it isargued that they will become more able tomanage their own emotions effectively anduse them to respond to the situation moreappropriately (Korth 2000). While such anapproach has a certain intuitive appeal, implicitin such thinking is that high levels of emotionalintelligent are ‘good’ and are always associated

with desirable outcomes. It could also beargued that emotionally intelligent individualsmay abuse their powers of insight into theemotions and weaknesses of others to pursuetheir own self-interest in a manipulative way.

In the context of workplace stress, it iswidely accepted that individual characteristicsplay a moderating role in the way individualsrespond to and cope with stress (for a review,see Cartwright and Whatmore 2005). Thestress response is associated with the releaseof a range of negative emotions, e.g. anger,panic, anxiety, which overwhelm the individualand affect their ability to cope with thedemands of the situation. It has been suggestedthat EI plays a role in helping individuals tocontrol and manage these negative emotionsappropriately and so moderate both theappraisal and experience of stress. Slaskiand Cartwright (2003, 2004) found evidencethat highly emotionally intelligent individualsreport significantly less stress and experiencebetter physical and psychological healththan less emotionally intelligent managers.Furthermore, they found that a programme ofEI training resulted in an increase in EI scores,a reduction in stress levels and an improvementin health compared with a control group. Thestudy included the EQ-I (Bar-On 1997) andthe General Health Questionnaire (Goldbergand Williams 1998).

Another study by Bar-On et al. (2000)examined the differences in EI between twooccupational groups, police officers and health-care professionals, in Germany using theEQ-i. Both groups had experienced increasedwork stress following organizational change.Results indicated that police officers scoredsignificantly higher than health-care pro-fessionals on all the EQ-I scales, with theexception of Interpersonal Relationship, Inde-pendence and Flexibility. Bar-On et al. (2000)argued that the police officers demonstratedgreater interpersonal capacity, i.e. increasedself-awareness and self-respect, which enabledthem to focus accurately on immediate situa-tions and deal efficiently with problems, whichmeant that they were better able to adapt to



change and cope more effectively with stress.More recently, Nikolaou and Tsaousis (2005)explored the relationship between EI, stressand organizational commitment among 235mental health professionals in Greek institu-tions. Participants completed the EIQ (Tsaousis2003) and the ASSET (Cartwright and Cooper2002) measure of workplace stress andcommitment. Employees who exhibited a highoverall EI score, achieved low scores on thosescales of ASSET assessing sources of stressand high on both scales of organizationalcommitment, i.e. perceived commitment ofthe organization towards the employee andcommitment of the employee towards theorganization. In the case of stress indicators,the largest correlation was between the Useof Emotions factor and overall stress levels(r = −55, p < 0.01). In the case of commitment,the Use of Emotions was significantly correlatedwith the commitment of the employees tothe organization (r = 0.58, p < 0.01), whereasoverall EI was strongly associated withorganizational commitment. Abraham (2000)similarly addressed the relationship betweenEI and organizational commitment and foundthat EI predicted 15% of the variance inorganizational commitment.

In a study of 139 students, using the firstauthor’s measure Workgroup EI, Jordan andTroth (2002) found that individuals with higherlevels of EI were more likely or more able toengage in collaborative conflict resolution. Incontrast, lower EI scores were associated withless effective strategies, i.e. handling conflictin a forceful way and avoidance behaviour.The researchers advocate the value of emotionalmanagement training as a means of equippingindividuals to improve work relationships.

Overall, the regulation and use of emotionswould seem to be a potential explanatory inunderstanding how individuals respond totheir environment and increase their resilienceto stressful situations. However, dispositionalcharacteristics have a long history in stressresearch and have been addressed by a varietyof pre-existing measures such as Type Abehaviour, locus of control and positive and

negative affectivity (for a review, see Cooperet al. 2001). Similarly, the regulation andmanagement of emotion involving techniqueswhich draw upon rational emotive therapy(Cartwright and Cooper 1997) have been atraditional feature of stress managementeducation and training.

EI and Organizational Change

It would seem to follow that emotions play animportant role in the way in which employeesrespond and adapt to organizational change.Organizational change has been consistentlyassociated with a range of negative behaviours,including reduced productivity, increasedstaff turnover, low levels of job satisfaction andorganizational commitment (Feldman 1995;Rousseau and Parkes 1993) as well as increasedstress (Cartwright and Cooper 1997).

Numerous researchers have attempted toidentify the role of individual differences inthe implementation and acceptance of change(King and Anderson 1995). McClelland andBoyatzis (1982) have suggested that successfulchange management requires high levels ofactivity inhibition and self-control. Schloemer(1995) concluded that ‘idealists’ were moreopen and tolerant towards change than‘analysts, pragmatists and realists’. Hoganet al. (1994), in a review of the personalityliterature, suggested that individuals whopositively engaged in change were likely toscore high on conscientiousness, extraversionand agreeableness, and low on neuroticism.Born and Jansen (1997) subsequently arguedfor the inclusion of an additional factor:openness to experience. Connor (1993) hasdrawn the distinction between ‘O’ personalitytypes, who welcome change and see it asan opportunity, and inflexible ‘D’ personalitytypes, who regard change as a danger or threat.Overall, the literature has keenly emphasizedthat the attitudes and responses of employeesto change are the function of their personality.

Although there has been little empiricalresearch investigating the relationship betweenEI and change, the most comprehensive

June 2008


model integrating EI and emotions in theorganizational change process is that proposedby Huy (1999). This model links individualemotions to three aspects of organizationalchange, namely receptivity, mobilization andlearning. Receptivity refers to the willingnessof employees to consider and engage in changeand is considered to be the opposite ofresistance to change. It represents a ‘cognitiveand emotional attitudinal state’ which deter-mines the acceptance and endorsement of theneed for change. According to Huy (1999),receptivity is associated with the emotionalenergy initially required to engage with thechange process and take a leap of faith into theunfamiliar, often in contradiction to traditionalthinking.

Mobilization refers to the actual actionstaken by individuals towards the direction ofchange. Finally, emotions also play a rolein the ‘learning’ dynamic of change in thatemotions provide feedback as to whether thechange effort was successful. If goals are notsuccessfully achieved, negative emotions willbe experienced, which in turn will stimulatemotivation to change (Huy 1999; Westen1985). Huy (1999) argues that, if organizationsencourage individuals to enact emotionallyintelligent behaviours, they will facilitatereceptivity to change, mobilization and learn-ing. A study by Tsaousis et al. (2004) attemptedto test this theory on a sample of 137 managersand professionals in Greece. Scores on theEmotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ;Tsaousis 2003) were found to correlatepositively and significantly with attitudestowards organizational change. A regressionanalysis incorporating personality data wasalso conducted, which found that EI factorspredicted positive attitudes towards organiza-tional change over and above personalityvariables with R2 change = 0.13, F(4,1270 =6.69, p = 0.000).

EI and Service Encounters

As services are largely intangible and tend tobe similar within given sectors, the perceived

level of service quality is considered to be acritical factor in distinguishing one serviceprovider from another. Research has suggestedthat emotions play an important role in serviceencounters (Menon and Dube 2000) and thatthe display of emotions by service employeesinfluences customers’ affect and judgementof service quality (Pugh 2001; Winsted 2000).According to Pugh (2001), the reciprocalnature of service encounters produces anemotional contagion effect whereby customers‘catch’ the emotions displayed by the customerservice agent. In a study of banking employees,he found that individual differences in theemotional expressiveness and the positive affectof service agents was predictive of customeraffect and perceptions of service quality asassessed by a modified version of theSERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al.1998). In a study of service providers workingin fast food outlets in Singapore (Tan et al.2004), the display of positive emotions byservice providers was also linked with customersatisfaction. Both studies also found thattransaction or store busyness had a moderatinginfluence on customer satisfaction.

The marketing literature has long recognizedthe importance of both customer segmentationand the appropriate personalization of responses(Johnston and Clark 2001). The necessityon the part of service agents to adapt theirresponses and to display appropriate emotions(which the employee may not feel) in order tosatisfy the customer has been widely termedemotional labour (Hochschild 1983; Zeithamland Bitner 2000).

Evidence from the personality literaturehas suggested that certain individuals havean inherent predisposition to perform well inservice encounters. Hogan et al. (1984) pro-posed a personality construct, termed ‘serviceorientation’, which includes characteristicssuch as helpfulness and consideration, whichcorrelates significantly with effective jobperformance. Service quality has also beenshown to correlate highly with establishedpersonality measures on dimensions such asextroversion and conscientiousness (Furnham



and Coveney 1996), agreeableness and emo-tional stability (Frei and McDaniel 1998).According to Cran (1994), service orientationmay be an innate characteristic and, even withtraining, employees low on this trait may notbe able to sustain improvements in performanceand attitude over the longer term. In terms ofimproving service quality, the personalityliterature has emphasized the importance ofselection over training.

Recent interest in the concept of EI hasemphasized the potential link between EI andcustomer satisfaction, both as a criterion forselection (Barlow and Maul 2000) and a devel-opment tool as a means of improving servicequality and reducing the stress associatedwith emotional labour (Spector et al. 1988).In particular, emotional recognition, empathyand the control and management of negativeemotions are considered to be key skills thatindividuals can develop through EI training(Slaski and Cartwright 2002). Furthermore, itis suggested that such initiatives can createa positive organizational climate for service(Schneider et al. 1998). While this suggestssome potential important implications forservice organizations in providing trainingwhich may be more closely tailored to addressthe needs of different types of customerspresenting different emotional states, thedistinction as to the precise aspects of EI whichcan or cannot be developed through traininghas to be established by future research.

Conclusion

Emotions play a central role as guides tobehaviour and the maintenance of an integratedself (Damasio 1994). However, until fairlyrecently, the role of emotions in the workplacehas been underestimated and little researchedbeyond job satisfaction. This neglect owesmuch to the legacy of classical theories oforganization which emphasize rationality asthe guiding principle for management and thepositive benefits of dehumanizing the work-place (Taylor 1911). As interest in workplaceemotions has increased, EI has become an

emergent field of research in a businessenvironment which is only too eager to embracepotential solutions to workplace problems andenhance performance.

Based on a growing number of studies, itwould seem that EI may have implications forthe selection and development of employees,particularly those involved in stressful jobs,e.g. nursing (Cadman and Brewer 2001). Thereis some limited evidence that EI may beassociated with leadership effectiveness andreadiness for change. Furthermore, the pro-motion and practice of emotionally intelligentbehaviours may have a positive influence onclient/customer interactions and lead toenhanced service quality as well as creating moresatisfying organizational climates. Researchon extended service transactions suggeststhat much could be gained from improvingthe abilities of employees to recognizecustomers’ emotions and adapting the wayin which service is designed and deliveredin order to respond appropriately (Dube andMorgan 1998).

However, there are fundamental problemswith the definition and operationalization ofthe concept of EI and the continuing warbetween the competing models which needsto be resolved. Ability-based models may be‘theoretically purer’, yet the measures whichtranslate dimensions of EI into a competencyframework appear to have greater face validitywith organizational test users and are argu-ably more valid predictors of work-relatedperformance (Downey et al. 2006; Dulewiczet al. 2003).

Importantly, more research is needed toseparate and isolate the core elements ofwhat is variously described as EI, which arepredictive of different outcomes and blowaway some of the ‘fluff’. In order to do this,it is also important to conduct further researchwhich incorporates a wider range of alternatemeasures than just personality, where theremay be potential overlap, and so establishclearer delineation. As highlighted in thisreview, measures of social effectiveness,cognitive styles and other dispositional

June 2008


variables associated with emotional resilienceseem to ‘tap into’ much of what is packagedas EI.

The resurgent interest in multiple intelli-gences, coupled with developments in thefield of positive psychology are promisingdevelopments in emphasizing the need toconsider the contribution of other forms ofpractical intelligences and the more socialaspects of self which contribute to workperformance and behaviours over and abovetraditional IQ and personality measures.

Research into EI has the potential to con-tribute to this research agenda, particularly interms of the extent to which individuals whodisplay high EI abilities and behaviours havea positive influence on those around them.

It almost goes without saying that researchin this field would benefit from longitudinalstudies with larger and more diverse samples,using more robust measures than self-report.But, without further and more rigorousresearch and a ‘cleaner’ product descriptionit may soon become dismissed as old winein new and very expensive bottles!

Note

1 Correspondence address: Professor SusanCartwright, Manchester Business School, TheUniversity of Manchester, Booth Street West,Manchester M15 6PB, UK. Tel: +44 (0)161 3063524; Fax: +44 (0)161 306 3450; e-mail:[email protected]

References

Abraham, R. (2000). The role of job control as amoderator of emotional dissonance and emotionalintelligence–outcome relationships. Journal ofPsychology, 134(2), 169–184.

Allinson, C.W. and Hayes, J. (1996). The CognitiveStyle Index: a measure of intuition-analysis fororganizational research. Journal of ManagementStudies, 33, 119–135.

Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K. and Sitarenios, A.(2000). Emotional intelligence in the collectionof debt. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 8(3), 14–20.

Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Frone, M.R. (2005).Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Barling, J., Slater, F. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000).Transformational leadership and emotionalintelligence: an exploratory study, Leadership andOrganization Development Journal, 21(3), 157–162.

Barlow, J. and Maul, D. (2000). Emotional Value:Creating Strong Bonds with your Customers. SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory(EQ-i): Technical Manual. Toronto: Multi-HealthSystems.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence:insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory. InBar-On, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (eds), The Handbookof Emotional Intelligence: Theory, DevelopmentAssessment and Application. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Bar-On, R., Brown, J.M., Kirkcaldy, B.D. andThorne, E.P. (2000). Emotional expression andimplications for occupational stress: an applicationof the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i).Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1107–1118.

Barsdale, S. (1998). The ripple effect: emotionalcontagion in groups. Working paper, Yale UniversitySchool of Management, Haven CT.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Handbook of Leadership. NewYork: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995). Multifactor Leader-ship Questionnaire for Research. Palo Alto, CA:Mind Garden.

Beloff, H. (1992). Mother, father and me: our IQ.The Psychologist, 5, 309–311.

Bernet, M. (1996). Emotional intelligence: componentsand correlates. Paper presented at the Annual Con-vention of the American Psychological Association,Toronto.

Born, P.M. and Jansen, P.G.W. (1997). Selection andassessment during organizational turnaround. InAnderson, N. and Herriot, P. (eds), InternationalHandbook of Selection and Assessment. Chichester:John Wiley.

Bouchard, T.J. (1995). Breaking the last taboo.Contemporary Psychology, 40(5).

Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. and Rhee, K. (2000).Clustering competence in emotional intelligence:insights from the Emotional Competency Inventory(ECI). In Bar-On, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (eds), TheHandbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.



Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003). Convergent,discriminant and incremental validity of competingmeasures of emotional intelligence. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.

Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., Shifman, S., Lerner, N.and Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilitiesto social functioning: a comparison of self reportand performance measures of emotional intelligence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,780–795.

Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is andemotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry,15, 234–238.

Brown, F.W., Bryant, S.E. and Reilly, M.D. (2006).Does EI – as measured by the EQ-1 – influencetransformational leadership and/or desirable out-comes. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 27(4), 330–343.

Cadman, C. and Brewer, J. (2001). Emotional intel-ligence: a vital pre-requisite for recruitment innursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 9, 321–324.

Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1997). ManagingWorkplace Stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2002). ASSET: AnOrganizational Stress Screening Tool. Manchester:Robertson Cooper and Cubiks.

Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2004). Stress reduction– the role of individually targeted interventions.In Barling, J., Kelloway, K. and Frone, M. (eds),Handbook of Work Stress. London: John Wiley.

Cartwright, S. and Whatmore, L. (2005). Stressand individual differences: implications for stressmanagement. In Antoniou, A.S. and Cooper, C.L.(eds), A Research Companion to OrganizationalHealth Psychology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Cavelzani, A.S., Lee, I.A., Locatelli, V., Monti, G.and Villamira, M.A. (2003). Emotional intelligenceand tourist services: the tour operator as a mediatorbetween tourists and residents. InternationalJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration,4(4), 1–24.

Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A.Y.C. and Caputi, P. (2000).A critical evaluation of the Emotional IntelligenceConstruct. Personality and Individual Differences,28, 539–561.

Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A.Y.C. and Bajgar, J. (2001).Measuring Emotional Intelligence in adolescents.Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1105–1119.

Connor, D.R. (1993). Managing at the Speed ofChange. New York: Villard Books.

Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J. and O’Driscol, M.P. (2001).Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique ofTheory, Research and Applications. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Cooper, R. and Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive IQ:Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organiza-tions. New York: Grosset/Putman.

Cornelius, R.R. (1996). The Science of Emotion:Research and Tradition in the Psychology ofEmotion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cran, D.J. (1994). Towards validation of the serviceorientation construct. The Service Industries Journal,14(1), 34–44.

Cronbach, L.J. (1960). Essentials of PsychologicalTesting, 2nd edition. New York: Harper & Row.

Damasio, A.R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion,Reason and The Human Brain. New York: Grosset/Putman.

Daus, C.S. and Ashkanasy, N.H. (2005). The case ofthe ability based model of emotional intelligence inorganizational behaviour. Journal of OrganizationalBehaviour, 26, 453–466.

Davies, M., Stankov, L. and Roberts, R.D. (1998).Emotional Intelligence: in search of an elusiveconstruct. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 75, 989–1015.

Dawda, D. and Hart, S.D. (2000). Assessing EmotionalIntelligence: reliability and validity of the Bar-OnEmotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in universitystudents. Personality and Individual Differences,28, 797–812.

Day, A. and Carroll, S.A. (2004). Using an abilitybased measure of emotional intelligence to predictindividual performance and group citizenshipbehaviours. Personality and Individual Differences,36, 1443–1458.

De Sousa, R. (1987). The Rationality of Emotion.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Domagalski, T.A. (1999). Emotion in organizations.Human Relations, 52(6), 833–852.

Dorfman, D.R. (1995). Soft science with a neoconservative agenda. Contemporary Psychology,40(5).

Downey, L.A., Papageorgiou, V. and Stough, C.(2006). Examining the relationship betweenleadership, emotional intelligence and intuition insenior female managers. Leadership and Organiza-tion Development Journal, 27(4), 250–260.

Drasgow, F. (2003). Intelligence and the workplace.In Borman, W., Ilgen, D. and Klimoski, R. (eds),Handbook of Psycholog, Vol. 12. New York: JohnWiley, pp. 107–129.

June 2008


Duckett, H. and MacFarlane, E. (2003). Emotionalintelligence and transformational leadership inretailing. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 24(6), 309–318.

Dube, L. and Morgan, M.S. (1998). Capturing thedynamics of in-process consumption emotionsand satisfaction in extended service transactions.International Journal of Research in Marketing,15, 309–332.

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (1998). Emotionalintelligence: can it be measured reliably and validlyusing competency data? Competency, 6(1), 1–15.

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (1999). Emotional intel-ligence: can it be measured and developed?Leadership and Organization Development Journal,6(1), 1–15.

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2000). Emotionalintelligence: a review and evaluation study. Journalof Managerial Psychology, 15(4), 341–355.

Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M. and Slaski, M. (2003). Meas-uring emotional intelligence: content, construct andcriterion-related validity. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 18(5), 405–421.

Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence:Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effects of emotion oncue utilization and the organization of behaviour.Psychological Review, 66, 183–220.

Feldman, D.C. (1995). Managing part-time andtemporary employment relationships. In London,M. (ed.), Employers, Careers and Job Creation:Developing Growth-oriented Human Resourcestrategies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Fineman, S. (2000). Commodifying the emotionallyintelligent. In Fineman, S. (ed.), Emotion in Organ-izations. London: Sage.

Frei, R.L. and McDaniel, M.A. (1998). Validity ofcustomer services measures in personal selection:a review of criterion and construct evidence. HumanPerformance, 11(1), 1–27.

Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at Work. London:Routledge.

Furnham, A. (2005). Gender and personality differencesin self and other ratings of business intelligence.British Journal of Management, 16(2), 91–105.

Furnham, A. and Coverney, R. (1996). Personalityand customer service. Psychological Reports, 79(2),675–681.

Gabel, R.S., Dolan, S.L. and Cerdin, J.L. (2005).Emotional intelligence as a predictor of culturaladjustment for success in global assignments.

Career Development International, 10(5), 375–395.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: BasicBooks.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. New York:Basic Books.

Gardner, L. and Stough, C. (2002). Examining therelationship between leadership and emotionalintelligence in senior level managers. Leadershipand Organization Development Journal, 23(2),68–78.

Geher, G., Warner, R.M. and Brown, A.S. (2001).Predictive validity of the Emotional AccuracyResearch Scale. Intelligence, 29, 373–388.

Goldberg, D.P. and Williams, P. (1988). A Users’Guide to the General Health Questionnaire.Windsor: NFER Nelson.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. NewYork: Bantam.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with EmotionalIntelligence. New York: Bantam.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002).Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of EmotionalIntelligence. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Harvey, M.M., Novicevic, M. and Kiessling, T. (2002).Development of multiple IQ maps for the usein the selection of impatriate managers: a prac-tical theory. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 26, 493–524.

Herriot, P. (2001). Future work and its emotionalimplications. In Payne, R. and Cooper, C.L. (eds),Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applicationsin Management. New York: John Wiley, pp. 307–325.

Herrnstein, R.J. and Murray, C. (1994). The BellCurve: Intelligence and Class Structure in AmericanLife. New York: Free Press.

Hochschild, A. (1983). The Managed Heart: TheCommercialization of Human Feeling. Berkley,CA: University of California Press.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. and Hogan, J. (1994). What weknow about leadership effectiveness and personality.American Psychologist, 49, 493–504.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. and Busche, C.M. (1984). Howto measure service orientation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69, 157–163.

Hunter, J.E. and Hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity andutility of alternative predictors of job performance.Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 72–93.

Huy, Q.N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotionalintelligence, and radical change. Academy ofManagement Review, 24(2), 325–345.



Isen, A.M., Shalker, T., Clark, M. and Karp, L. (1978).Affect, accessibility of material in memory andbehaviour: a cognitive loop? Journal of Personality& Social Psychology, 36, 1–12.

Johnson, S., Cooper, C.L., Cartwright, S., Donald, I.,Taylor, P. and Millet, C. (2005). The experience ofwork-related stress across occupations. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 20(2), 178–187.

Johnston, R. and Clark, G. (2001). Service OperationsManagement. London: Financial Times, Prentice-Hall.

Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2002). Emotionalintelligence and conflict resolution. Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, 4(1), 62–79.

Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J. andHooper, G.S. (2002). Workgroup emotional intel-ligence: scale development and relationships toteam process effectiveness and goal focus. HumanResource Management Review, 12(2), 195–214.

Kelley, R. and Caplan, J. (1993). How Bell labs createstar performers. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 100–103.

Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N. and Boyle, E. (2006).Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness.Leadership and Organization Development Journal,27(4), 265–275.

King, N. and Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation andChange in Organisations. London: Routledge.

Korth, J.S. (2000). Single and double-loop learning:exploring potential influence of cognitive style.Leadership and Organization Development Journal,18(3), 87–89.

Kusstatscher, V. and Cooper, C.L. (2005). ManagingEmotions in Mergers and Acquisitions. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.

Lane, R.D., Quinlan, D., Schwartz, G., Walker, P. andZeitlin, S. (1990). The levels of Emotional Aware-ness Scale: a cognitive-developmental measure ofemotion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55,124–134.

Lane, R., Reinman, E.M., Axelrod, B., Yun, L.,Homes, A. and Schwartz, G. (1998). Neural cor-relates of levels of emotional awareness: evidenceof an interaction between emotion and attention inthe anterior cingulated cortex. Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience, 10(4), 525–540.

Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Song, J. (2004). Theconstruct and criterion validity of EI and its potentialutility for management. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 89(3), 483–496.

Leban, W. and Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotionalintelligence abilities and transformational leadership

styles. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 25(7/8), 554–563.

Leeper, R.W. (1948). A motivational theory of emotionsto replace emotions as disorganized response.Psychological Review, 55, 5–21.

Levenson, R.W. and Ruef, A.M. (1992). Empathy:a physiological substrate. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 63, 234–246.

Martin, J.M., Knopoff, K. and Beckham, C. (1998).An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality andemotional labour: bounded emotionality at TheBody Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2),429–470.

Matthews, G., Roberts, R.D., Eno, A.K. and Zeidner, M.(2006). What is this thing called emotionalintelligence. In Murphy, K.R. (ed.), A Critique ofEmotional Intelligence. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Mayer, J.D. (2001). Emotion, intelligence andemotional intelligence. In Forgas, J.P. (ed.),Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayer, J.D. and Geher, G. (1996). Emotionalintelligence and the identification of emotion.Intelligence, 22, 89–113.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotionalintelligence? In Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D. (eds),Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence:Implications for Educators. New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (2000).Emotional intelligence meets traditional standardsfor an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267–298.

Mayer, J.D., Di Paolo, M.T. and Salovey, P. (1990).Perceiving affective content in ambiguous stimuli:a component of emotional intelligence. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 54, 772–781.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. and Sitaremos, G.(2001). Emotional intelligence as a standardintelligence. Emotion, 1, 232–242.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2002).Technical Manual for MSCEIT. Toronto: MHS.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. and Sitaremos, G.(2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with theMSCEIT V2.0. Emotion. 3(1), 97–105.

McClelland, D.C. and Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). Leadermotive pattern and long term success in manage-ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737–743.

Menon, K. and Dube, L. (2000). Ensuring greatersatisfaction by engineering salesperson responseto customer emotions. Journal of Retailing, 76(3),285–302.

June 2008


Mossholder, W.K., Settoon, R.P., Armenakis, A.A.and Hatris, S.G. (2000). Emotion during organiza-tional transformations: an interactive model ofsurvivor reactions. Group and OrganizationManagement, 25(3), 220–243.

Murphy, K.R. (2006). A Critique of EmotionalIntelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Murphy, K.R. and Sederman, L. (2006). The two EIs.In Murphy, K.R. (ed.), A Critique of EmotionalIntelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Newsome, S., Day, A.L. and Catano, V.M. (2000).Assessing the predictive validity of emotionalintelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,29, 1005–1016.

Nikolaou, I. and Tsaousis, I. (2005). Emotionalintelligence in the workplace: exploring its effectson occupational stress and organizational commit-ment. International Journal of OrganizationalAnalysis, 10(4), 327–343.

Nowicki, S. and Duke, M.P. (1992). The associationof children’s nonverbal decoding abilities withtheir popularity, locus of control and academicachievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology,153(4), 385–393.

Palmer, B. and Stough, C. (2001). Workplace SUEIT:Swinburne University Emotional IntelligenceTest – Descriptive Report. Swinburne UniversityAU: Organizational Psychology Research Unit.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. and Stough, C.(2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leader-ship. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 22(1), 5–10.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.(1998). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality.Journal of Retailing, 4(1), 12–39.

Paul, A.M. (1999). Promotional Intelligence.Available at http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/06/28/emotional/ (accessed June 2007).

Paulhus, D.L., Lysy, D.C. and Yik, M.S. (1998). Selfreport measures of intelligence: are they useful asproxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 525–554.

Peletti, J. (2001). A comparison of two measures ofemotional intelligence: the MSCEIT and the EQ-i.Unpublished manuscript.

Petrides, K. and Furnham, A. (2000). On thedimensional structure of emotional intelligence.Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320.

Pugh, S.D. (2001). Service with a smile: emotionalcontagion in the service encounter. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44(5), 1018–1028.

Rice, C.L. (1999). A quantitative study of emotionalintelligence and its impact on team performance.Unpublished Masters thesis, Pepperdine University,Malibu, CA.

Riggio, R., Murphy, S. and Pirozzolo, A. (2002).Multiple Intelligences and Leadership. London:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M. and Matthews, G. (2001).Does emotional intelligence meet traditionalstandards for an intelligence? Some new data andconclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231.

Robertson, I.T. and Smith, M. (2001). Personalselection. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 59, 45–57.

Roger, D. and Najaran, B. (1989). The constructionand validation of a new scale for measuring emotioncontrol. Personality and Individual Differences, 10,845–853.

Rosete, D. and Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotionalintelligence and its relationship to workplace per-formance and outcomes of leadership effectiveness.Leadership and Organization Development Journal,26(5/6), 388–399.

Rousseau, D.M. and Parkes, J.M. (1993). The contractsof individuals and organizations. Research inOrganizational Behaviour, 15, 1–45.

Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,1161–1178.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intel-ligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9,185–211.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D. and Turvey, C. (1990). TheTrait Meta Mood Scale. Unpublished manuscript.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Lopes, P.N.(2003). Measuring emotional intelligence as a setof abilities with the MSCEIT. In Lopez, S.J. andSnyder, C.R. (eds), Handbook of Positive PsychologyAssessment. Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Schloemer, L.F. (1995). Employee responses to rapidchange: what staff need to manage transitionseffectively. Dissertation Abstracts InternationalSection A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 56,1438.

Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paul, M.C. (1998).Linking service climate and customer perceptionsof service quality: test of a causal model. Journalof Applied Psychology, 88(2), 150–163.

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J.,Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J. and Dornheim, L.(1998). Development and validation of a measure

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/06/28/emotional/



of emotional intelligence. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 25, 167–177.

Semadar, A., Robins, G. and Ferris, G.R. (2006).Comparing the validity of multiple social effective-ness constructs in the prediction of managerial jobperformance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,27, 443–461.

Sheehan, J.M. and Jordan, P.J. (2002). Bullying,emotions and the learning organization. In Cooper,C.L., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Hanfling, O.(eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in theWorkplace: International Perspectives in Researchand Practice. London: Routledge.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W. and Peake, P.K. (1990).Predicting adolescent cognitive and self regulatorycompetencies from pre-school delay gratification:identifying diagnostic conditions. DevelopmentPsychology, 26(6), 978–986.

Slaski, M. and Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, per-formance and emotional intelligence. Stress andHealth, 18, 63–69.

Slaski, M. and Cartwright, S. (2003). Developmentalemotional intelligence training: implications forstress, health and performance. Stress and Health,19, 233–239.

Snarey, J.R. and Vaillant, C.P.E. (1985). How lowerand working class youth become middle classadults: the association between ego defensemechanisms and upward social mobility. ChildDevelopment, 56(4), 899–910.

Sosik, J. and Megerian, J. (1999). Understandingleader emotional intelligence and performance.Group and Organisation Management, 24, 367–391.

Spearman, C. (1927). The Abilities of Man. London:Macmillan.

Spector, P.E., Dwyer, D.J. and Jex, S.M. (1988).Relaxation of job stressors of affective health andperformance outcomes: a comparison of multipledata sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,11–18.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theoryof Human Intelligence. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sternberg, R.J. (1996). Successful Intelligence. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Sternberg, R.J. (2001). Measuring the intelligence ofan idea: how intelligent is the idea of emotionalintelligence? In Ciarrochi, J., Forgas, J.P. andMayers, J.D. (eds), Emotional Intelligence inEveryday Life: A Scientific Enquiry. East Sussex:Psychology Press.

Tan, H.H., Foo, M.D. and Kwek, M.H. (2004). Theeffects of customer personality traits on the displayof positive emotions. Academy of ManagementJournal, 47(2), 287–296.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of ScientificManagement, 1998 edition. New York: Dover.

Thayer, R.E. (1989). The Biopsychology of Mood andEmotion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its users.Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227–235.

Thorndike, E.L. and Stein, S. (1937). An evaluationof the attempts to measure social intelligence.Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275–284.

Thurstone, I.L. (1938). Primary Mental Abilities,Psychometric Monographs No. 1. Chicago IL:University of Chicago Press.

Tsaousis, I. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence:development and psychometric characteristics ofthe Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ).Unpublished manuiscript.

Tsaousis, I., Vakola, M. and Nikolaou, I. (2004).The role of emotional intelligence and person-ality variables on attitudes towards organizationalchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2),88–110.

Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotionalintelligence: a meta-analytic investigation ofpredictive validity and nomological net. Journal ofVocational Behaviour, 65, 71–95.

Van Rooy, D.L., Viswesvaran, C. and Pluta, P. (2005).An evaluation of construct validity: what is thisthing called emotional intelligence? HumanPerformance, 18(4), 445–462.

Varca, P.E. (2004). Service skills for service workers,emotional intelligence and beyond. ManagingService Quality, 14(6), 457–467.

Vernon, P.E. (1956). The Measurement of Abilities.London: University of London Press.

Westen, D. (1985). Self and Society: Narcissism,Collectivism and the Development of Morals.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, S.J. (2001). Emotion and Social Theory.London: Sage.

Winsted, K.F. (2000). Service behaviours that lead tosatisfied customers. European Journal of Marketing,34(3/4), 399–417.

Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002). The effects ofleader and follower emotional intelligence onperformance and attitude: an exploratory study.Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274.

Woodruffe, C. (2001). Promotional intelligence,People Management, 11, 26–29.

June 2008


Young, P.T. (1936). Motivation of Behaviour. NewYork: John Wiley.

Young, P.T. (1943). Emotion in Man and Animal: ItsNature and Relation to Attitude and Motive. NewYork: John Wiley.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. and Roberts, R.D. (2004).Emotional intelligence in the workplace: a criticalreview. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 53, 371–399.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2000). ServiceMarketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across theFirm, 2nd edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Susan Cartwright and Constantinos Pappas arefrom Manchester Business School, Universityof Manchester, Booth Street West, ManchesterM13 9PL, UK.

25234483 Emotional Intelligence Its Measurement and Implications for the Workplace

Documents

Transcript of 25234483 Emotional Intelligence Its Measurement and Implications for the Workplace