ABSTRACT BROOKS, JONI KING. Emotional competencies of ...

ABSTRACT

BROOKS, JONI KING. Emotional competencies of leaders: A comparison of managers in a financial organization by performance level. (Under the direction of James Burrow)

As companies increasingly are required to do more with less, seemingly “soft”

skills, based on emotions, are associated with leadership effectiveness and organizational

success. Research suggests that emotional “competencies,” such as those related to

empathy, adaptability, self-control, emotional self-awareness, ability to develop others, and

so forth, contribute significantly to leader effectiveness.

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences in EI levels exist among high

performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in this

financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their performance

ratings exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than managers with lower

performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels and various demographic

characteristics of the sample.

The data were gathered from a sample of 57 from the study population—79 members

of the management team of a large regional financial organization selected to participate in

an internal study on emotional intelligence. The participating managers completed self-

report versions of the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0 (ECI 2.0) (Hay/McBer, 2002).

They, in turn, asked others with whom they work closely to complete 360-degree versions

of the instrument, providing feedback on the participants. Participants also completed an

instrument that gathered demographic data, including title, position, area, management

tenure, gender, educational level, and type of degree, and their most recent performance

ratings (three, four, or five on a five-point scale).

The researcher analyzed the ECI scores provided by the Hay Group, performance

ratings, and demographic data via a statistical analysis computing system, SAS 8. She

employed the general linear model (GLM) version of analysis of variance (ANOVA), T-

test, and union-intersection test methods.

Findings indicated that high ratings and high emotional intelligence were not

significantly related at a 95 percent confidence level. They were significantly related on

three competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism—at a 90 percent

confidence level. The EI average scores of the sample differed significantly from the

average scores of other groups in the ECI North American Database on three competencies:

Achievement, Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional Self-control. Statistically

significant differences between Sales and Support functions were evident in three

competencies: Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and Transparency. For all three,

Support EI levels were greater than Sales EI levels. Position, title, gender, and management

tenure did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

While educational level did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of

the sample, statistically significant differences existed between those with a Bachelor of

Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts degree on four competencies: Conflict

Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness. EI

levels of those with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BA degrees in

Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI levels of those

with BA degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees on one competency:

Emotional Self-awareness.

Results of the self versus total others ratings indicated that statistically significant

differences exist in four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational

Leadership, and Self-confidence. For each of the four competencies, EI levels of total

others were greater than self-reported EI levels.

Emotional Competencies of Leaders: A Comparison of Managers in a Financial Organization by

Performance Level

By

Joni King Brooks

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Adult and Community College Education

Raleigh

2002

Approved by:

____________________________ _____________________________ Dr. James L. Burrow Dr. Paula Berardinelli Chair of Advisory Committee

____________________________ _____________________________ Dr. John Pettitt Dr. Michael Vasu

ii

Biography

Joni King Brooks earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism, with a double major in

speech communications, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1981). She holds a

master’s degree in public administration from North Carolina State University (1992). Her

research interests include leadership and workplace performance.

Ms. Brooks works as a manager of public relations and marketing communications with

a telecommunications solutions provider. She has 20 years of experience in communications,

marketing, and public relations. Her career, which began in the news media, has encompassed

roles in a number of organizations, including those focused in non-profit, health-care, education,

research, banking, and high tech.

Ms. Brooks is the daughter of Carolyn Riggs King and the late William E. (Eddie)

King. She resides in Raleigh, N.C., with her husband, Ricky, and son, Austin.

iii

Acknowledgements

Along the long and curving road that I have traveled to complete this degree, I have

been very fortunate to have the support of numerous family members, friends, and

acquaintances. I sincerely appreciate all who have encouraged and assisted me.

In particular, I am indebted to the members of my advisory committee. Each has

offered support and guidance, helping me attain this ultimate academic goal. Dr. Michael Vasu

has been a part of my entire post-graduate academic life. He taught my very first graduate class

and served as my advisor during my master’s program. I sincerely appreciate his guidance and

support. Dr. Paula Berardinelli kindly stepped in to fill the void left by a committee member

who retired before I completed the degree. She has offered much encouragement when I was

discouraged and assistance, even trying to help me find a company to participate in my study

after one backed out far into the process. Dr. John Pettitt has served as a helpful advisor both as

an instructor and committee member.

Dr. James Burrow, the chair the advisory committee, has provided constant guidance

and aid. Dr. Burrow steered me through the doctoral requirements, helping me succeed along

the way. He gave willingly of his time and expertise, and his efforts are most appreciated.

My friends and family have provided support to enable me to achieve this goal. First, I

want to thank my parents, Carolyn Riggs King and the late William E. (Eddie) King, who

provided me with the foundation to achieve and instilled in me the value of education and

success. My parents taught me perseverance and to roll with the punches, reminding me that life

is not always fair. My mother is a source of continuous encouragement, support, and love. I

know my late father and late brother, Edwin, would be proud of this accomplishment.

I sincerely appreciate all who helped me identify a company to participate—which

proved to be an arduous task. I am very grateful to those in the participating organization who

contributed greatly to the completion of the research study.

iv

Finally, to my husband, Ricky, and son, Austin, thank you for loving, supporting, and

inspiring me. Ricky, you have given unselfishly and are always there to pick up the pieces,

enabling me to achieve this dream.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. IX

CHAPTER I............................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT.........................................................................................1

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

EI and IQ ........................................................................................................................................6

EI and Leadership ..........................................................................................................................7

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................................................8

ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................9

Research Questions and Hypotheses ..............................................................................................9

Applicability .................................................................................................................................15

TERMS DEFINED.................................................................................................................................16

RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................................................16

DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY..........................................................................................................17

Population ....................................................................................................................................18

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers ........................................................................18

Gathering of Survey Information..................................................................................................18

SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................19

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...........................................................................20

ORGANIZATION OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................................................20

LEADERSHIP.......................................................................................................................................21

Leadership Behavior Theory ........................................................................................................22

Leadership versus Management ...................................................................................................23

EMOTIONS..........................................................................................................................................27

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE................................................................................................................29

vi

EI competencies............................................................................................................................32

EI and EQ.....................................................................................................................................34

Moving Ahead...............................................................................................................................35

EI History .....................................................................................................................................36

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND LEADERSHIP ...................................................................................38

Johnson & Johnson Emotional Competencies and Leadership Study ..........................................39

EI Training ...................................................................................................................................41

EI AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................43

EI and Functional and Position Differences ................................................................................43

EI and Gender ..............................................................................................................................43

EI AND PERFORMANCE IN THE FINANCE SECTOR ...............................................................................45

MEASURING EI...................................................................................................................................45

COMPARING SELF AND OTHERS’ RATINGS.........................................................................................47

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AS A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS .........................................................48

SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................49

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................51

METHODS AND PROCESSES ................................................................................................................53

Research Design ...........................................................................................................................53

Data Needs and Collection Steps..................................................................................................53

Instrumentation.............................................................................................................................54

Reliability .....................................................................................................................................56

Validity .........................................................................................................................................58

Scale Design .................................................................................................................................60

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM OF PARTICIPATING COMPANY ...................................................60

Sales Performance Analysis .........................................................................................................61

Support Performance Analysis .....................................................................................................62

Demographic Form ......................................................................................................................63

vii

Population and Sample.................................................................................................................64

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers ........................................................................65

Gathering of Survey Information..................................................................................................65

2002 Performance Summary ........................................................................................................67

Data collection procedures...........................................................................................................67

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND DATA ANALYSIS............................................................69

Analysis of Research Question One..............................................................................................69

Analysis of Research Question Two..............................................................................................71

Analysis of Research Question Three ...........................................................................................73

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................78

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY.....................................................................................................................78

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, NULL HYPOTHESES, AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES ...................................78

Research Question One ................................................................................................................79

Research Question Two ................................................................................................................81

ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................................85

Detailed Research Questions and Null and Alternative Hypotheses Review................................87

2002 Performance Summary ........................................................................................................88

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: SELF VERSUS OTHERS RATINGS...................................................................106

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................108

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................113

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................113

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES .......................................................................................114

KEY FINDINGS..................................................................................................................................120

DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS.........................................................................................................122

LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................128

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................129

viii

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................................131

FINAL COMMENTS............................................................................................................................133

REFERENCE LIST...........................................................................................................................135

APPENDIX A EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES. ..............143

APPENDIX B ECI .............................................................................................................................147

APPENDIX C CHRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENTS.........................................................157

APPENDIX D TEST-RETEST STABILITY ..................................................................................158

APPENDIX E SALES APPRAISAL FORM...................................................................................159

APPENDIX F SUPPORT APPRAISAL CHECKLIST..................................................................168

APPENDIX G DEMOGRAPHICS...................................................................................................173

APPENDIX H STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................174

APPENDIX I CONSENT FORMS...................................................................................................190

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1 EMOTIONS: CONVENTIONAL VS. HIGH-PERFORMANCE ........................................................................28

TABLE 2.2 ADDITIONAL CONVENTIONAL VS. HIGH-PERFORMANCE EMOTIONS .....................................................28

TABLE 4.1 MEAN SCORES FOR EACH COMPETENCY BY RATING.............................................................................89

TABLE 4.2 RELATIONSHIP OF HIGH RATINGS TO HIGH EI SCORES..........................................................................91

TABLE 4.3 RELATIONSHIP OF EI COMPETENCIES AND PERFORMANCE RATINGS AT 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE ......92

TABLE 4.4 EI COMPARISONS OF BANK SAMPLE WITH OTHER SAMPLES..................................................................94

TABLE 4.5 RELATIONSHIP OF EI COMPETENCIES AND POSITIONS AT 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL .................95

TABLE 4.6 RELATIONSHIP OF EI COMPETENCIES AND TITLES AT 95-PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL.......................96

TABLE 4.7 RELATIONSHIP OF GENDER AND EI A 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL ...............................................98

TABLE 4.8 MEANS SCORES BY GENDER IN DESCENDING ORDER ............................................................................99

TABLE 4.9 SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EI AND AREA.......................................................................100

TABLE 4.10 SUPPORT MANAGERS’ HIGHEST- AND LOWEST-RATED COMPETENCIES ............................................101

TABLE 4.11 SALES MANAGERS’ HIGHEST- AND LOWEST-RATED COMPETENCIES ................................................101

TABLE 4.12 COMPARISONS OF EI MEANS FOR SALES AND SUPPORT FUNCTIONS ................................................102

TABLE 4.13 RELATIONSHIP OF EI AND TENURE A 95-PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL ...........................................103

TABLE 4.14 RELATIONSHIP OF EI AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AT 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL.....................104

TABLE 4.15 EI SCORES SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO BA VERSUS BS DEGREES ..................................................106

TABLE 4.16 STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES .....................................................................................107

TABLE 4.17 EI COMPETENCY SCORES FOR SELF AND TOTAL OTHERS’ RATINGS FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST .......107

TABLE 4.18 SUMMARY OF NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS TESTING.........................................................109

TABLE A1 SELF-AWARENESS COMPETENCIES .....................................................................................................143

TABLE A2 SELF-MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES..................................................................................................144

TABLE A3 SOCIAL AWARENESS COMPETENCIES .................................................................................................145

TABLE A4 RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES...................................................................................146

TABLE C CHRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENTS...................................................................................................157

TABLE D TEST-RETEST STABILITY COEFFICIENTS ...............................................................................................158

x

TABLE H1 ANOVA FOR RATINGS......................................................................................................................174

TABLE H2 ANOVA FOR POSITION .....................................................................................................................176

TABLE H3 ANOVA FOR TITLES .........................................................................................................................178

TABLE H4 ANOVA FOR GENDER.......................................................................................................................180

TABLE H5 ANOVA FOR AREA ...........................................................................................................................182

TABLE H6ANOVA FOR TENURE ........................................................................................................................184

TABLE H7 T-TEST FOR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................................................................186

TABLE H8 T-TEST FOR BA AND BS....................................................................................................................188

TABLE H9 T-TEST FOR SELF AND TOTAL OTHERS ................................................................................................189

1

Chapter I

Introduction and Problem Statement

The times, they are still “a changing.” Companies today are very different from

those of the past. Globalization, increased competition, and technology advances are

requiring organizations, management teams, and employees to do more with less—while

retaining the flexibility to address changes.

According to Cherniss and Adler (2000), factors contributing to the turbulence

resulting from changes in the marketplace include technical innovation, global

competition, and pressures from institutional investors. Among technical innovations,

they cite organizational downsizing. “As organizations shrink, people who remain are

more accountable and more visible. They must interact with more peers, more

subordinates, and more customers” (p. 4).

The highly competitive environment driving today’s organizations has negative

effects. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) stated that the intellect required to make companies

competitive has resulted in dramatic costs to employees. The costs include “crumbling

trust, jarring uncertainty, greater distance between managers and those they manage,

stifled creativity, festering cynicism, increasingly volatile anger, and vanishing loyalty

and commitment” (pp. xi-xii).

Motivation, initiative, and cooperation also may be lacking among today’s employees

and may be resulting in less-than-effective organizations. Cherniss and Adler referred to

a 1991 study of American employers by Harris Education Research. Their findings

indicated that more than half of employees in the surveyed organizations “lacked the

2

motivation to continue learning and improving on the job. Four of 10 were not able to

work cooperatively with fellow employees, and just 19 percent of those applying for

entry-level jobs had enough discipline in their work habits” (p. 7).

Kouzes and Posner (1997) explained that both employees’ loyalties to institutions

and institutions’ loyalties to employees are diminishing. They added that the power

within organizations has shifted from the top brass to the people and to those with

technology and the skills to use it. Nearly half the population is cynical, and cynics don't

participate in improving things. In such a climate, how can a leader possibly mobilize a

seemingly unwilling constituency (p. xviii)? They added, “With movement away from

the powerful bosses to the empowered people, organizational structures are flattening.

Everyone is connected, and knowledge has become synonymous with currency. Kouzes

and Posner contended that organizational success and the ability to compete are

"dependent upon the mental fitness of the workforce" (p. xviii).

Further, they explained, because there are far more products and services today

than were available a decade ago, the marketplace is fragmented. Organizations are

reducing staffs and, what was once a permanent workforce is changing to include

contingent and self-employed workers. "Loyalty and job security, we're told, have gone

the way of the dodo bird" (p. xix).

However, the situation is not hopeless. "There's a new search for meaning. With

today's cynicism, fragmentation, and shifting relationships has come a yearning for a

greater purpose in our lives. … In the race of these new realities, there are countless

opportunities to make a difference. …More than ever, there's a need for people to seize

these opportunities to lead us to greatness" (Kouzes and Posner, pp. xix-xx).

3

What separates the successful companies from others? According to Rodriguez,

Patel, Bright, Gregory, and Gowing (2002), a distinguishing element is superior

employees. “High-performing people are critical to high-performing organizations” (p.

309). Gordon (1998) added, “Enlightened companies now look for managers of

independent spirit, people with the courage of their convictions. Enlightened companies

want up-and-coming leaders who will speak their minds, boldly and openly” (p. 54).

Other sources, including Cherniss and Adler (2000), George (2000), and Goleman

(1998b), pointed to social and emotional competencies, such as feelings, emotions,

moods, and so forth—as differentiators in today’s competitive and continually changing

work environment. As a manager of a telecommunications company explained, “You

don't compete with products alone anymore, but how well you use your people”

(Goleman, p. 7). Cherniss and Adler added that because of changes in the domestic and

global marketplace, “Personal qualities, such as resilience, optimism, and initiative, have

become more important in recent years” (pp. 2-3).

Goleman (1998b) contended that in today’s organizations, high performers are not

necessarily the most intelligent or most highly skilled employees. He wrote, “We’re

being judged by a new yardstick; not just by how smart we are, or by our training and

expertise, but also by how well we handle ourselves and each other. This yardstick is

increasingly applied in choosing who will be hired and who will not, who will be let go

and who retained, who passed over and who promoted” (p. 3).

Cherniss and Adler (2000) contended that because of a growing body of research

in competencies as well as personal experiences, employers are modifying their ideas

about what qualifications of an employee are most important. They cited results of a

4

survey conducted by the Department of Labor and American Society for Training and

Development. The survey sought to determine characteristics employers required for

entry-level positions. Results showed that the most important qualities were personal

management (self-esteem, goal setting and motivation, and personal and career

development); interpersonal skills (negotiation and teamwork); and organizational

effectiveness and leadership. The authors referenced a study by Dowd and Liedtka that

found that employers value the same competencies in entry-level managers. Results

indicated that qualities most desired in candidates with Master of Business

Administration degrees were communications skills, interpersonal skills, and initiative.

Identifying personnel possessing such specific qualities as these is not easy. It is

becoming increasingly challenging for organizations to recruit, select, and retain high-

performing employees (Rodriguez et al., 2002). The authors suggested that human

resources personnel consider competency-based programs: “Competencies provide the

foundation through which human resource professionals can contribute to the success of

their organizations” (p. 309).

While the concept of competencies has increased in popularity recently, the

concept is not new. In the 1970s, David McClelland’s research suggested that “academic

aptitude and knowledge content tests alone did not predict high job performance or

success in life, and that individual characteristics or competencies can identify high

performers” (Rodriguez, et al., 2002, p. 309).

Emotional Intelligence

Many have attempted to define the term emotional intelligence or to add their

descriptions to its definition. Some definitions focus on the skills or competencies of an

5

emotionally intelligent person, some have focused on behaviors, and some have focused

on intelligence.

Goleman has worked extensively in the competency area. He is well known for

his research on emotional intelligence. Since his best-selling book on emotional

intelligence in 1995, the term has come into increasingly popular use. Goleman (1998b)

introduced the concept of emotional intelligence and the role of emotions: “The new

measure takes for granted having enough intellectual ability and technical know-how to

do our jobs; it focuses instead on personal qualities, such as initiative and empathy,

adaptability, and persuasiveness” (p. 3). These “personal qualities” are included in the

emotional intelligence framework as EI competencies (See Tables A1-A4, Appendix A).

Goleman (1998b) described emotional intelligence as “the capacity for

recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, for managing

emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). He continued, “Emotional

intelligence determines our potential for learning the practical skills that are based on its

five elements: self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and adeptness in

relationships” (p. 24). Goleman distinguished between emotional intelligence and

emotional competence. Emotional competence is a “learned capability based on

emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work” (p. 24).

“Emotional competence shows how much of that potential we have translated into on-

the-job capabilities” (p. 25). For example, being effective at customer service is an

emotional competency based on empathy.

According to Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (1998), with emotional intelligence

(EI), one is able to process emotional information, specifically as it involves the

6

perception, assimilation, understanding, and management of emotion. EI consists of four

branches of mental ability:

1. Emotional identification, perception and expression

2. Emotional facilitation of thought

3. Emotional understanding

4. Emotional management

Cooper and Sawaf (1997) defined emotional intelligence in terms of energy,

relationships, and influence. It is “the ability to sense, understand, and effectively apply

the power and acumen of emotions as a source of human energy, connection, and

influence” (p.xiii). They contended that every business leader wants or needs emotional

intelligence. Subordinates want these qualities in a manager, and people hope for them in

a parent, partner, and sibling. They reported that emotional intelligence contributes to

employee and organizational success, citing examples in the following areas (p. xii):

Decision making

Leadership

Strategic and technical breakthroughs

Open honest communication

Trusting relationships and teamwork

Customer loyalty

Creativity and innovation

EI and IQ

Cacioppo and Gardner (1999) contended that emotion contributes not only to

intelligence but also to a fulfilling life. “The heightened ability to monitor one’s own and

7

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

thinking and action has proven to be as important a determinant of life success as

traditional measures of intelligence such as IQ” (p.194).

Other theorists (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cherniss,

2000; and Druskat, 2001) also proposed that EQ is an important as IQ to ensuring

effective performance of workers and success in organizations.

However, as Cherniss (2000) stated, it is absurd to suggest that cognitive ability is

not related to success in various disciplines and organizations. “We also should keep in

mind that cognitive and non-cognitive abilities are very much related. In fact, there is

research suggesting that emotional and social skills actually help improve cognitive

functioning” (p. 8). Cherniss and Adler (2000) added, “Emotional intelligence and

cognitive ability actually work together for effective action in organizations. Therefore, it

is not surprising that numerous studies point to EI as critical for success at work” (p. 5).

EI and Leadership

Researchers (including Goleman, 1998b; George, 2002; Cavallo and Brienza,

2002; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; and George, 1995) have linked emotions and

competencies with performance and leadership.

Is high emotional intelligence synonymous with high performance? This was the

contention of Goleman (1998b), who has stated that with the recent emphasis on

flexibility, teams, and a strong customer focus in the workplace, “this crucial set of

emotional competencies is becoming increasingly essential for excellence in every job

and in every part of the world” (p. 29). The studies cited suggest that emotional

8

intelligence is related to the effectiveness and advancement of managers in today’s

organizations.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences in EI levels exist among

high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in

this financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their performance


performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels and various demographic

characteristics of the sample, including position, title, area of employment, gender,

education level, type of degree, and management tenure.

In a study of emotional intelligence and leadership performance, it is important to

examine the concepts related to emotions, emotional intelligence, leadership, leadership

theories, and the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership.

The literature indicates that as companies increasingly are required to do more

with less, seemingly “soft” skills, based on emotions, are associated with leadership

effectiveness and organizational success. Research suggests that emotional

“competencies,” such as those related to empathy, adaptability, self control, emotional

self-awareness, and so forth, contribute significantly to leader effectiveness. This study

examines whether levels of emotional competencies are related to performance (as

defined by performance ratings) of managers in one organization.

9

Analysis

The analysis addressed research questions and null hypotheses posed to determine

if, in a sample, performance levels are related to levels of emotional intelligence; if EI

scores of the sample were similar to those of others surveyed using the same instrument;

and if various demographic characteristics of the sample (gender, position, title, sales or

support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree) are related to

emotional intelligence.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question One: Do high-performing leaders exhibit high emotional

intelligence?

Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18): High performance ratings and high scores on

each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies listed below are not related:

(H0-1): Achievement

(H0-2): Adaptability

(H0-3): Accurate Self-assessment

(H0-4): Conflict Management

(H0-5): Change Catalyst

(H0-6): Customer Service Orientation

(H0-7): Developing Others

(H0-8): Empathy

(H0-9): Emotional Self-awareness

(H0-10): Emotional Self-control

10

(H0-11): Influence

(H0-12): Initiative

(H0-13): Inspirational Leadership

(H0-14): Organizational Awareness

(H0-15): Optimism

(H0-16): Self-confidence

(H0-17): Transparency

(H0-18): Teamwork and Collaboration

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H1-1)-(H1-18): High performance ratings and high scores

on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related:

(H1-1): Achievement







(H1-8): Empathy



(H1-11): Influence

(H1-12): Initiative


11


(H1-15): Optimism




Research Question Two: How do emotional intelligence competency scores of the

sample compare with emotional intelligence competency scores of other samples

surveyed using the same survey instrument?

Null Hypotheses 2(H0-1)-(H0-16): There are no significant differences among 16

emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence he

competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument:

(H0-1): Achievement






(H0-7): Empathy



(H0-10): Influence

(H0-11): Initiative


12


(H0-14): Optimism



Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1)- (H1-16): Significant differences exist among 16

emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence


(H1-1): Achievement






(H1-7): Empathy



(H1-10): Influence

(H1-11): Initiative



(H1-14): Optimism



13

Research Question Three: Do various demographic characteristics (position, title,

gender, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)

influence scores on 18 emotional intelligence competencies?

Null Hypotheses 3 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are

no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample

in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor, manager,

senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.

Alternative Hypotheses 3 (H1-1)-(H1-18) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1

above): Significant differences exist among emotional intelligence scores of managers in

the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor,

manager, senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.

Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18): (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are


with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, area vice

president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18 competencies.



the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice

president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18

competencies.


no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of

men and women in the sample.

14


above): Significant differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency

scores of men and women in the sample.



managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.



scores of managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.



managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more

than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for

fewer than five years.



scores of managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports

for more than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct

reports for fewer than five years.



managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers without

advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree).

15



scores of managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers

without advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s

degree).



managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with Bachelor of

Arts degrees.



scores of managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with

Bachelor of Arts degrees.

Applicability

If findings from a study of emotional intelligence, such as this one, indicate that

performance levels are tied to EI levels, individuals and organizations may realize a

number of benefits. For individuals, the results of the Emotional Competence Inventory

employed in this study may serve as awareness tools for assessment and development,

providing precise, focused guidance on their emotional strengths in the workplace and

their priorities for improvement. For teams, departments, or business units, the ECI

provides information on emotional strengths in the workplace and priorities for

improvement. It can identify emotional intelligence gaps that might limit effectiveness

(Hay Group, 2002a).

16

If results do not indicate a relationship between performance levels and levels of

EI, individuals and organizations might choose to limit or restrict time and money

invested in programs to identify and enhance EI.

Terms Defined

Emotional intelligence: According to Daniel Goleman (1998b), emotional

intelligence is “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for

motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our

relationships” (p. 317). It refers to 18 social and emotional abilities grouped in four core

areas (Self-awareness, Self-management, Social Awareness, and Relationship

Management) that previous research has indicated are linked to successful performance

in the workplace (Hay Group, 2002c; Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Cherniss, 2000; and

Goleman, 1998b; George, 2000). Emotional intelligence is also known as called

emotional quotient (EQ).

Emotional competence: “A learned capability based on emotional intelligence that

results in outstanding performance at work” (Goleman, 1998b, p. 24).

Research design


high performers in one sample organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether

managers in this financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their

performance ratings exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than managers

with lower performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels and various

demographic characteristics of the sample. The data were gathered from a sample of 57

17

from the population—79 members of the management team of a large regional financial

organization selected to participate in an internal study on emotional intelligence.

The participating managers completed self-report versions of the Emotional

Intelligence Inventory 2.0 then asked others with whom they worked closely to rate them

by completing 360-degree versions of the instrument. Participants also completed forms

indicating their most recent performance ratings (three, four, or five on a five-point scale)

and demographical information, including title, position, area, management tenure,

gender, educational level, and type of degree.

The researcher employed a quantitative research design that provides a numeric

description of a fraction of the population—the sample—through the data collection

process of asking questions of people (Creswell, 1994). From the data collection, the

researcher might be able to generalize from a sample to a population in order to make

inferences about characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of the population.

She analyzed EI scores provided by the Hay Group, performance ratings, and

demographic data via a statistical analysis computing system, SAS 8. The researcher

employed the general linear model (GLM) version of analysis of variance (ANOVA), T-

test, and union-intersection test methods.

Delimitations of the Study

The study is limited in scope; it includes several levels of managers in sales and

support functions in one large organization in the financial services industry. All of the

managers in the sample are high-performing or potentially high-performing managers

selected specifically to participate in an internal study on emotional competency. All

have had ratings of three or higher on a five-point scale for the past two review cycles.

18

Furthermore, performance ratings are based on a performance evaluation process

developed within the organization that has not been validated to discriminate between

high and low performers.

Population

The research study was conducted among managers in one financial organization,

a bank. Based in North Carolina, the bank has branches in three states. The sample of 57

managers included volunteers from the management pool of 79 selected to participate in

an internal study of emotional intelligence.

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers

The sample of 57 was drawn from a population of 79 managers participating in an

internal leadership symposium and/or an internal leadership program, according to the

manager of management and leadership development (personal communication,

November 18, 2002). Of the 79, 59 were asked to participate in the doctoral research

study. Twenty executive-level participants in the bank’s study did not have performance

ratings, and, therefore, did not qualify for participation in the doctoral research study.

Two of the 59 chose not to participate.

Gathering of Survey Information

Data for the study were gathered via the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, an

existing instrument. Study participants completed a “self-report” version of the

instrument. Peers, managers, direct reports, and customers evaluated each participant,

completing 360-degree instruments.

19

Summary

As competition in the workplace heightens, what separates highly successful

organizations from others? Many factors contribute to success in organizations. One

factor cited as contributing to success is effective leadership. What makes a leader

effective? As Goleman (1995, 1998b) and others (including Cherniss, 2000; Cherniss and

Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf, 1997; Druskat, 2001; George, 2000) contend, an

effective leader has more than the technical skills to do a job. He or she employs

qualities, such as initiative and empathy, adaptability, and persuasiveness—competencies

of emotional intelligence. Researchers (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; George, 1995, 2002;

George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Goleman, 1998b) have found relationships between

emotions and competencies and performance and leadership. High EI in organizations

has been linked to improved financial results, improved return on investment in change

initiatives, improved productivity, increased retention of top talent, and increased sales

(Hay Group, 2002b).

This study investigates the EI competencies of high-performing managers in a

financial organization to determine if level of performance and demographic

characteristics are related to EI in the sample.

The research report is organized with the following sections:

1. Introduction and problem statement

2. Literature Review

3. Methodology

4. Findings

5. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

6. Appendices

20

Chapter II Review of the literature

As competition in the workplace heightens, what separates highly successful

organizations from others? Many factors contribute to success in organizations. One

factor cited as contributing to success is effective leadership. What makes a leader

effective? As Goleman (1995, 1998b) and others (including Cherniss, 2000; Cherniss and

Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf 1997; Druskat, 2001; George. 2000) contend, effective

leaders have more than the technical skills to do a job. They employ qualities, such as

initiative and empathy, adaptability, and persuasiveness—competencies of emotional

intelligence. High EI has been linked to high performance by organizational personnel as

shown in a study at Johnson & Johnson (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002). High EI in

organization has been linked to improved financial results, improved return on

investment in change initiatives, improved productivity, increased retention of top talent,

and increased sales (Hay Group, 2002b).


high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in

this financial organization who are deemed most effective according to their performance


performance ratings.

Organization of the Literature


examine the concepts related to leadership, emotions, emotional intelligence, and the

relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership.

21

The literature indicates that as companies increasingly are required to do more


effectiveness and organizational success. Research suggests that emotional

“competencies,” such as those related to empathy, adaptability, self control, emotional

self-awareness, ability to develop others, and so forth, contribute significantly to leader

effectiveness.

In Chapter II, the researcher reviews literature on the following topics:

Leadership

Emotions

Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence and leadership

Emotional intelligence and demographic characteristics

Emotional intelligence and performance in the finance sector

Measuring EI

Comparing self and others’ ratings

Performance appraisal as a measure of effectiveness

Leadership

What characterizes an effective leader? Researchers have attempted to define the

concept only to realize that the term means different things to different people. There are

nearly as many definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define the

concept (Yukl, 1994).

Yukl (1994) further explained, “Leadership has been defined in terms of

individual traits, behaviors, influence over other people, interaction patterns, role

22

relationships, occupations or an administrative position, and perception by others

regarding legitimacy of influence” (p. 2). Most definitions include an assumption that

leadership involves a process of social influence whereby one person exerts intentional

influence over other people to structure the activities and relationships in a group or

organization.

Successful leaders are typically adaptable to situations, alert to social

environment, ambitious and achievement-oriented, assertive, cooperative, decisive,

dependable, dominant (desire to influence others), energetic (high-activity level),

persistent, self-confident, tolerant of stress, and willing to assume responsibility (Yukl,

1994).

Leadership Behavior Theory

Research has uncovered various leadership styles (patterns of behavior).

According to Hampton, Summer, and Webber (1987):

...leaders’ actions fall into two broad categories, actions that get the work out

(leadership of things) and actions that support and encourage subordinates

(leadership of people). Some social scientists believe that one human being cannot

really be an excellent performer at both, and that a given person tends to be task-

oriented or people-oriented in his or her actions. Others insist that the leader not

only can but must be an excellent performer on both scales. At least one author

gave us a more specific and concrete list of action leaders take to ‘lead’ both

things and people (p. 579).

23

Leadership versus Management

Similar to Hampton, Summer, and Webber’s (1987) description of what leaders

do, theorists (Batten, 1989; Capezio and Morehouse, 1997; Kotter, 1998; Kouzes and

Posner, 1997; Zaleznik, 1998) differentiated between management and leadership.

Management is more about completing tasks while leadership involves influence and

relationships.

Kotter (1998) explained: “Leadership is different from management….

Leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action.

Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in

today's business environment. Management is about coping with complexity. Its practices

and procedures are largely a response to the emergence of large, complex organizations

in the twentieth century. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change”(p. 37).

Zaleznik (1998) agreed that managers and leaders are very different. “Managers'

goals arise out of necessities rather than desires; they excel at diffusing conflicts between

individuals or departments, placating all sides while ensuring that an organization's day-

to-day business gets done. Leaders, on the other hand, adopt personal, active attitudes

towards goals. They look for the potential opportunities and rewards that lie around the

corner, inspiring subordinates and firing up the creative process with their own energy.

Their relationships with employees and coworkers are intense, and their working

environment is often, consequently, chaotic” (p. 61). To succeed, businesses need both

managers and leaders and must find ways to train excellent managers and simultaneously

develop leaders.

24

Batten (1989) contrasted managers and leaders: “Managers manage inventories,

supplies, data. They are number crunchers. Leaders catalyze, stretch, and enhance people.

They provide transcendent goals, creating a motivational climate. Managers push and

direct. Leaders pull and expect. Leaders are exhilarated by identifying and enhancing

their people’s strengths” (p. 2).

According to Tom Peters, “Management is mostly about ‘to-do’ lists. Leadership

is about tapping the wellsprings of human motivation—and about fundamental relations

with one’s fellows” (Kouzes and Posner, 1997, p. xvi). Capezio and Morehouse (1997)

summed up the differences: “Management is keen on doing things right. Leadership is

more concerned with doing the right things” (p.3).

Blank (1995) explained that the word leadership “inspires images that range from

a power for positive change to a force that can misdirect to a capacity that is often absent

when we need it most” (p. 1). Blank added that determining what constitutes leadership is

difficult at best. “The same leadership approach can work in very different contexts, but a

leadership strategy that works in one particular situation may not work again at another

time under the same conditions” (p. 9).

Capezio and Morehouse (1997) defined leadership as “the ability to influence

individuals or groups to think, feel and take positive action to achieve goals” (p. 1). They

contrasted recent and former views of leadership, explaining that the concept previously

was viewed as “direction from the top” (p. 1). They added that work is not completed at

the top of organizations. They continued, “Leadership comes from a wellspring of talent

and commitment among workers close to the customer and to the work. We call this kind

of leadership self-directed. Self-directed leadership challenges every team member—

25

regardless of level—to help solve problems, improve quality, increase market share and

create the kind of work environment that encourages people to do their best” (p.1).

Kouzes and Posner (1997) contended that “Leadership isn't the private reserve of

a few charismatic men and women. It's a process ordinary people use when they're

bringing forth the best from themselves and others. Liberate the leader in everyone, and

extraordinary things happen” (p. xx).

What do leaders do? Among other responsibilities, Truskie (1999) explains that

leaders perform two tasks:

1. Establish Organizational Direction. Where is the organization headed? And how

is it going to get there? It is the leader’s responsibility to establish direction by

determining vision, mission, business strategy, objectives, and goals.

2. Develop Organizational Effectiveness. Once direction is determined, the

strength, stamina, competencies, and agility of the organization must be

developed by the leader. This enables the organization to serve its mission,

achieve its objectives, meet its goals, and move in its intended direction (p. 109).

Blank contended that leaders and leadership are different. “When people say, ‘We

need better leadership,’ they typically mean, ‘We need a different leader.’ However,

‘leadership’ represents something more than the leader alone; it encompasses the leader

and the follower together” (p.12). He added, “Leadership is not a person, a position, or a

program but a relationship or field of interaction that occurs when the leader and the

follower connect” (Blank, 1995, p.12). Blank posited nine natural laws of leadership (pp.

10-11):

1. A leader has willing followers—allies.

26

2. Leadership is a field of interaction-relationship between leaders and followers—

allies.

3. Leadership occurs as an event.

4. Leaders use influence beyond formal authority.

5. Leaders operate outside the boundaries of organizationally defined procedures.

6. Leadership involves risk and uncertainty.

7. Not everyone will follow a leader's initiative.

8. Consciousness—information-processing capacity creates leadership.

9. Leadership is a self-referral process. Leaders and followers process information

from their own subjective, internal frame of reference.

According to Batten (1989), one of the most consistent characteristics of high-

performing people is the “ability to take a hit in stride and bounce back” (p. 17). Batten

contended that leadership is finally being recognized as a differentiator between success

and failure in organizations. “It is finally being perceived by large and small

organizations alike that a company's profit and future are only as strong as its corporate

culture. And an excellent corporate culture can be envisioned and built only by excellent

leaders” (p.17).

It is important to note that different organizations and industries have unique

economic and technological characteristics (Yukl, 1994). Thus, they require different

types of leaders. Even within the same type of organization or the same organization,

skills required of successful leaders may change over time. “The skills needed by an

entrepreneurial manager to build a new organization are not identical to the skills needed

by the chief executive of a large, established organization. The skills needed to lead an

27

organization with a stable, supportive environment are not identical to the skills needed to

lead an organization facing a turbulent, competitive environment” (p. 277).

Many (including Cacioppo and Gardner, 1999; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper

and Sawaf, 1997; Fineman, 1993; and Forgas, 1995; George, 2000; Goleman 1995,

1998b) have proposed that feelings—moods and emotions—are critical in the leadership

process.

Emotions

Emotions are the primary sources of “motivation, information (feedback),

personal power, innovation, and influence. …they inspire and enliven good judgment and

reasoning and are linked to success and profitability. …everything important that happens

to us arouses emotion. Everything” (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997, p. xv). Emotion is

“applying movement, either metaphorically or literally, to core feelings. ...Emotions have

long been considered to be of such depth and power that in Latin, for example, they were

described as motus anima, meaning literally ‘the spirit that moves us’” (p. xiii).

Cooper and Sawaf (1997) explained that contrary to what most people believe,

emotions are inherently neither positive nor negative. Emotions:

Serve as the single most powerful source of human energy, authenticity, and

drive, and can offer us a wellspring of intuitive wisdom. In fact, feelings provide

us with vital and potentially profitable information every minute of the day. This

feedback—from the heard, not the head—is what ignites creative genius, keeps

you honest with yourself, shapes trusting relationships, provides an inner compass

for your life and career, guides you to unexpected possibilities, and may even

save your or your organization from disaster… (p. xiii).

28

Cooper (Table 2.1) expanded on the work of the American Quality Foundation,

which describes conventional and high-performance meaning of emotions (Cooper and

Sawaf, 1997 p. xxxii):

Table 2.1 Emotions: Conventional vs. high-performance Conventional High-performance

Sign of weakness Sign of strength No place in business Essential in business Avoid emotions Emotions trigger learning Confuse Explicate (clarify) Table them Integrate them Avoid emotional people Seek out emotional people Pay attention only to thoughts of Listen for the emotion in Use of non emotional words Use of emotional words

Cooper (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997) added the following (Table 2.2) to the list:

Table 2.2 Additional conventional vs. high-performance emotions Conventional High Performance

Interfere with good judgment Essential to good judgment Distract us Motivate us Sign of vulnerability Make us real and alive Obstruct, or slow down, reasoning Enhance, or speed up, reasoning Form a barrier to control Build trust and connection Weaken fixed attitudes Activate ethical values Inhibit the flow of objective data Provide vital information and

feedback Complicate management planning Spark creativity and innovation Undermine authority Generate influence without authority

29

Emotional Intelligence

What is emotional intelligence and why is it important? Many have attempted to

define and add their descriptions to the term, emotional intelligence. Some definitions of

emotional intelligence focus on the skills or competencies of an emotionally intelligent

person, some focus on behaviors, and some focus on intelligence.

Goleman has worked extensively in the competency area. He is renowned for his

research in “emotional intelligence.” Since the publishing a best-selling book on the topic

by Goleman in 1995, the term as become increasingly popular. Goleman (1998b)

introduced the concept of emotional intelligence and the role of emotions: “The new

measure takes for granted having enough intellectual ability and technical know-how to

do our jobs; it focuses instead on personal qualities, such as initiative and empathy,

adaptability, and persuasiveness” (p. 3). The “personal qualities” are included in the

emotional intelligence framework as EI competencies (See Table A, Appendix A).

Goleman (1998b) described emotional intelligence as “the capacity for

recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, for managing

emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). He continued, “Emotional

intelligence determines our potential for learning the practical skills that are based on its

five elements: self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and adeptness in

relationships” (p. 24). Goleman distinguished emotional intelligence and emotional

competence. Emotional competence is a “learned capability based on emotional

intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work” (p. 24). “Emotional

competence shows how much of that potential we have translated into on-the-job

30

capabilities” (p. 25). For example, being effective at customer service is an emotional

competency based on empathy.

According to Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (1998), with EI, one is able to process

emotional information, specifically as it involves the perception, assimilation,

understanding, and management of emotion. EI consists of four branches of mental

ability:

1. Emotional identification, perception, and expression

2. Emotional facilitation of thought

3. Emotional understanding

4. Emotional management

Cooper and Sawaf (1997) defined emotional intelligence in terms of energy,

relationships, and influence. It is “the ability to sense, understand, and effectively apply

the power and acumen of emotions as a source of human energy, connection, and

influence” (p. xiii). They contended that every business leader wants or needs emotional

intelligence. Subordinates want these qualities in a manager and people hope for them in

a parent, partner, and sibling. They added that emotional intelligence:

Motivates us to pursue our unique potential and purpose, and activates out

innermost values and aspirations, transforming them from things we think about

to what we live. …Emotional intelligence requires that we learn to acknowledge

and value feelings—in ourselves and others—and that we appropriately respond

to them, effectively applying the information and energy of emotions in our daily

life and work (p. xiii).

31

Abraham (1999) described emotional intelligence as “the accurate appraisal and

expression of emotion both in the self and in others” (p.210). She added that emotional

intelligence also is “the adaptive regulation of emotion” and the “ability to use emotional

knowledge to solve problems” (p. 210). Cherniss (2000) contended that EI enables one to

know when and how to express emotion as well as control it.

Cooper and Sawaf (2002) reported that emotional intelligence contributes to

success in careers and organizations, citing examples in the following areas (p. xii):

Decision making

Leadership

Strategic and technical breakthroughs

Open honest communication

Trusting relationships and teamwork

Customer loyalty

Creativity and innovation

Cherniss and Adler (2000) continued: Emotional intelligence is the basis for

personal qualities such as realistic self-confidence, personal integrity, knowledge of

personal strengths and weaknesses, resilience in times of change or adversity, self

motivation, perseverance, and the knack for getting along well with others (p. 1).

According to Cooper and Sawaf (1997), emotional intelligence can enhance

reasoning and better channel the energy of emotions:

The exponentially growing science of Emotional Intelligence, bolstered by

hundreds of research studies and management reports, is teaching us every day

how to enhance our reasoning capacities and, at the same time, to make better use

32

of the energy of our emotions, the wisdom of our intuition, and the power inherent

in our ability to connect at a fundamental level with ourselves and those around us

(p. xii).

EI competencies

Based on a review of approximately 200 competency models, Goleman (1998b)

identified 25 social and emotional competencies that most accurately predict superior

performance in many occupations. He organized the competencies into five dimensions

of EI: self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, social awareness, and social skills

(Goleman, 1995). Cherniss and Adler (2000) added that research employing the

Emotional Competence Inventory, a measure of emotion intelligence, by Boyatzis,

Goleman, and Rhee (2002), led to a refined version of the original model. The

competency framework consists of four dimensions (Self-awareness, Self-management,

Social Awareness, and Relationship Management) and 18 competencies, including

Empathy, Achievement Orientation, Optimism, Self-confidence, and Adaptability

(Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002, pp. 253-256) (See Table A, Appendix A). The

competencies were distilled in large part from studies by the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management (1996); Spencer and Spencer (1993); and Rosier and Jeffrey (1994, 1995).

Many of the traits described in the literature on leadership are included or implied

in the ECI competency framework based on the work of Boyatzis, Goleman and McKee

(2002). For example, achievement-orientation, inspiration, adaptability and self-

confidence are listed specifically. Others are implied within framework (such as

cooperative, which is related to the characteristics listed in teamwork and collaboration

33

cluster; coping with change (adaptable); encourage (influence); opportunistic (optimism);

motivation (developing others and achievement); persistence (achievement); and so forth.

According to Goleman (1998b), key competencies match a particular

organization’s “reality.” “Each company and each industry has its own emotional

ecology, and the most adaptive traits for workers will differ accordingly” (p.29). He

contended that the results of nearly 300 company-sponsored studies show that “across a

wide array of jobs, the recipe for excellence gives far more weight to emotional

competencies than to cognitive abilities” (p. 29).

However, there is no recipe of competencies that works in every situation. “The

same competencies can make people excel in different jobs” (Goleman, 1998b, p. 28).

Additionally, “The competencies one needs for success may change as one rises through

the ranks; in most large organizations, senior executives need a greater degree of political

awareness than middle managers. Specific positions require specific skills. For the best

nurses, it’s a sense of humor; for bankers, respecting customers’ confidentiality,” (p. 28)

and so forth.

Further, having high emotional intelligence does not guarantee that a person has

learned the emotional competencies that matter for work; it means that the person has

excellent potential to learn them (Goleman, 1998b). For example, a person might be

highly empathic but has “not learned the skills based on empathy that translate into

superior customer service, top-flight coaching or mentoring, or the ability to bring

together a diverse work team” (p. 25).

34

EI and EQ

Cacioppo and Gardner (1999) contended that emotion contributes not only to

intelligence but also to a fulfilling life. “The heightened ability to monitor one’s own and

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

thinking and action has proven to be as important a determinant of life success as

traditional measures of intelligence such as IQ” (p.194).

Other theorists (Cherniss, 2000; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf,

1997; and Druskat, 2001) proposed that one’s Emotional Quotient (EQ) is an important

as Intelligence Quotient (IQ) to ensuring effective performance of managers and the

organizations in which they work.

Cherniss and Adler (2000) explained that more people now appreciate the

importance of EI for individual and organizational effectiveness. However, for many

years, most people assumed it was cognitive ability that mattered most. A growing body

of research indicates that cognitive ability, while important, is not the major contributor

to success. “No longer do they [employers] emphasize technical skills and raw

intelligence alone. Employers increasingly recognize that, given sufficient cognitive

ability and technical skills to hold the job, social and emotional competencies matter

most.” The authors continued, “In fact, IQ accounts for at most 25 percent of the

variance in individual success (p.6). It may account for less than five percent: “IQ may

be related to as little as 4 percent of real-world success. In other words, over 90 percent

may be related to other forms of intelligence” (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997, p. xxv).

Technical expertise adds to success, but even cognitive ability and technical expertise

35

leave much to be explained. “Thousands of bright, technically able individuals fail to

reach their potential because they lack sufficient EI” (Cherniss and Adler, 2000, p. 4).

Druskat (2001) added that many executives accept that EI is as crucial as IQ to an

individual's effectiveness. She pointed out that most studies have centered on emotional

intelligence as an individual competency even though most work is completed in teams.

She proposed that emotional intelligence is critical to a group’s effectiveness and that

teams can enhance EI and, thereby, increase overall performance.

However, as Cherniss (2000), stated that it is absurd to suggest that cognitive

ability is not related to success in various disciplines and organizations. “We also should

keep in mind that cognitive and non-cognitive abilities are very much related. In fact,

there is research suggesting that emotional and social skills actually help improve

cognitive functioning” (p.8). Cherniss and Adler (2000) added, “Emotional intelligence

and cognitive ability actually work together for effective action in organizations.

Therefore, it is not surprising that numerous studies point to EI as critical for success at

work” (p.5).

Moving Ahead

Cooper and Sawaf (1970) suggested that IQ will become less and less of a factor

used to gauge intelligence. They explained even though IQ and mathematical models

have guided much of the organizational design to date, there are suggestions that

“emerging models of organizational intelligence will be based far more on the principles

of EQ and biological systems. Accordingly, it will treat people, markets, ideas, and

organizations as unique and alive, generative and interactive, and inherently capable of

change, learning, growth, inspiration, creativity, synergy, and transformation” (p. xxviii).

36

Cooper and Sawaf (1997) contended, “We are in the beginning stages of what

many authorities believe will be the next revolution in business. By design, no blood will

be shed in this sweeping transformation from old to new, just a host of preconceived

notions” (p.xi). They continued:

It all began with a series of studies on Emotional Intelligence indicating that

people who are intellectually the brightest are often not the most successful,

whether in business or in their personal lives. Over the past several years, EQ has

become widely accepted as a shorthand expression for the Emotional Intelligence

equivalent of IQ. Emerging research suggests that a technically proficient

executive or professional with a high EQ is someone who picks up more deftly,

and more quickly than others the budding conflicts that need resolution, the team

and organizational vulnerabilities that need addressing, the gaps to be leaped or

filled, the hidden connections that spell opportunity and the murky, mysterious

interactions that seem most likely to prove golden—and profitable (p. xi).

EI History

According to Cherniss (2000), originally psychologists focused on cognitive

aspects of intelligence, such as memory and problem solving. There were, however,

researchers who recognized early on that non-cognitive aspects were important, too.

Much of the earlier work was forgotten until 1983, when Howard Gardner began to write

about multiple intelligences. Gardner (1983) suggested that intrapersonal and

interpersonal intelligence is as important as the type of intelligence measured by IQ and

similar tests.

37

Gardner (1993) began a study in the 1970s that culminated in 1983 in the

publishing of a book, Frames of mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence, that

introduced the theory of multiple intelligences. He used the term multiple intelligences to

describe “an unknown number of human capacities, ranging from musical intelligences to

the intelligence involved in understanding oneself; ‘intelligences’ to underscore that these

capacities were as fundamental as those historically captured within the IQ test” (pp. xi-

xii). Gardner (1993) described seven intelligences:

1. Linguistic intelligence—the type exhibited best by poets

2. Logical-mathematical intelligence—logical, mathematical, and scientific

ability

3. Spatial intelligence—ability to form a mental model of a spatial world

4. Musical intelligence—the type exhibited by famous composers and musicians

5. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence—ability to solve problems or design products

using one’s whole body

6. Personal intelligence—ability to understand other people

7. Intrapersonal intelligence—capacity to form an accurate, veridical model of

oneself and to be able to use that model to operate effectively in life

Cherniss (2000) added that by the early 1990s, there was a great deal of research

on the role of non-cognitive factors in helping people succeed in life and in the

workplace.

In 1990, Salovey and Mayer (1990) coined the term: emotional intelligence,

which they described in terms of being able to monitor and control one’s own and others’

feelings and to make use of the feelings to guide thought and action. In the early 1990s,

38

Daniel Goleman took an interest in the work of Salovey and Mayer, which led, in 1995,

to the publishing of a book, Emotional Intelligence, which became an international best

seller (Cherniss, 2000).

The concept has continued to spark interest and research in business, education,

and other settings. Cherniss (2000) contended that since Goleman’s book was published

in 1995:

Emotional intelligence has become one of the hottest buzzwords in corporate

America. For instance, when the Harvard Business Review published an article

on the topic two years ago, it attracted a higher percentage of readers than any

other article published in that periodical in the last 40 years. When the CEO of

Johnson & Johnson read that article, he was so impressed that he had copies sent

out to the 400 top executives in the company worldwide (p.3).

Emotional Intelligence and Leadership

Many approaches to leadership have been proposed—researchers have analyzed

what leaders are like, what they do, how they motivate followers, how their styles relate

to situations, and how they can make major changes in their organizations (George,

2000). Although the role of emotions in the leadership process is not often explored,

some earlier leadership approaches, such as the trait approach, described particular

leadership skills or traits that may be subsumed in or partially overlap emotional

intelligence.

While most studies have been fairly recent, Cherniss (2000) cited studies from as

far back as the 1940s as linking emotional characteristics and leadership. He contended

39

that the Ohio State Leadership Studies surmised that "consideration" was an important

aspect of effective leadership. The research suggested that leaders who are able to

establish "mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and rapport" with members of their

group would be more effective.

Studies in 1990 and 1995 indicated that leaders’ feelings/emotions may play an

important role in the leadership process. George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that the

extent to which leaders of existing work groups experienced upbeat moods was positively

related to levels of prosocial behavior performed by group members and negatively

related to group turnover rates. George (1995) found that work groups, led by sales

managers who tended to have positive moods at work, delivered higher quality customer

service than groups led by managers who did not tend to experience positive moods at

work. She contended that it is likely that a range of feelings (emotions and moods)

influences leadership effectiveness.

Johnson & Johnson Emotional Competencies and Leadership Study

A study of emotional competencies and leadership excellence in Johnson &

Johnson’s Personal Care Group sought to determine if there were certain leadership

competencies that distinguished high performers from average performers (Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002). The researchers compared the ratings of groups defined by region,

gender, function, and performance and potential. To separate high performers from

average performers, the researchers relied on performance ratings and the potential of

participants for taking on added responsibility in the organization “Both the performance

rating and potential code are success indicators within the organization and determine

promotion, compensation, and position in succession planning schemes” (p. 2).

40

The study found a strong relationship between superior performing leaders and

emotional competence, supporting theorist’s suggestions that the social, emotional, and

relational competency set commonly referred to as Emotional Intelligence, is a

distinguishing factor in leadership performance. According to Cavallo and Brienza

(2002), the outcome is consistent with conclusions reached by McClelland (1998), in a

study of leaders in 30 organizations. McClelland determined that the most powerful

leadership differentiators were self-confidence, achievement drive, developing others,

adaptability, influence, and leadership.

Goleman (1998b) had access to competence models for 181 positions from 121

companies and organizations worldwide, with combined workforces in the millions. The

models illustrated characteristics that management in the organizations agreed captured

the profile of excellence for a specific position. He compared which competencies

deemed critical to a specific position, role, or field, which could be classified as purely

cognitive or technical skills; and which were emotional competencies. He found that 67

percent of the abilities considered essential for effective performance were emotional

competencies. He commissioned Hay/McBer to conduct an independent study to test his

results. Hay/McBer found that emotional competencies were twice as important to

effective performance as pure intellect and expertise.

In a 2000 study, George proposed that four elements of emotional intelligence

(the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others)—

appraisal and expression of emotion; use of emotion to enhance cognitive processes and

decision making; knowledge about emotions, and management of emotions—contribute

to effective leadership in organizations.

41

Cherniss and Adler (2000) explained that while some studies have linked high EI

levels with superior performance, other studies have shown what happens when people

lack EI competencies. For instance, a study at the Center for Creative Leadership looked

at reasons why the careers of certain executives had derailed. The reason for their failure

was not a lack of cognitive ability. “The two most common traits of those who failed

were rigidity and poor relationships” (p. 6).

The next generation of workers may exhibit lower EI levels than the levels

exhibited by today’s workers. “The next generation of workers now entering the

workplace is less likely than previous generations to possess the social and emotional

qualities that are essential for effective performance. This trend represents a major

challenge for employers and for HR professionals in particular. It is no wonder that HR

personnel increasingly are being called upon to provide training—not just in technical

skills—but also in social and emotional competencies that are essential for success”

(Cherniss and Adler, 2000, p. 7).

EI Training

Emotional intelligence can be learned (Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper and

Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1998b; Sala, 2001). Cherniss and Adler (2000) cited best-practice

guidelines for what makes an EI training program effective and described model

programs that include elements from the guidelines. They described 14 programs that met

specified criteria (related to replication, sample size, control group, outcome measures,

and multiple data points) including:

Achievement motivation training developed by David McClelland

Emotional competency training developed at American Express Financial Advisors

42

Leaderlab developed at the Center for Creative Leadership

Weatherhead School of Management Program developed at Case Western Reserve

University’s Weatherhead School of Management

Sala (2002) reported on results of studies in which two groups were assessed with

the Emotional Competency Inventory twice, once before and once after participating in a

Mastering Emotional Intelligence workshop. In general, scores in the first sample were

higher upon reassessment, suggesting that EI improved. Results of second sample were

even more robust; scores were significantly higher following reassessment on 19 of 20

competencies.

Goleman (1998b) offered guidelines for learning emotional intelligence (p. 251-253):

Assess the job

Assess the individual

Deliver assessments with care

Gauge readiness

Motivate

Make change self-directed

Focus on clear, manageable goals

Prevent relapse

Give performance feedback

Encourage practice

Arrange support

Provide models

Encourage

Reinforce change

Evaluate

43

EI and Demographic Characteristics

Studies have been conducted to determine correlations between EI scores and

various demographic characteristics, such as gender, function, age, job function, and job

level (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Goleman, 1998b; Sala, 2002).

EI and Functional and Position Differences

One example is a study by Cavallo and Brienza (2002) that found some

significant differences among participants in various functional areas at Johnson &

Johnson; however, they reported that the number of participants in each functional

category was not sufficient to draw conclusions.

Sala (2002) reported that a study of emotional intelligence and job characteristics

found that participants with higher-level positions (senior-level manager versus entry-

level manager) rated themselves higher on the ECI than those with lower-level positions.

Results indicated that there no relationship between job level and total others’ ratings on

the ECI.

EI and Gender

The literature on gender and EI is mixed. While some emotion- and EI-related

studies (Hart, 2002; Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Sala, 2002) have noted gender

differences, others (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani, 1992,

1995; Landau, 1996; Ragins, 1991) have found little or no differences between the sexes.

Even though Cavallo and Brienza (2002) found many differences in performance

and potential in the Johnson & Johnson study, they unveiled few gender differences.

Analysis of peer ratings found differences in five emotional competencies: Emotional

44

Self-awareness, Conscientiousness, Developing Others, Service Orientation, and

Communication. Women were rated higher than men in the five competencies.

Supervisor ratings revealed significant differences on two emotional competencies—

women were rated higher on Adaptability and Service Orientation. Ratings of direct

reports showed one significant difference; men were rated higher on the Change Catalyst

competency.

Studies have shown that while men and women do not appear to differ in total EI,

there is evidence that women and men may differ on specific competencies (Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002). Bar-On (2000) surveyed more than 7,700 administrations of the Emotion

Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) and found that while men and women did not differ on the

total EI, women scored significantly higher on Empathy, Interpersonal Relationships, and

Social Responsibility, while men scored higher on Self-actualization, Assertiveness,

Stress Tolerance, Impulse Control, and Adaptability.

Cavallo and Brienza (2002) reported that some studies suggest that the style by

which males and females lead differs. Eagly and Johnson (1990) found that females have

better social skills and are described as “interested in other people.” Compared to male

leaders as a group, women leaders as a group tend to be portrayed as more friendly,

pleasant, and socially sensitive.

Several theories have been presented to explain gender differences, “including

biological differences, differences in early childhood socialization in same-sex

playgroups, and the fulfillment of culturally prescribed gender role expectations”

(Cavallo and Brienza, 2002, pp. 3-4).

45

EI and Performance in the Finance Sector

A study on emotional intelligence and performance in the finance sector (Sevinc,

2001), indicated that self-reported salary was significantly correlated with the ECI

clusters, indicating that those who reported higher salaries tended to be rated by others as

higher on emotional intelligence than those who reported lower salaries. The study

sample included a group of Turkish participants working in the finance sector (banks,

insurance, and securities). A marginal finding related to position level and social skills,

suggesting that those in higher-level positions were rated by others as having higher

social skills than others (Sala, 2002).

Sala (2002) described a relationship between the number of promotions reported

by participants and self-rated EI scores. Although correlations were small, significant

relationships were found between self-reported number of promotions in a five-year span

and self-rated ECI scores. However, no relationship was found between ECI ratings of

“total others” and participants’ self-reported number of promotions. Sala contends the

findings may be related to a halo effect.

Measuring EI

Cherniss (2000) and others provided an overview of the instruments used to gauge

emotional intelligence:

Bar-On’s EQ-I, the oldest instrument, has been in use for more than a decade. It

originated from a clinical, rather than an occupational context. It was designed to assess

personal qualities that enabled some people to possess better “emotional well-being” than

others.

46

The Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) is a test of ability instead of a self-

report measure. Participants perform a series of tasks to assess their ability to perceive,

identify, understand, and work with emotion.

The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) is a 360-degree instrument. Others who

know the individual rate him or her on 20 competencies (the ECI 2.0 includes 18

competencies) that Goleman’s research suggests are linked to emotional intelligence.

Approximately 40 percent of the instrument’s items originated with the Self-Assessment

Questionnaire developed by Boyatzis.

The EQ Map was developed by Cooper and Sawaf (1997) to help people chart their

“relative strengths and vulnerabilities across a wide range of characteristics related to

emotional intelligence’ (p. xv).

Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, and Dornheim designed a 33-item

self-report instrument based on the early work of Salovey and Mayer (1990).

A sixth measure is described on the EI Consortium’s website. The Work Profile

Questionnaire—EI Version (WPQei) is an 84-item instrument that measures the personal

qualities and competencies employees need to develop to manage emotion at work. It is

based on qualities and competencies identified by researchers such as Mayer and Salovey

and Goleman. The WPQei, based on a conceptual model of emotional intelligence, has

seven components:

1. Innovation

2. Self-awareness

3. Intuition

4. Emotions

5. Motivation

6. Empathy

47

7. Social Skills

Cherniss (2000) added that other instruments that measure specific abilities assess

emotional intelligence and competencies. “Some of these tests seem rather strong. To

name just one example, there is Seligman’s SASQ, which was designed to measure

learned optimism and which has been impressive in its ability to identify high-performing

students, salespeople, and athletes, to name just a few” (Schulman, 1995) (p. 14).

Comparing Self and Others’ Ratings

Practitioners and organizational consultants propose that multi-rater, or 360-

degree feedback systems, enhance self-knowledge and improve managerial actions.

“Scholarly research has confirmed these sentiments and found that higher levels of

congruence between managerial ‘self’ and ‘total others’ behavioral ratings is associated

with managerial effectiveness and performance” (Sala, 2000, p. 27).

Burckle (1999) compared self and total others’ ratings. She found that those who

are not well in tune with their strengths and weaknesses have difficulty evaluating

themselves on EI competencies. She also found that, compared to those who had high

scores in Accurate Self-assessment, those who score low on the Accurate Self-assessment

subscale of the ECI have significantly larger gaps between their views of themselves and

others’ views of them.

In a research report, Burckle (1999) recommended multi-rater over self-

assessments. “These findings suggest that relying on self-assessments alone can be

misleading, lending support to the contention that multi-rater assessments are more

48

desirable than self-assessments when evaluating emotional intelligence competencies” (p.

8).

Performance Appraisal as a Measure of Effectiveness

Performance appraisal systems are at the center of the process of maintaining

satisfactory levels of performance in organizations (Frechette and Wertheim, 1985). A

critical function of performance appraisals is to “define effective performance and to

measure employee job performance and behavior with respect to the criteria for effective

performance, and to use this information as a basis for various personnel decisions, such

as placement, promotion, and compensation.

Grote (1996) contended that while nearly all organizations have performance

appraisal systems in place, “no one seems satisfied with the system they have or content

with the results it produces” (p.1). However, performance appraisal systems continue to

be used to gauge performance. It seems to be “impossible to manage an organization

without good information on how well people are performing and how they go about

meeting their responsibilities” (p.4).

However, a single performance appraisal format may “not be adaptable to the

many situations and positions in the organization” (Frechette and Wertheim, 1985, p.

221). After listing a number of purposes of performance appraisal processes, including

selection, promotion, and management and organizational development, the authors

added, “No one performance appraisal format can achieve such a multitude of

purposes…. It is necessary to select those purposes that must be achieved by the

49

performance appraisal system and then design a format and program that are appropriate

for those purposes” (p. 225).

Summary

Is high emotional intelligence synonymous with effective leadership? Are the

contentions of Goleman (1998a and 1998b) accurate? He asserted that with the recent

emphasis on flexibility, teams, and a strong customer focus in the workplace, “this crucial

set of emotional competencies is becoming increasingly essential for excellence in every

job and in every part of the world” (p. 29).

Goleman (1998b) further declared that effective leaders are alike in one crucial

way: “They all have a high degree of what come to be known as emotional intelligence.

It’s not that IQ and technical skills are irrelevant. …But my research, along with other

recent studies, clearly shows that emotional intelligence is the ‘sine qua non’ of

leadership. Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive,

analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great

leader” (p. 2).

The researcher has an interest in leadership theories and practices. She has studied

leadership in academia and participated in leadership development programs and held

leadership positions in the workplace and in various organizations. She has considered

the topic as part of a doctoral research study for some time. After being introduced to

emotional intelligence, the researcher started reading about the topic and began to realize

that there is a connection between the emotional intelligence concept and effective

leadership. She investigated EI and read about comparison between EI and IQ. She

50

found studies that examined the relationships between EI and effective performance in

the workplace as well as studies that examined the influence of various demographic

characteristics on EI levels. The researcher also found a strong contention that EI can be

learned. She uncovered information about model programs and the elements of successful

training programs. This research study draws from elements uncovered in the literature

and those found in previous studies.

The studies cited in the literature suggest that emotional intelligence is related to

the effectiveness of managers in today’s organizations. The purpose of this study is to

determine if differences in EI levels exist among high performers in one organization.

Specifically, the study assesses whether managers in this financial organization who are

deemed most effective according to their performance ratings exhibit higher emotional

intelligence competencies than managers with lower performance ratings. The researcher

also compared EI levels and various demographic characteristics of the sample.

51

Chapter III Methodology

Because of increased competition and changes in the workplace, organizational

leaders are seeking to differentiate and improve their products and services. They are

looking for ways to ensure success of their organizations. Among the many factors that

have been attributed to success in organizations, one factor often cited is effective

leadership.

What makes a leader effective? As Goleman (1995, 1998b) and others (including

Cherniss. 2000; Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cooper and Sawaf 1997; Druskat, 2001;

George, 2000) contended, an effective leader has more than the technical skills to do a job.

He or she employs qualities, such as initiative and empathy, adaptability, and

persuasiveness—competencies of emotional intelligence. Researchers (Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002; George, 1995, 2002; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Goleman, 1998b)

have found relationships between emotions and competencies and between performance

and leadership. High EI in organizations has been linked to improved financial results,

improved return on investment in change initiatives, improved productivity, increased

retention of top talent, and increased sales (Hay Group, 2002b).

The purpose of the study is to determine if performance levels and various

demographic characteristics are related to emotional intelligence scores in a sample of

high-performing managers within the financial services industry.

To address research questions and hypotheses, the researcher employed a

comparative research design to investigate differences among managers with varying

demographic characteristics in one financial institution. To ascertain if differences in

emotional intelligence levels existed among the sample, an existing survey instrument,

52

the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, a demographic form, and an existing

performance appraisal system and rating forms, were used. Data were analyzed with

descriptive statistics and univariate analysis of variance.

The researcher analyzed the findings using the scored data provided by the Hay

Group, performance ratings, and the demographic information by using a statistical

analysis computing system, SAS 8. The researcher analyzed the data from the ECIs and

demographic forms using the general linear model (GLM) version of analysis of variance

(ANOVA), T-test, and union-intersection test methods.

An ANOVA test determines the existence (or nonexistence) of a statistically

significant difference among several group means (UCLA, 2002). The test actually uses

variances to help ascertain if the various means are equal or not. ANOVA uncovers the

main and interaction effects of categorical independent variables (or "factors") on interval

dependent variables. The T-test is a test of significance of the difference in the means of a

single interval dependent, for two groups formed by a categorical independent (Garson,

2002). The T-test and ANOVA are generally accepted statistical tests and are equally

valid in the analysis of differences among levels of variables, such as performance

ratings, emotional intelligence scores, and demographic characteristics.

Union-intersection tests compared the mean EI scores of participants with

performance ratings of five with those with performance ratings of four and those with

performance ratings of four with those with performance ratings of three. If both of the

assumptions are accepted statistically, one can conclude that the mean EI of those with

ratings of five is greater than that of those with ratings of four and that the mean EI of

those with ratings of four is greater than that of those with ratings of three.

53

Methods and Processes

A description of the methods and processes employed in the study follow.

Methods and processes included the following elements:

Research design

Data needs and collection steps

Instrumentation

Population and sample

Data collection procedures

Research Design

The researcher employed a quantitative research design, which provides a

numeric description of a fraction of the population—the sample—through the data

collection process of asking people questions (Creswell, 1994). From the data collection,

the researcher may be able to generalize from a sample to a population in order to make

inferences about characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of the population.

The sample is purposeful (Creswell, 1994)—respondents were selected based on

their convenience and availability. The sampling design is single-staged—the participants

were surveyed directly. The researcher does not know their identities. The participants

voluntarily provided demographic and other information about themselves. The survey is

cross-sectional; the information was collected at one point in time.

Data Needs and Collection Steps

The data needs for this study require assessment of 18 emotional competencies,

performance ratings, and descriptions of specific demographic data (such as gender,

educational level, type of degree, management tenure, title and position, and employment

54

area: support or sales) for each person in the sample. The study also required norms

(averages) of others whose EI competencies have been assessed using the survey

instrument employed in this study. The norms were ascertained from the Emotional

Competence Inventory (ECI) Technical Manual and are based on the North American

and United Kingdom ECI databases (Sala, 2002). Descriptions of the survey instruments

employed in the study follow.

Instrumentation

Three types of instrumentation were required for the study: the Emotional

Competence Inventory, performance appraisal instruments, and a form that captured

demographic data on participants. Following is a description of each instrument type:

ECI Background. The researcher employed an existing instrument, Hay/McBer's

ECI 2.0, in the study. ECI is a 360-degree tool (See sample in Appendix B) that assesses

the emotional competencies of individuals and organizations (Sala, 2002). The multi-rater

instrument provides self, manager, direct report, peer, and other perspectives on a cluster

of research-validated behaviors, which profile emotional intelligence. Each instrument

may accommodate up to 12 raters (self, manager, direct reports, peers, and others).

The tool is based on emotional competencies identified by Goleman in Working

with Emotional Intelligence (1998b), competencies from Hay/McBer’s Generic

Competency Dictionary (1996), and Boyatzis’s Self-assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)

(Sala, 2002).

Hay/McBer’s Generic Competency Dictionary (1996) originated with Lyle and

Signe Spencer in the book, Competence at Work (1993), and was revised by psychologist

McClelland following an extensive review of the literature (Sala, 2002). It is based on

55

more than 20 years of research initiated by McClelland in 1973 in the article, “Testing for

Competence Rather Than Intelligence.” Hay/McBer and other researchers have

established that each core competency in the dictionary reliably differentiates

performance in a variety of organizations (Sala, 2002). The SAQ was developed by

Boyatzis in 1991 for use with MBA and executive students to assess competencies in the

Generic Model of Management used at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case

Western Reserve University (Sala, 2002). Since 1991, it has been used in numerous

studies, including longitudinal research (Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb, 1995; Boyatzis,

1994; Boyatzis, Baker, Leonard, Rhee, and Thompson, 1995; Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee,

and Wheeler, 1996). The ECI 2.0 assesses 18 individual competencies. Each competency

is defined with specific behaviors and characteristics (Sala, 2002).

Based on a review of approximately 200 competency models, Goleman (1998b)

identified 25 social and emotional competencies that most accurately predict superior

performance in many occupations. He organized the competencies into five dimensions

of EI (Goleman, 1995): self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, social awareness,

and social skills. Cherniss and Adler (2000) added that research employing the

Emotional Competence Inventory, a measure of emotion intelligence, by Boyatzis,

Goleman, and Rhee (2002), led to a refined version of the original model. The

competency framework consists of four dimensions (Self-awareness, Self-management,

Social Awareness, and Relationship Management) and 18 competencies, including

Empathy, Achievement Orientation, Optimism, Self-confidence, and Adaptability

(Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002, pp. 253-256) (See Table A, Appendix A). The

competencies were distilled in large part from studies by the U.S. Office of Personnel

56

Management (1996); Spencer and Spencer (1993); and Rosier and Jeffrey (1994 and

1995).

The competencies may be grouped in four clusters. While a number of research

studies, such as those conducted by Sevinc (2001) and Cavallo and Brienza (2002)

investigated EI competencies and EI clusters, others, such as a study by Humphrey,

Kellett and Sleeth (2001) investigated individual competencies. The Humphrey et al.

study was conducted to determine if both empathy and cognitive ability are associated

with perceptions of leadership. Results showed that both influence perceptions of

leadership in small groups (Sala, 2002). Because of the sample size of 57, the researcher

in this study looked at individual competencies rather than groups, or clusters of

competencies. The researcher completed a competency-by-competency analysis of the

data to address research question and hypotheses and made intermittent inferences about

the competencies as related to the EI dimensions.

Reliability

Sala (2002) defined reliability as the consistency or stability of measures or

observations. If someone is measured twice on the same scale, he or she should have the

same, or reliable, score. Two indicators are generally used to assess the reliability of

survey instruments: internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

Internal consistency. Internal consistency is the average of the intercorrelations

among the survey items. Chronbach’s alpha, which is a commonly used indicator of

internal consistency, is used to describe the reliability of the ECI (See Table C, Appendix

C).

57

For total others’ ratings in the ECI, Sala (2002) reported that coefficients range

from .73 to .92. The overall average internal consistency coefficient was .85. For self-

ratings, the alpha coefficients range from .61 to .85, with an overall average internal

consistency coefficient of .75. The findings suggest that total others ratings are more

stable and reliable than self-ratings; however, no statistical tests were run to determine

whether or not the differences were significant.

The researcher in this study analyzed the responses of “total others” (managers,

subordinates, peers, and customers) in an attempt to ensure more accurate responses.

Sala (2002) explained that practitioners and organizational consultants believe

that multi-rater, or 360-degree feedback systems, enhance self-knowledge and improve

managerial actions. “Scholarly research has confirmed these sentiments and found that

higher levels of congruence between managerial ‘self’ and ‘total others’ behavioral

ratings is associated with managerial effectiveness and performance” (p. 27).

Burckle (1999) compared self and total others’ ratings. She found that those who

are not well in tune with their strengths and weaknesses have difficulty evaluating

themselves on EI competencies. She found that those who score low on the Accurate

Self-assessment subscale of the ECI have significantly larger gaps between their views of

themselves and others’ views of them, compared to those who had high scores in

Accurate Self-assessment.

In a research report, Burckle (1999) recommended multi-rater over self-

assessments. “These findings suggest that relying on self-assessments alone can be

misleading, lending support to the contention that multi-rater assessments are more

58

desirable than self-assessments when evaluating emotional intelligence competencies” (p.

8).

Test-retest reliability. According to Sala (2002), while no specific test-retest

reliability studies have been conducted with the ECI, “other pre- and post-assessment

research provides reasonable evidence for adequate levels of test-retest reliability” (p. 5).

He cited a study of 20 Brazilian executives from a large consumer retail organization.

The executives were assessed twice on the ECI; the assessments were seven months

apart. He explained that because the time between assessments was longer than what is

typically recommended and that the executives participated in an EI development

program between assessments, results should be interpreted with caution. “This data also

suggests that the ECI may be sensitive to change because stability coefficients for the

total others ratings were only moderately high, while stability coefficients for self scores

were very low” (Sala, 2002, p.5) (See Table D, Appendix D for test-retest coefficients).

Validity

Validity generally refers to the degree to which a measure or questionnaire

actually measures what it is supposed to measure (Sala, 2002). There are two types of

validity: content, which addresses whether a test adequately samples the relevant material

it is supposed to cover, and construct, which is the degree to which a test or questionnaire

is a measure of the characteristic of interest. Construct validity includes discriminant and

convergent validity, which determines whether or not the test correlates with other

measures with which it should be conceptually related and correlates less with those with

which it should not be associated. For instance, the ECI should correlate positively with

59

self-esteem (convergent) and negatively with depression (convergent). It should not

correlate with cognitive ability (discriminant).

Criterion validity is the degree to which the test of measure correlates with some

outcome criteria (Sala, 2002). Sala and others have conducted research to validate the

ECI against various outcome measures of performance in the workplace. For example,

research might test whether a manager high in EI tends to have lower turnover rates than

does a manager low in EI. Concurrent validity occurs when the measure of interest (such

as the ECI) and the criterion or outcome are assessed simultaneously. Predictive validity

occurs when the outcome is collected after the variable of interest is assessed.

Among other studies, Sala (2002) cites a research effort by Burckle (1999) that

investigated the accurate self-assessment subscale of the ECI as support of content

validity. To examine construct validity of the ECI, he describes a study by

Diamantopoulou (2001) that sought to ascertain if a relationship existed between Type A

and Type B personalities and emotional intelligence. The researcher found that people

with a mixture of Type A and B personalities were higher in emotional intelligence and

that Type B personality was positively correlated with social skills competencies.

To further support construct validity, Sala (2002) cited a study by Burckle (2000)

that sought to determine if a relationship existed between the ECI and the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI). Results of the study showed moderate to strong significant

correlations between several EI competencies and the Sensing/Intuiting and

Thinking/Feeling dimensions of the MBTI. Negative correlations indicated a relationship

existed in the Intuiting direction of the Sensing/Intuiting scale and the Feeling direction

of the Thinking/Feeling scale. The results indicate that Myers-Briggs Intuitive types are

60

strong on a number of EI competencies, especially Empathy and Adaptability and those

in the Social Awareness cluster. The Myers-Briggs Feeling types correlated with many

of the EI competencies, particularly Empathy and competencies in the Social Awareness

cluster. Sala also cites correlations between Feeling types and the competencies in the EI

Social Skills cluster.

Scale Design

The ECI 2.0 contains 73 items with a minimum of three items to assess each

competency. A six-point response format has been employed as follows:

Points Frequency 1 Never 2 Rarely 3 Sometimes 4 Often 5 Consistently 6 Don't Know

Sample items from the ECI 2.0 include the following (See Appendix B):

Confronts unethical actions

Knows how feelings impact their own performance

Behaves calmly in stressful situations

Seeks information in unusual ways

Sees opportunities rather than threats

Performance Appraisal System of Participating Company

Performance reviews are prepared for employees of the participating organization

during the first quarter of each calendar year. Descriptions of the instruments used to rate

performance of the sales and support managers follow:

61

Sales Performance Analysis

The sales division of the organization uses a standard performance appraisal form.

The sales division incorporates all positions within the bank’s branch network. Positions

are generic throughout the organization (chief human resources officer, personal

communication, October 2, 2002). Based on the information provided by the human

resources officer, 40 of the participants in the study (70 percent) were evaluated using the

sales form (See Appendix E for a copy of the form). The form has been in use for at least

six years; it is updated annually to include specific behaviors. It assesses defined goals

and behaviors. Instructions for completing the forms are provided. (See Appendix E).

Sales personnel receive an overall performance rating based on the scale below:

Level Performance evaluation 5 Achieved Excellence 4 Exceeds Expectations 3 Meets Expectations 2 Needs Improvement 1 Unacceptable

62

Support Performance Analysis

The support departments of the bank report directly to the vice-chairman,

according to the chief human resources officer (personal communication, October 2,

2002). The department personnel are responsible for all activities involved in supporting

the sales functions, as well as traditional corporate functions.

The form used to appraise those in support roles has been in use for eight years,

with very few organizational modifications (See Appendix F). Managers in various

departments and divisions may modify the form to meet the specific needs of their areas.

The form is based on the five-point scale described below. According to the chief human

resources officer, even though the wording used to describe the five categories varies

slightly between the sales and support forms, the meanings/ratings are consistent and are

applied consistently for rewards, promotions, and so forth. The officer said, “Because we

are reworking all forms in 2003, we simply communicated expectations for completion

rather than a redesign of the form at this time” (personal communication, November 12,

2002).

Level Performance evaluation 5 Superior 4 Above expected level 3 Expected level 2 Below expected level 1 Unacceptable

The support form uses the five-point ratings scale described above; however,

evaluators have an option to use two additional ratings for line items gauging behaviors

and goals of managers: “Not Applicable” and “Unknown.” According to the chief human

63

resources officer, the two additional options are rarely used and if they are marked, a

human resources representative works with the evaluator to elicit one of the ratings in the

five-point scale. The officer explained that the form is being eliminated and replaced next

year. “Because we will be eliminating this form in 2003, we have not moved forward

with the changes” (personal communication, November 12, 2002).

Demographic Form

Participants completed a demographic form (See Appendix G) indicating their last

performance rating and demographic characteristics. The researcher analyzed the data to

determine the influence of performance ratings and varying demographic characteristics

on emotional intelligence competencies.

The researcher developed the demographic form following a review of the

literature and with advice from management at the participating organization. Studies

have been conducted to determine if relationships between EI scores and various

demographic characteristics, such as gender, function, age, job function, and job level,

exist (Sala, 2002; Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; and Goleman, 1998b) With input from the

participating organization’s management, the researcher developed classifications that

might help determine if varying categories influenced EI competencies. The manager of

management and leadership development reviewed categories and choices; modified

them slightly to match internal titles, positions, and so forth; and provided approval.

Participants indicated which one of several choices matched their positions and

background on a forced-choice form.

64

Population and Sample

The population of the study includes high-performing and potentially high-

performing managers who were selected to participate in an internal study of emotional

intelligence in a financial organization. Based in North Carolina, the bank has more than

5,000 employees and serves three states with about 350 branches. The organization offers

a complete line of financial services, including personal banking, business banking,

investor services, trust services, and insurance services.

The sample of 57 managers is a subset of the management pool of 79 selected to

participate in a first-of-its kind internal study of emotional intelligence. A selection

committee, comprised of the manager of management and leadership development, group

vice presidents of corporate education and human resources, and the employment

manager, identified 24 of the participants. The other 55 were selected because of their

positions. The company’s vice chairman reviewed the nominations and provided final

approval. According to the manager of management and leadership development

(personal communication, September 27, 2002), participants were chosen based on

diversity goals and specific criteria, including the following:

Performance ratings of three or above for the past two years

At least two years tenure in the company

Participation in or selection to participate in a leadership development program

Contribution to a department, area or organization-wide project

Career aspirations warranting investment in leadership development opportunities

65

Sample Selection and Identification of Managers

Of the 79 managers participating in an internal EI program, 59 were asked to

participate in the doctoral research study. Twenty executive-level participants in the

bank’s study did not have performance ratings, and, therefore, did not qualify for

participation in the doctoral research study. "In order to use the data to obtain a profile of

leaders in the organization, I asked that we also include executives. This was the first

time [the bank had conducted an EI program] so I wanted executives to get a company

[EI] profile [from the Hay Group]," according to the manager of management and

leadership development (personal communication, November 18, 2002). Two of the 59

managers chose not to participate.

According to the chief human resources officer, the 20 executives without

performance ratings participate in a “narrative performance discussion” during the second

quarter of each year. However, ratings are not maintained for these executives. The

executives report directly to the vice chairman or president of the bank and hold the top

leadership positions in the organization, including chief strategist and support executives,

such as chief financial officer, chief information offices, chief human resources officer,

chief credit officer, and so forth (personal communication, November 12, 2002).

Gathering of Survey Information

Data for the study were gathered via the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, an

existing instrument. Study participants completed a “self-report” version of the

instrument. Peers, managers, direct reports, and customers evaluated each participant,

completing 360-degree instruments.

66

Participants followed the Hay Group's requirements for selecting others to

evaluate them using a 360-degree version of the ECI, according to the manager of

management and leadership development (personal communication, November 18,

2002). Participants were allowed to select a maximum of five and a minimum of two

people from the categories that included direct reports, peers, and customers. The Hay

Group required that a minimum of two responders other than self and manager complete

and submit the instruments. The process was conducted via e-mail and the Internet during

a three- to four-week period during the summer of 2002. The Hay Group received

electronic versions of the completed forms, scored them, and prepared reports of the

results for each participant as well as a group report for the organization. The scores of

those completing 360-degree inventories were compiled for each participant and labeled

“total others.” The researcher received the scored data from the Hay Group via emails for

use in the study. The “total others” scores were analyzed to address hypotheses and

research questions. The researcher also compared self and total others' ratings.

Those who volunteered for the external study completed a form, indicating their

last performance rating, as well as demographic characteristics, and a consent form

required by North Carolina State University. The ratings were confirmed by the manager

of management and leadership development. The company's manager of management

and leadership development also checked the demographic forms to ascertain that there

was a distribution of the three rating groups (21 with rating 3, 28 with rating 4, and 8 with

rating 5). The chart below compares the percentage of bank employees in each

performance-rating category with the percentage of bank employees participating in the

67

research study (chief human resources officer, personal communication, October 2,

2002).

2002 Performance Summary

Performance Rating

Overall % Study %

1 0 0 2 3.18 0 3 60.62 36.85 4 34.18 49.12 5 2.02 14.03

Demographic characteristics used to stratify the sample include the following:

Role in the organization

Title

Gender

Function (sales or support)

Number of years with direct reports

Level of education (advanced or not)

Type of degree (BA or BS)

Data collection procedures

The data used in the study was collected via the participating organization’s

administration of the ECI. Participants were selected to participate via a committee based

on criteria specified above. Under the direction of the manager of management and

leadership development and following the guidelines supplied by the Hay Group, which

owns the instrument and scores the surveys, participants completed self-report versions of

68

the ECI during the summer of 2002. Others with whom they work closely completed

360-degree versions of the instrument also during the summer of 2002.

The Hay Group formally scored data compiled from the ECIs, according to an

algorithm. According to Sala (2002):

ECI raw data is scored or weighted using an algorithm that gives more ‘credit’ for

higher ratings on items that correspond to higher levels within a competency.

Items are written to reflect developmental characteristics such that higher-level

items reflect increasingly sophisticated behaviors for each emotional intelligence

competency. For example, for Leadership, a lower-level item is, ‘leads by

example’ while a higher-level item is, ‘articulates a compelling vision.’ Because

the higher-level item is more ‘difficult’ and requires more ‘leadership,’ the

scoring algorithm gives more weight to higher ratings on these competencies.

This technique ensures that higher-level behaviors are recognized, and it also

serves to increase variability of scores (p. 37).

During the internal survey process, the organization’s manager of management

and leadership development explained the proposed doctoral research study and invited

participants to volunteer for the study. She asked volunteers to complete the demographic

and consent forms. The manager devised codes for each participant. To ensure

anonymity, she assigned three-digit codes to the demographic data and consent forms for

each participant. A representative of the Hay Group sent the researcher ECI scores

labeled with six-digit codes for each participant in a spreadsheet. The bank manager

provided the key that matched the three- and six-digit codes. The researcher matched the

69

Hay Group codes with those provided by the bank, adding the three-digit codes to the six-

digit codes on the spreadsheet.

Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Data Analysis

The following research questions, hypotheses, and analysis methods guide the

study:

Analysis of Research Question One


intelligence?



(H0-1): Achievement







(H0-8): Empathy



(H0-11): Influence

(H0-12): Initiative


70


(H0-15): Optimism




Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H-1) - (H1-18): High performance ratings and high

scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related:

(H1-1): Achievement







(H1-8): Empathy



(H1-11): Influence

(H1-12): Initiative



(H1-15): Optimism


71



To address the first null hypotheses and corresponding alternative hypotheses, a

union-intersection test was deployed to determine if those with ratings of five had higher

EI scores than those with ratings of four and if those with ratings of four had higher EI

scores than those with ratings of three. The test compared the mean EI scores of

participants who had performance ratings of five with those with performance ratings of

four at a 97.5 percent confidence level. A second test compared mean EI score of

participants who had performance ratings of four with those who had performance ratings

of three, also at a 97.5 percent confidence level. If both of the assumptions are accepted

statistically, one can conclude that the mean EI of those with ratings of five is greater

than the mean EI of those with ratings of four and that the mean EI of those with ratings

of four is greater than the mean EI of those with ratings of three. The researcher tested the

hypotheses at 95 and 90 percent confidence levels.

Analysis of Research Question Two

Research Question 2: How do emotional intelligence competency scores of the






(H0-1): Achievement


72





(H0-7): Empathy



(H0-10): Influence

(H0-11): Initiative



(H0-14): Optimism



Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1)-(H1-16): Significant differences exist among 16



(H1-1): Achievement






73

(H1-7): Empathy



(H1-10): Influence

(H1-11): Initiative



(H1-14): Optimism



The researcher compared the “total others” EI mean scores for each participant in

the study sample with the “total others” EI mean scores of 5,360 people in the North

American and United Kingdom ECI databases (Sala, 2002), using a T-test and a 95

percent confidence level (P< .05).

Analysis of Research Question Three








74





The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure at a 95 percent confidence level

to determine if there were statistically significant differences in EI scores among

managers in the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor,

supervisor, manager, senior manager, and executive).

Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18)(See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are








competencies.

The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure at a 95 percent confidence level

to determine if there were statistically significant differences in EI scores among

managers in the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior

vice president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president).

75







The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure and 95 percent confidence level

to determine if there were statistically significant differences in EI scores between males

and females in the sample.







The researcher again used ANOVA to determine if statistically significant (P<.05)

differences in EI scores existed between managers working in sales functions and those

working in support functions.






76






The researcher compared the two groups using ANOVA to determine, with 95

percent confidence (P <.05), if statistically significant differences in EI scores existed

between managers who have been in management roles with direct reports for more than

five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for fewer

than five years.









degree).

The researcher analyzed the data with a T-test to ascertain, with 95 percent

confidence (P <.05), whether statistically significant differences in EI scores existed

between those in the sample with advanced degrees and those in the sample without

advanced degrees.

77




Arts degrees.





Again deploying a T-test, the researcher analyzed of the data to determine, with 95

percent confidence (P <.05), if statistically significant differences in EI scores existed

between those with a Bachelor of Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts

degree.

78

Chapter IV Findings

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in EI levels existed

among high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assessed whether

managers in this financial organization who are deemed most effective, according to

their performance ratings, exhibit higher emotional intelligence competencies than

managers with lower performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels

and various demographic characteristics of the sample, including, position, title, area

of employment, gender, education level, type of degree, and management tenure.

The data were gathered from a sample of 57 managers participating in an

emotional intelligence program of a financial institution. These managers were

included in a first-time internal EI study. Their selection for participation was based

on their position in the company and specific criteria as described in Chapter 3. The

participants completed self-report versions of the Emotional Competence Inventory

2.0. Selected managers, peers, direct reports, and customers of each participant

completed 360-degree versions of the ECI. The ECI scores, performance ratings, and

demographic data were analyzed to address hypotheses and research questions.

Research questions, null hypotheses, and alternative hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses guided the study and the

methodology.

79

Research Question One

Research Question 1: Do high-performing leaders exhibit high emotional

intelligence?



(H0-1): Achievement







(H0-8): Empathy



(H0-11): Influence

(H0-12): Initiative



(H0-15): Optimism




80

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H-1) - (H1-18): High performance ratings and high


(H1-1): Achievement







(H1-8): Empathy



(H1-11): Influence

(H1-12): Initiative



(H1-15): Optimism




81

Research Question Two







(H0-1): Achievement






(H0-7): Empathy



(H0-10): Influence

(H0-11): Initiative



(H0-14): Optimism



82




(H1-1): Achievement






(H1-7): Empathy



(H1-10): Influence

(H1-11): Initiative



(H1-14): Optimism



83

Research Question Three












Null Hypotheses 4 (H0-1)-(H0-18): (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are








competencies.

84























85









degree).




Arts degrees.





Analysis

This section describes the analysis of data gathered during the study. The data

used in the study were collected via internal processes of the financial organization,

following the guidelines of the Hay Group, which formally scored the data. The ECI data

provided analyses of ECI competencies based on self responses and responses of others.

The researcher received the scored and coded data for each of the EI competencies for

86

each participant in a spreadsheet from the Hay Group. She added performance ratings

and demographic data to the spreadsheet. When participants failed to provide answers to

the demographic questions, and, in one case, when a manager chose two responses, the

“missing data points” were not included in the statistical analyses.

The researcher analyzed the findings using the scored data provided by the

Hay Group, the performance ratings, and the demographic information via a

statistical analysis computing system, SAS 8. The researcher analyzed the data from

the ECIs and demographic forms using the general linear model (GLM) version of

analysis of variance (ANOVA), T-test, and union-intersection test methods.

An ANOVA test determines the existence (or nonexistence) of a statistically

significant difference among several group means (UCLA, 2002). The test uses

variances to help ascertain if the various means are equal or not. ANOVA uncovers

the main and interaction effects of categorical independent variables (or "factors") on

interval dependent variables. The T-test is a test of significance of the difference in

the means of a single interval dependent, for two groups formed by a categorical

independent (Garson, 2002). T-test and ANOVA are generally accepted statistical

tests and are equally valid in the analysis of differences among levels of variables,

such as performance ratings, emotional intelligence scores, and demographic

characteristics. A union-intersection test analyzed Null Hypotheses 1 to ascertain if

participants with ratings of five had higher EI scores than those with ratings of four

and if those with ratings of four had higher EI scores than those with ratings of three.

87

Detailed Research Questions and Null and Alternative Hypotheses Review

The following sections present findings related to each research question and null

and corresponding alternative hypothesis. The results consist of a summary of the

relevant findings, tables depicting the statistical analysis, and a decision about each null

hypothesis based on the statistical analysis.


intelligence?

Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): High

performance ratings and high scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence

competencies are not related.

Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H1-1) 1- (H1-18): High performance ratings and high

scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are related.

To address the first null hypothesis and corresponding alternative hypothesis,

a union-intersection test was deployed to determine if those with ratings of five had

higher EI scores than those with ratings of four and if those with ratings of four had

higher EI scores than those with ratings of three. The test compared the mean EI

scores of participants who had performance ratings of five with those with

performance ratings of four at a 97.5 percent confidence level. A second test

compared mean EI score of participants who had performance ratings of four with

those who had performance ratings of three, also at a 97.5 percent confidence level. If

both of the assumptions are accepted statistically, one can conclude that the mean EI

of those with ratings of five is greater than the mean EI of those with ratings of four

and that the mean EI of those with ratings of four is greater than the mean EI of those

88

with ratings of three. The researcher analyzed the hypotheses at 95 and 90 percent

confidence levels.

The sample included 21 participants with ratings of 3; 28 with ratings of 4; and 8

ratings of 5. The list below compares the percentage of bank employees in each

performance-rating category with the percentage of bank employees participating in the

research study (chief human resources officer, personal communication, October 2,

2002).

2002 Performance Summary

Performance Rating

Overall % Study %

1 0 0 2 3.18 0 3 60.62 36.85 4 34.18 49.12 5 2.02 14.03

Although high scores for 15 competencies (all except Conflict Management,

Developing Others, and Teamwork and Collaboration) appeared to be related to high

ratings based on mean scores (See Table 4.1 and Table H1, Appendix H), further analysis

indicated that there is no statistically significant relationship at the 95 percent confidence

level between high ratings and high emotional intelligence. Therefore, the researcher

does not reject Null Hypotheses 1 (H0-1)-(H0-18).

89

Table 4.1 Mean scores for each competency by rating Competency ID Rating Mean 1 Achievement 3 3.39 2 Achievement 4 3.56 3 Achievement 5 3.71 4 Adaptability 3 3.34 5 Adaptability 4 3.52 6 Adaptability 5 3.66 7 Accurate Self-assessment 3 3.35 8 Accurate Self-assessment 4 3.41 9 Accurate Self-assessment 5 3.47 10 Conflict Management 3 2.85 11 Conflict Management 4 3.01 12 Conflict Management 5 2.99 13 Change Catalyst 3 3.3 14 Change Catalyst 4 3.39 15 Change Catalyst 5 3.6 16 Customer Service Orientation 3 3.87 17 Customer Service Orientation 4 3.89 18 Customer Service Orientation 5 3.92 19 Developing Others 3 3.34 20 Developing Others 4 3.59 21 Developing Others 5 3.55 22 Empathy 3 3.58 23 Empathy 4 3.6 24 Empathy 5 3.68 25 Emotional Self-awareness 3 3.26 26 Emotional Self-awareness 4 3.4 27 Emotional Self-awareness 5 3.52 28 Emotional Self-control 3 3.47 29 Emotional Self- control 4 3.6 30 Emotional Self-control 5 3.82 31 Influence 3 3.51 32 Influence 4 3.63 33 Influence 5 3.73 34 Initiative 3 3.31 35 Initiative 4 3.44

90

Table 4.1 continued 36 Initiative 5 3.59 37 Inspirational Leadership 3 3.26 38 Inspirational Leadership 4 3.5 39 Inspirational Leadership 5 3.64 40 Organizational Awareness 3 3.67 41 Organizational Awareness 4 3.67 42 Organizational Awareness 5 3.81 43 Optimism 3 3.67 44 Optimism 4 3.76 45 Optimism 5 3.9 46 Self-confidence 3 3.68 47 Self-confidence 4 3.76 48 Self-confidence 5 3.92 49 Transparency 3 3.39 50 Transparency 4 3.5 51 Transparency 5 3.66 52 Teamwork & Collaboration 3 3.54 53 Teamwork & Collaboration 4 3.62 54 Teamwork & Collaboration 5 3.54

However, further analysis at a 90 percent confidence level (P= <.1) indicated a

statistically significant relationship between high EI levels and high performance ratings

on three competencies: Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism (See Table 4.2 and

Table H1, Appendix H).

91

Table 4.2 Relationship of high ratings to high EI scores at 95 % & 90 % confidence levels

Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis 1 (P<.05)

Reject Null Hypothesis 1 (P=<.1)

Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis 1 (P=<.1)

Achievement (P=.05) Achievement(P=.055) Accurate Self-assessment (P=.49)

Adaptability (P=.08) Adaptability (P=.08) Conflict Management (P=0.57)

Accurate Self-assessment (P=0.49)

Optimism (P=.07) Change Catalyst (P=0.18)

Conflict Management (P=0.57)

Customer Service Orientation (P=0.49)

Change Catalyst (P=0.18) Developing Others (P=0.63) Customer Service Orientation (P=0.49)

Empathy (P=0.56)

Developing Others (P=0.63) Emotional Self-awareness (P=0.14)

Empathy (P=0.58) Emotional Self-control (P=0.13)

Emotional Self-awareness (P=0.14)

Influence (P=0.22)

Emotional Self-control (P=0.13)

Initiative (P=0.12)

Influence (P=0.22) Inspirational Leadership (P=0.13)

Initiative (P=0.19) Organizational Awareness (P=0.54)

Inspirational Leadership (P=0.13)

Optimism (P=.07)

Organizational Awareness (P=0.54)

Self-confidence (P=0.14)

Optimism (P=.07) Transparency (P=0.16) Self-confidence (P=0.15) Teamwork & Collaboration

(P=0.94) Transparency (P=0.16) Teamwork & Collaboration (P=0.94)

Before employing the union-intersection test to determine if those with higher

ratings had higher EI scores, the researcher ran an ANOVA test to ascertain if a

92

statistically significant relationship existed between ratings and the 18 emotional

intelligence competencies. Findings indicated that a statistically significant

relationship (95 percent confidence, P<.05) existed between the ratings and EI scores

in 10 of 18 competencies (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Relationship of EI competencies and performance ratings at 95 percent confidence

Significant Relationship No Significant Relationship Competency P Value= Competency P Value= Achievement .0016 Accurate Self-assessment .5714 Adaptability .0056 Change Catalyst .0649 Conflict Management .0206 Customer Service Orientation .5347 Developing Others .0058 Empathy .6324 Emotional Self-control .0371 Emotional Self-awareness .0651 Initiative .012 Influence .0654 Inspirational Leadership .006 Organizational Awareness .2636 Optimism .0182 Teamwork and Collaboration .4517 Self-confidence .0375 Transparency .0485

The fact that the relationships between many of the EI levels and ratings were not

positive does not necessarily indicate that they were related in a negative direction.

There are six possible relationships (1 < 2 < 3; 3 < 2 < 1; 2 < 1 < 3; 3 < 1 < 2; 2 < 3 < 1;

and 1 < 3 < 2).




Null Hypotheses 2 (H0-1) 1- (H0-16) (See list in Null Hypotheses 2 above): There

are no significant differences among 16 emotional intelligence competency scores of the

93

sample and 16 emotional intelligence competency scores of other groups surveyed using

the same survey instrument.

Alternative Hypotheses 2 (H1-1) 1- (H1-16) (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 2

above): Significant differences exist among 16 emotional intelligence competency scores

of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence competency scores of other groups surveyed

using the same survey instrument.

Leaders of the organization in the study used the emotional competence

framework of the ECI 2.0. The study assesses 18 EI competencies as described in

Primal Leadership (Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002). The framework of the

earlier version of the ECI, which includes 20 competencies, and the dissertation

research study share 16 EI competencies. The matching competencies measure the

same characteristics; however, they may have different variances. The researcher

compared the norms of these 16 competencies to address the second null hypothesis.

The researcher compared the “total others” EI mean scores of the study

sample with the “total others” EI mean scores of 5,360 people in the ECI North

American Database (Sala, 2002), using a T-test. Based on a 95-percent confidence

level (P< .05), findings indicated there are statistically significant differences between

the sample and those in the database in three competencies: Achievement, Accurate

Self-assessment, and Emotional Self-control. Therefore, the researcher rejects the

Null Hypotheses 2 for (H0-1), (H0-3), and (H0-10) in favor of the Alternative

Hypotheses 2 for (H1-1), (H1-3), and (H1-10). The researcher does not reject the Null

Hypotheses 2 for the remaining 13 common EI competencies: (H0-2), (H0-4), (H0-5)

(H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), and (H0-16).

94

The Table 4.4 shows P values for the comparison between the average EI

scores in the study with the norms compiled for the ECI North American Database.

Table 4.4 EI comparisons of bank sample with other samples Reject Null Hypotheses Do Not Reject Null Hypotheses

Competency P Value= Competency P Value= Achievement .0216 Adaptability .6518 Accurate Self-assessment .0118 Conflict Management .4158 Emotional Self-control .008 Change Catalyst .2557 Customer Service Orientation .2471 Developing Others .8386 Empathy .074 Emotional Self-awareness .6629 Influence .4066 Initiative .9948 Inspirational Leadership .8307 Organizational Awareness .8145 Self-confidence .3574 Teamwork and Collaboration .1922




Null Hypotheses 3(H0-1)-(H0-18) (See list in Null Hypotheses 1 above): There are






95



Using ANOVA, the researcher ascertained, with 95 percent confidence (P <.05),

that there are no statistically significant differences in EI levels among participants in the

five positions. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 3 for the 18 competencies:

(H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-

13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table 4.5 below and Table H2,

Appendix H).

Table 4.5 Relationship of EI competencies and positions at 95 percent confidence level Competency P Value=

Achievement .9649 Adaptability .9217 Accurate Self-assessment .0849 Conflict Management .9126 Change Catalyst .3277 Customer Service Orientation .741 Developing Others .8555 Empathy .1228 Emotional Self-awareness .1181 Emotional Self-control .503 Influence .9654 Initiative .5869 Inspirational Leadership .9293 Organizational Awareness .8301 Optimism .7636 Self-confidence .5039 Transparency .4764 Teamwork and Collaboration .5029



96







competencies.

Using ANOVA, the researcher ascertained, with 95 percent confidence (P <.05),

that there are no statistically significant differences in EI levels among participants with

the various titles. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 4 for the 18

competencies: (H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-

11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table 4.6 below and

Table H3, Appendix H).

Table 4.6 Relationship of EI competencies and titles at 95-percent confidence level Competency P Value=

Achievement .7059 Adaptability .8385 Accurate Self-assessment .8805 Conflict Management .6434 Change Catalyst .1032 Customer Service Orientation .9835 Developing Others .6161 Empathy .2854 Emotional Self-awareness .7848 Emotional Self-control .7914 Influence .6732 Initiative .8754 Inspirational Leadership .7247

97

Table 4.6 continued Organizational Awareness .4189 Optimism .6307 Self-confidence .6286 Transparency .9255 Teamwork and Collaboration .6511

The findings from the analyses of Null Hypotheses 3 and Null Hypotheses 4

are consistent with findings from a study of EI and employees in varying levels of

positions (Sala, 2002). And even though Cavallo and Brienza (2002) found some

significant differences among participants in various functional areas at Johnson &

Johnson, they reported that the number of participants in each functional category

was not sufficient to draw conclusions.







The researcher employed an ANOVA procedure to determine if there were

statistically significant differences between males and females. As indicated in Table 4.7

(also see Table H4, Appendix H), results indicated that there are no significant

differences (95 percent confidence level, P <.05) in EI scores of men and women in the

sample. The researcher does not reject the Null Hypotheses 5 for the 18 competencies:

98

(H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8) (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-

13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18).

Table 4.7 Relationship of gender and EI a 95 percent confidence level

Competency P Value= Achievement .5887 Adaptability .4974 Accurate Self-assessment .9782 Conflict Management .6209 Change Catalyst .132 Customer Service Orientation .6241 Developing Others .8023 Empathy .1747 Emotional Self-awareness .3251 Emotional Self-control .8577 Influence .8611 Initiative .9942 Inspirational Leadership .405 Organizational Awareness .6563 Optimism .6919 Self-confidence .2069 Transparency .9112 Teamwork and Collaboration .5037

While some emotion- and EI-related studies (Hart, 2002, Sala, 2002, and Petrides

and Furnham, 2000) have noted gender differences, others (Sala, 2002 and Cavallo and

Brienza, 2002) have found little or no differences between the sexes.


studies (Hart, 2002, Sala, 2002, and Petrides and Furnham, 2000) have noted gender

differences, others (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Landau, 1996; Eagly, Karau, and

99

Makhijani, 1992, 1995; Ragins, 1991) have found little or no differences between the

sexes.

The researcher ranked the mean scores for each competency for females and

males. Table 4.8 shows mean scores by gender in descending order from highest to

lowest. Although the difference between the highest and lowest mean scores is less than

1, one cannot surmise that the difference is small. Finding indicated that most data likely

lie between 3.867 and 2.967 for females and 3.887 and 2.932 for males.

Table 4.8 Means scores by gender in descending order Females Males

Competency Mean = Competency Mean =

Customer Service Orientation 3.867 Customer Service Orientation 3.887 Self-confidence 3.83 Optimism 3.75 Optimism 3.72 Self-confidence 3.73 Empathy 3.692 Organizational Awareness 3.696 Organizational Awareness 3.662 Influence 3.597 Influence 3.582 Teamwork & Collaboration 3.587 Emotional Self-control 3.558 Emotional Self-control 3.579 Achievement 3.548 Empathy 3.577 Teamwork & Collaboration 3.534 Achievement 3.504 Adaptability 3.517 Developing Others 3.482 Developing Others 3.507 Transparency 3.48 Inspirational Leadership 3.502 Adaptability 3.457 Transparency 3.469 Change Catalyst 3.419 Emotional Self-awareness 3.436 Initiative 3.41 Initiative 3.411 Inspirational Leadership 3.407 Accurate Self-assessment 3.397 Accurate Self-assessment 3.4 Change Catalyst 3.262 Emotional Self-awareness 3.34 Conflict Management 2.967 Conflict Management 2.932

100







The researcher again used ANOVA to determine if differences existed between

managers working in sales functions and those working in support functions. With 95

percent confidence (P <.05), the researcher determined that a statistically significant

difference is evident in the three competencies as listed below. The researcher rejects the

Null Hypotheses 6 (H0-8) (H0-9), and (H0-17) in favor of the Alternative Hypotheses 6 (H1-

8) (H1-9), and (H1-17) for the three competencies (see Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 Significant relationships between EI and area (Sales and Support) at 95 percent confidence level

Competency P Value = t Value = Empathy .0352 2.16 Emotional Self-awareness .0435 2.07 Transparency .0164 2.48

The positive t values of each of the three competencies indicate that Support

scores were greater than Sales scores. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 6

for the remaining 13 competencies: (H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-

10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), and (H0-18).

Sala (2002) reports on norms by job function. Even though statistical tests were

not performed to compare groups, the data indicated that those in sales functions were

101

rated highest in Customer Service Orientation (mean score of 3.8818) and Self–

confidence (mean score of 3.77). Sala described a study by Lloyd at Bass Brewers in the

U.K. in 2001, which sought to determine if EI competencies were associated with sales

performance. Results of the Lloyd study indicated a strong relationship between EI

scores; the area development managers who performed best were more likely to have

higher EI scores.

Managers in Support functions in the sample scored highest and lowest in the

competencies shown in Table 4.10 (also see Table 4.12).

Table 4.10 Support managers’ highest- and lowest-rated competencies Highest-rated competencies Lowest-rated competencies

Customer Service Orientation (3.905) Conflict Management (3.008) Optimism (3.783) Change Catalyst (3.39) Self-confidence (3.757) Accurate Self-assessment (3.463) Organizational Awareness (3.752) Initiative (3.464)

Managers in Sales functions in the sample scored highest and lowest in the

competencies shown in 4.11 (also see Table 4.12).

Table 4.11 Sales managers’ highest- and lowest-rated competencies Highest-rated competencies Lowest-rated competencies

Customer Service Orientation (3.882) Conflict Management (2.929) Self-confidence (3.758) Emotional Self-awareness (3.32) Optimism (3.73) Accurate Self-assessment (3.371) Organizational Awareness (3.674) Initiative (3.392)

102

Table 4.12 Comparisons of EI means for Sales and Support functions Competency Sales

RankingSales

Mean = Support Ranking

Support Mean =

Accurate Self-assessment 16 3.371 16 3.463 Achievement 9 3.491 9 3.609 Adaptability 11 3.448 11 3.571 Change Catalyst 14 3.392 17 3.39 Conflict Management 18 2.929 18 3.008 Customer Service Orientation 1 3.882 1 3.905 Developing Others 10 3.478 12 3.532 Emotional Self-awareness 17 3.316 13 3.497 Emotional Self-control 8 3.544 6 3.678 Empathy 7 3.564 5 3.727 Influence 5 3.59 7 3.636 Initiative 15 3.392 15 3.464 Inspirational Leadership 13 3.409 14 3.493 Optimism 3 3.73 2 3.783 Organizational Awareness 4 3.674 4 3.752 Self-confidence 2 3.758 3 3.757 Teamwork & Collaboration 6 3.572 10 3.592 Transparency 12 3.431 8 3.631

The rankings were similar between the groups. Again, although the difference

between the highest and lowest mean scores is less than 1, one cannot surmise that the

difference is small. Findings indicate that most data likely lie between 3.8819 and 2.9289

for managers in Sales and 3.905 and 3.008 for managers in Support functions.






103

Alternative Hypotheses 7 (See list in Alternative Hypotheses 1 above): Significant

differences exist in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of managers

in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more than five

years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for fewer than

five years.

The researcher compared the two groups using ANOVA and found, with 95

percent confidence (P <.05), that no statistically significant differences existed. The

researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 7 (H0-1), (H0-2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6),

(H0-7), (H0-8), (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14), (H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and

(H0-18). (See Table H6, Appendix H).

Table 4.13 Relationship of EI and tenure a 95-percent confidence level Competency P Value=

Achievement .8233 Adaptability .8138 Accurate Self-assessment .5121 Conflict Management .6651 Change Catalyst .6941 Customer Service Orientation .8315 Developing Others .0601 Empathy .7089 Emotional Self-awareness .5223 Emotional Self-control .6835 Influence .6462 Initiative .7622 Inspirational Leadership .8112 Organizational Awareness .1515 Optimism .7123 Self-confidence .4035 Transparency .8958 Teamwork and Collaboration .991

104









degree).

The researcher analyzed the data with a T-test to ascertain, with 95 percent

confidence (P <.05), that no statistically significant differences existed within the sample

based on educational level. The researcher does not reject Null Hypotheses 8 (H0-1), (H0-

2), (H0-3), (H0-4), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7), (H0-8), (H0-9), (H0-10), (H0-11), (H0-12), (H0-13), (H0-14),

(H0-15), (H0-16), (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table H7, Appendix H).

Table 4.14 Relationship of EI and educational level at 95 percent confidence level Competency P Value=

Achievement .0.376 Adaptability .0.564 Accurate Self-assessment 0.433 Conflict Management 0.182 Change Catalyst 0.862 Customer Service Orientation 0.788 Developing Others 0.825 Empathy 0.888 Emotional Self-awareness 0.882 Emotional Self-control 0.911 Influence 0.478 Initiative 0.861 Inspirational Leadership 0.495

105

Table 4.14 continued Organizational Awareness 0.971 Optimism 0.841 Self-confidence 0.614 Transparency 0.439 Teamwork and Collaboration 0.58




Arts degrees.





Again deploying a T-test, the researcher analyzed of the data to determine that,

with 95 percent confidence (P <.05), statistically significant differences existed between

those with a Bachelor of Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts degree on four

competencies: Conflict Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and

Organizational Awareness. The t values in the table below (Table 4.15) indicate the

direction of the relationship. The negative values indicated that scores of those with BS

degrees were greater than scores of those with BA degrees (Conflict Management,

Initiative, and Organizational Awareness) while the positive value for Emotional Self-

106

awareness indicated that scores of those with BA degrees were greater than those with BS

degrees.

The researcher rejects Null Hypotheses 9 for (H0-4), (H0-9), (H0-12), and (H0-14) in

favor of Alternative Hypotheses 9 (H1-4), (H1-9), (H1-12), and (H1-14). The researcher does

not reject Null Hypotheses 9 (H0-1), (H0-2) (H0-3), (H0-5) (H0-6), (H0-7) (H0-8), (H0-10), (H0-

11), (H0-13), (H0-15), (H0-16) (H0-17), and (H0-18). (See Table H8, Appendix H).

Table 4.15 EI scores significantly related to BA versus BS degrees Competency P Value = t Value =

Conflict Management .0214 -2.39 Emotional Self-awareness .0271 2.29 Initiative .0431 -2.09 Organizational Awareness .0422 -2.1

Additional findings: self versus others ratings

Another finding of note relates to self-ratings compared to ratings by total others

(managers, direct reports, peers, and customers). The scored data provided by the Hay

Group included self ratings as well as total others’ ratings. Even though the researcher

employed “total others’” ratings in the study, she was able to compare self versus others’

ratings. She found, with 95 percent confidence (P <.05), that participants tended to rate

themselves lower than others rated them. (See Table H9, Appendix H).

Results indicated that statistically significant differences existed in four

competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational Leadership, and Self-

confidence. Negative t values indicated that for each of the four competencies, total

others’ scores were greater than self-reported scores. See Table 4.16.

107

Table 4.16 Statistically significant differences Competency P Value = t Value =

Emotional Self-control .0008 -3.53 Influence .0404 -2.1 Inspirational Leadership .0011 -3.45 Self-confidence .0099 -2.67

The findings do not support findings reported by the Hay Group. Self ratings of

those included in the ECI North American Database tended to be higher than ratings of

total others (Sala, 2002). “People clearly seem to view themselves more favorably than

others view them; however, the moderate correlation between self and total others’

ratings suggest that ratings tend to be aligned. That is, those that rate themselves higher

tend to be rated higher by others” (p. 32).

The researcher also ranked and compared the mean EI scores for the sample from

highest to lowest for self and total others’ ratings. Total others’ mean scores ranged from

a high of 3.885 (Customer Service Orientation) to a low of 2.947 (Conflict Management).

Self ratings ranged from 3.7 (Customer Service Orientation) to 2.83 (Conflict

Management). The rankings were similar between the groups (see Table 4.17).

Table 4.17 EI competency scores for self and total others’ ratings from highest to lowest Competency Others

ranking Others mean

Self ranking

Self mean

Achievement 9 3.517 9 3.451 Adaptability 12 3.475 12 3.372 Accurate Self-assessment 15 3.399 11 3.39 Conflict Management 18 2.947 18 2.83 Change Catalyst 16 3.390 14 2.358 Customer Service Orientation 1 3.885 1 3.7 Developing Others 10 3.491 12 3.372 Empathy 5 3.606 5 3.542

108

Table 4.17 continued Emotional Self-awareness 17 3.365 8 3.479 Emotional Self-control 7 3.581 15 3.274 Influence 6 3.598 10 3.423 Initiative 14 3.411 16 3.258 Inspirational Leadership 13 3.43 17 3.13 Organizational Awareness 4 3.693 4 3.551 Optimism 3 3.747 2 3.698 Self-confidence 2 3.755 6 3.525 Transparency 11 3.484 3 3.567 Teamwork & Collaboration 8 3.577 7 3.507

The following competencies had the same ranking for both self and others:

Competency Ranking Customer Service Orientation 1 Organizational Awareness 4 Empathy 5 Achievement 9 Adaptability 12 Conflict Management 18

Although the differences between the highest and lowest mean scores for self and

total others scores are less than 1, one cannot surmise that the difference is small. Finding

indicated that most data likely lie between 3.885 and 2.947 (see Table 4.17).

Summary


if high performance ratings and high emotional intelligence were related in a sample; if

EI scores of the sample were similar to those of others surveyed using the same

instrument; and if various demographic characteristics of the sample (gender, position,

title, sales or support role, management tenure, educational level, and type of degree)

109

influenced emotional intelligence. Table 4.18 shows a summary of the research question

and null hypothesis analysis.

Table 4.18 Summary of null and alternative hypothesis testing Test Analysis Hypotheses Reject/Not Reject

(95 % confidence level; P<.05) 1. Cross-

intersection Test

High performance ratings and high scores on each of the 18 emotional intelligence competencies are not related.

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 1 for the 18 competencies. At 90 percent confidence level (P<.1), reject Null Hypotheses 1 in favor of Alternative Hypotheses 1 for: Achievement (P=.0547) Adaptability (P=.0838) Optimism (P=.01675) At 90 percent confidence level, do not reject (H0) 1 for remaining 15 competencies.

2. T-test There are no significant differences among 16 emotional intelligence competency scores of the sample and 16 emotional intelligence he competency scores of other groups surveyed using the same survey instrument.

Reject Null Hypotheses 2 in favor of Alternative Hypotheses 2 for: Achievement (P=.0216) Accurate Self-assessment (P=.0118) Emotional Self-control (P=.008) Do not reject Null Hypotheses 2 for the remaining 13 competencies.

3. ANOVA There are no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample in different positions (those classified as individual contributor, supervisor, manager, senior manager, and executive) on each of 18 competencies.

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 3 for the 18 EI competencies.

110

Table 4.18 continued 4. ANOVA There are no significant

differences in the emotional intelligence scores of managers in the sample with various titles (assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, area vice president, and executive/group vice president) on each of 18 competencies.


5. ANOVA

There are no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of men and women in the sample.


6. ANOVA There are no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of managers in sales and managers in support roles in the sample.

Reject the Null Hypotheses 6 in favor of the Alternative Hypotheses 6 for: Empathy (P=.0352) (Support > Sales) Emotional Self-awareness (P=.0435) (Support > Sales) Transparency (P=.0164) (Support > Sales) Do not reject Null Hypotheses 6 for the remaining 15 competencies.

7. ANOVA There are no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of managers in the sample who have been in management roles with direct reports for more than five years and those who have been in management roles with direct reports for fewer than five years.


8. T-test There are no significant differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of managers with advanced degrees (master’s degree or higher) and managers without advanced degrees (those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree).

Do not reject Null Hypotheses 8 for the 18 EI competencies

111

Table 4.18 continued 9. T-test There are no significant

differences in each of the 18 emotional intelligence competency scores of managers in the sample with Bachelor of Science degrees and those with Bachelor of Arts degrees.

Reject Null Hypotheses 9 in favor of Alternative Hypotheses 9 for: Conflict Management (P=.021) (BS>BA) Emotional Self-awareness (P=.027) (BA>BS) Initiative (P=.043)(BS>BA) Organizational Awareness. (P=.042)(BS>BA) Do not reject Null Hypotheses 9 for the remaining 14 competencies.

High ratings and high emotional intelligence were not significantly related at a 95

percent confidence level. They were significantly related on three competencies—

Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism—at a 90 percent confidence level. The EI

average scores of the sample differed significantly from the average scores of other

groups in the ECI North American Database on three competencies: Achievement,

Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional Self-control. Statistically significant

differences between Sales and Support functions were evident in three competencies:

Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and Transparency. For all three, Support EI levels

were greater than Sales EI levels. Position, title, gender, and management tenure did not

significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

While educational level did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of

the sample, statistically significant differences existed between those with a Bachelor of

Science degree and those with a Bachelor of Arts degree on four competencies: Conflict

Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness. EI

levels of those with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BA degrees in

Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI levels of those

112

with BA degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees on one

competency: Emotional Self-awareness.

Results of the self versus total others ratings indicated that statistically significant

differences exist in four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational



113

Chapter V Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in EI levels existed

among high performers in one organization. Specifically, the study assessed whether

managers in this financial organization who are deemed most effective, according to

their performance ratings, exhibited higher emotional intelligence competencies than

managers with lower performance ratings. The researcher also compared EI levels

and various demographic characteristics of the sample, including, position, title, area

of employment, gender, education level, type of degree, and management tenure.


examine the concepts related to emotions, emotional intelligence, leadership, leadership

theories, and the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership.

The literature indicated that as companies increasingly are required to do more


effectiveness and organizational success. Research suggested that emotional

“competencies” such as those related to empathy, adaptability, self-control, emotional

self-awareness, ability to develop others, and so forth, contribute significantly to leader

effectiveness.


if performance had an influence on emotional intelligence in a sample; if EI scores of the

sample were similar to those of others surveyed using the same instrument; and if various

demographic characteristics of the sample (gender, position, title, sales or support role,

114

management tenure, educational level, and type of degree) influenced emotional

intelligence.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The researcher conducted data analysis to address the following research

questions and null hypotheses.


intelligence?



(H0-1): Achievement







(H0-8): Empathy



(H0-11): Influence

(H0-12): Initiative



115

(H0-15): Optimism




Alternative Hypotheses 1 (H1-1) - (H1-18.): High performance ratings and high


(H1-1): Achievement







(H1-8): Empathy



(H1-11): Influence

(H1-12): Initiative



(H1-15): Optimism



116








(H0-1): Achievement






(H0-7): Empathy



(H0-10): Influence

(H0-11): Initiative



(H0-14): Optimism



117




(H1-1): Achievement






(H1-7): Empathy



(H1-10): Influence

(H1-11): Initiative



(H1-14): Optimism






118

















competencies.







119
























120


degree).




Arts degrees.





To address research questions and null and alternative hypotheses, the researcher

employed a comparative research design to investigate differences among managers with

varying demographic characteristics in one financial institution. An existing survey

instrument, Hay/McBer’s Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, and existing

performance appraisal system and rating forms were used to ascertain if differences

existed among the sample. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and univariate

analysis of variance.

Key Findings

The following key findings are derived from the results of the analysis of research

questions and null hypothesis testing.

1. High performance ratings and high emotional intelligence were not related at a

95-percent confidence level. At a 90-percent confidence level, the two were related in

three competencies: Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism.

121

2. The EI average scores of the sample differed significantly from the average

scores of other groups in the ECI North American Database in three competencies:

Achievement, Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional Self-control.

3. Position did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

4. Title did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

5. Gender did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

6. Significant differences existed between those in sales and support in three

competencies: Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and Transparency. For all three,

Support EI levels were greater than Sales EI levels.

7. Management tenure (a comparison of managers with direct reports for more

than five years and those who have had direct reports for fewer than five years) did not

significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

8. Educational level did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the

sample.

9. Significant differences existed between those in the sample with BS degrees

and those in the sample with BA degrees in four competencies: Conflict Management,

Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness. EI levels of those

with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BA degrees in Conflict

Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI levels of those with BA

degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees in Emotional Self-

awareness.

10. Significant difference existed between self-ratings and total others ratings in

four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational Leadership, and Self-

122

confidence. For each of the four competencies, EI levels of total others were greater than

self-reported EI levels.

Discussion of Key Findings

The following findings and subsequent discussion were formed based on the

findings of the study and on the analysis described in Chapter IV.

Discussion of Finding 1. High performance ratings and high emotional

intelligence were not related at a 95-percent confidence level. At a 90-percent confidence

level, the two were related in three competencies: Achievement, Adaptability, and

Optimism.

Before employing the union-intersection test to determine if higher ratings were

related to higher EI scores, the researcher ran an ANOVA test to ascertain if a

relationship existed between performance ratings and EI scores. Findings indicated that a

statistically significant relationship existed between performance ratings and EI scores in

10 competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, Conflict Management, Developing

Others, Emotional Self-control, Initiative, Inspirational Leadership, Optimism, Self-

confidence, and Transparency. However, further analysis on the direction of the

relationship indicated that there is no statistically significant relationship at the 95 percent

confidence level between high ratings and high emotional. High scores and high

competency levels were significantly related in a positive direction in three

competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, and Optimism—at a 90 percent confidence

level.

Interestingly, the three competencies—Achievement, Adaptability, and

Optimism—are included in the six-competency Self-management EI cluster. Boyatzis,

123

Goleman, and McKee (2002) describe Self-management: “From self-awareness—

understanding one’s emotions and being clear about one’s purpose—flows self-

management, the focused drive that all leaders need to achieve their goals” (p. 45). They

added that self-management “is the component of emotional intelligence that frees us

from being a prisoner of our feelings. It’s what allows the mental clarity and

concentrated energy that leadership demands, and what keeps disruptive emotions from

throwing us off track. Leaders with such self-mastery embody an upbeat, optimistic

enthusiasm that tunes resonance to the positive range” (p. 46).

Achievement is defined as “striving to improve or meeting a standard of

excellence” (Hay Group, 2002c). Adaptability is defined as “flexibility in handling

change.” An Optimistic leader can “roll with the punches, seeing an opportunity rather

than a threat in a setback” (Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee, 2002, p. 255).

Two of the three competencies (Achievement and Adaptability) are among those

cited by McClelland (1998), in a study of leaders in 30 organizations. He determined that

the most powerful leadership differentiators were Self-confidence, Achievement Drive,

Developing Others, Adaptability, Influence, and Leadership.

It is logical that managers with higher scores in the Achievement competency

would have higher ratings. One might assume that higher scores in achievement are

linked to higher performance. The ability to handle change (adaptability) would

seemingly enable the managers to be able to adapt well to changes in requirements of

superiors who are evaluating them. Optimistic leaders would be expected to handle

changes and difficulties in a positive manner.

124

Discussion of Finding 2. The EI average scores of the sample differed

significantly from the average scores of other groups in the ECI North American

Database in three competencies: Achievement, Accurate Self-assessment, and Emotional

Self-control.

The sample was limited to managers. Those in the database were not limited to

managers. Therefore, if a premise of the study—that high EI levels are linked to higher

performance ratings in management—holds true, one expects there to be differences

between the sample and the database. Results indicate that differences indeed exist in

three competency levels.

Discussion of Findings 3 and 4. Position did not significantly impact the

emotional intelligence of the sample. Title did not significantly impact the emotional

intelligence of the sample.

Although the researcher had no expectations about the results of the analysis of

null hypotheses 3 and 4, she included it in the study as another dimension for segmenting

the sample to determine if varying characteristics impacted EI competencies. Other

research, such as a study at Johnson & Johnson by Cavallo and Brienza (2002), has

looked for significant differences among participants in various functional areas.

Although Cavallo and Brienza (2002) found significant differences, they reported that the

number of participants in each functional category was not sufficient to draw

conclusions.

On the surface, position and title do not appear to be related to performance or EI.

Results indicated they do not impact EI in the sample.

125

Discussion of Finding 5. Gender did not significantly impact the emotional

intelligence of the sample.


studies (Hart, 2002, Sala, 2002, and Petrides and Furnham, 2000) have noted gender

differences, others (Cavallo and Brienza, 2002; Landau, 1996; Eagly, Karau, and

Makhijani, 1992, 1995; Ragins, 1991) have found little or no differences between the

sexes.

Based on gender differences such as those noted by Hart (2002), the researcher

expected differences in competencies related to emotion and social skills. Hart cites a

study indicating that a woman’s brain is better suited than a man’s for sensing,

processing, and remembering emotions is. One EI study (Petrides and Furnham, 2000)

revealed that females scored higher than males on social scales. This study found

significant differences between genders in the Emotional Self-control competency.

Discussion of Finding 6. Significant differences existed between those in sales

and support in three competencies: Empathy, Emotional Self-awareness, and

Transparency. For all three, Support EI levels were greater than Sales EI levels.

Again, the researcher included functional area in the study as a dimension for

segmenting the sample to determine if varying characteristics impacted EI competencies.

Managers in both Support and Sales functions in the sample organization scored among

the highest four scores in Customer Service Orientation, Optimism, Self-confidence, and

Organizational Awareness. Having managers with relatively high EI scores in these

areas, particularly Customer Service Orientation, seems very beneficial for a financial

126

institution like the one in the study. Managers in both areas scored among the lowest four

scores on Accurate Self-assessment, Conflict Management, and Initiative.

Findings indicated that the impact of function (Sales or Support) is not

statistically significant in the other 15 competencies. Forty study participants indicated

that they worked in Sales while 14 cited Support as their area of employment.

Discussion of Finding 7. Management tenure (a comparison of managers with

direct reports for more than five years and those who have had direct reports for fewer

than five years) did not significantly impact the emotional intelligence of the sample.

Although the researcher was not aware of a reference to management tenure and

its potential impact on emotional intelligence, she included the analysis as another

dimension for segmenting the sample to determine if varying characteristics impacted EI

competencies. It is possible to expect that people who had managed others for long

periods of time would become increasingly in tune with their leadership behaviors and

how others with whom they work perceive them. This study found no statistically

significant differences between management tenure and EI.

Discussion of Finding 8. Educational level did not significantly impact the

emotional intelligence of the sample.

Based the literature citing that EI is as important as IQ and other qualities, such as

technical skills, to effective performance (Goleman, 1998b; Cooper and Sawaf, 1997;

Cherniss and Adler, 2000; Cherniss, 2000; and Druskat, 2001), one would not expect

formal education to impact emotional intelligence competencies.

In particular, Goleman (1998b) contends that effective leaders in today’s

organizations are not necessarily the most intelligent or highly skilled ones.

127

Discussion of Finding 9: Significant differences existed between those in the

sample BS degrees and those in the sample with BA degrees in four competencies:

Conflict Management, Emotional Self-awareness, Initiative, and Organizational

Awareness. EI levels of those with BS degrees were greater than EI levels of those with

BA degrees in Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness while EI

levels of those with BA degrees were greater than EI levels of those with BS degrees in

Emotional Self-awareness.

As explained in the discussion of finding 9, one would not expect formal

education, including type of degree, to impact emotional intelligence competencies. In

this sample, perhaps Conflict Management, Initiative, and Organizational Awareness are

more closely related to the strengths of those with BS degrees than those with BA

degrees while Emotional Self-awareness is more closely related to strengths of those with

BA degrees than those with BS degrees.

Discussion of Finding 10: Significant difference existed between self-ratings and

total others ratings in four competencies: Emotional Self-control, Influence, Inspirational



Sala (2002) reported that self-ratings of those included in the ECI North American

Database tended to be higher than ratings of total others seem logical. He contended that

people viewed themselves more favorably than others viewed them. One would expect

high-performing leaders to exhibit self-confidence, thereby rating themselves relatively

highly on EI competencies. It is possible that halo effects affected the others’ ratings in

128

the sample. The managers in the sample also may, to some extent, be modest about their

abilities.

Limitations

The recommendations for leaders and organizations interested in implementing EI

programs as a way to increase leader awareness of EI and to improve leader and

organizational effectiveness are based on the findings of this study. It is important to

note that the study was exploratory with limitations that may influence its reflection of

general practice. The sample in the study was limited to 57 of 79 high-performing or

potentially high-performing managers participating in an internal EI program in one

financial institution. The sample of 57 managers included volunteers from the

management pool selected by a committee to participate in an internal study of emotional

intelligence. Of the 79 in the bank’s study, 20 executive-level participants did not have

performance ratings, and, therefore, did not qualify for the doctoral research study. Two

managers did not volunteer for the study. Conducting this study with a larger sample size

should help strengthen the findings.

Further, even though the same five-point ratings system is used for all employees,

performance of managers in the sample was evaluated with two instruments, one of

which is sometimes modified by managers in various departments and divisions. Use of a

consistent performance appraisal instrument could help strengthen the study findings.

However, performance appraisal may not be effective in discriminating between

effective and ineffective performers (Frechette and Wertheim, 1985). Frechette and

Wertheim concluded that one appraisal format should not be expected to cover a

multitude of purposes. They also pointed out a number of potential problems inherent in

129

performance appraisal systems. Others problems included rater errors, biases, and lack of

credibility and validity.

Recommendations

According to one of the organizational supporters of the EI study, its purpose was

to increase awareness of leaders and emerging leaders of their leadership behaviors as

related to the EI competency framework and as perceived by others with whom they

work. A goal was to encourage leaders to take responsibility for their learning and to use

the survey data to help guide further leadership development.

The sponsors were interested in ascertaining information about proficient and

deficient leadership behaviors of participants and investigating organizational and

business impacts of the behaviors. “The information has helped introduce the concept of

leadership competencies that is paving the way for a thoughtful and thorough discussion

at the executive level about our company's strategic vision to develop talent within the

organization as a business strategy. These results are currently being blended into

competencies for leaders, managers, and supervisors. Appropriate training and

educational opportunities will be matched to the competencies identified through the

competency modeling project that is currently under way” (manager of management and

leadership development, personal communication, September 27, 2002).

It is important to note that although the researcher identified significant findings

while analyzing research questions and hypotheses, design limitations of the study restrict

the full understanding of the role of EI in leadership effectiveness. Therefore, in addition

to proposing continuing research, the researcher is making recommendations based on the

literature review and the value of an integrated human resources strategy. Further, one

130

element of a human resources strategy, such as selection or performance assessment, can

not function in isolation. Selection strategies combined with effective professional

development and coordinated performance assessment provide the best prospect for

leadership development and organizational effectiveness.

In addition, organizational sponsors should consider the following

recommendations:

Selection:

1. Use the ECI framework as part of the criteria for selecting candidates who have

potential to succeed in leadership roles.

2. Include the ECI framework in the organization’s selection process as part of a

behavioral/situational interviewing process. For example, human resources

representatives could include EI descriptors in interviews to elicit demonstration

of specific competencies.

Development:

1. Include pertinent EI competencies in processes to determine promotions and

design succession plans.

2. Add language to the bank’s performance appraisal system documentation and

instruments to help define and detail measurable, stated objectives from the ECI

framework.

Training:

1. Add EI training to the organization's leadership development program.

2. Assess if EI training impacts organizational effectiveness.

131

3. Ascertain if competencies in which the overall sample scored lowest are

necessary for success in the organization and, if so, design training programs to

address weaknesses.

The ECI may be used to evaluate individuals within an organization and the

organization overall (Hay Group, 2002a). Results provide precise and focused feedback

on an individual’s strengths and limitations. Based on the feedback from various rater

groups, the ECI helps identify the specific emotional competencies in which development

is needed to enhance the individual's emotional intelligence. The ECI may be used to

diagnose an organizational unit, profiling overall strengths and weaknesses.

Emotionally intelligent leaders may help organizations build competitive

advantages that result in benefits such as the following (Hay Group, 2002b):

Increased performance

Enhanced innovation

Effective leaders

Effective use of time and resources

More teamwork

Improved motivation

Restored trust

Recommendations for Future Research

This study examined whether ratings and specific demographic characteristics

impact EI competency levels of a select group of managers in one financial institution.

The study’s findings form the basis for additional research. The following are

suggestions for future investigation:

132

1. Expand the study with a larger sample within the same organization and with

samples in similar organizations, such as banks, security firms, and insurance

agencies, to compare findings.

2. Conduct the study in organizations outside of the financial sector and compare

findings.

3. Develop and implement an EI training program for sample participants and re-

survey the sample following training to determine if training has an impact of EI

levels in the sample.

4. Assess if the EI training has an impact on organizational effectiveness.

133

Final Comments

Results of the study show minimal ties between high levels of EI and high levels

of performance (as determined via performance ratings) in this sample. However, it is

important to note that all managers in the sample are considered high performers. All

received, at a minimum, scores of three out of five for the past two performance review

cycles, and there may be little variation among the three rating groups. They were

selected to participate in the internal EI program because of their high performance

and/or high potential.

Findings from this study generate questions such as the following:

1. How effective is the performance appraisal system used to distinguish managers

in the sample who received ratings of three versus four versus five. What

objective data separates the three rating groups? Do subjective criteria bias the

rater?

2. What criteria of the performance appraisal system are and are not reflected in the

EI competencies?

3. Would the objectively stated criteria from the EI competencies be important data

to include in an objectively oriented performance appraisal system?

4. Was this sample too restricted to ascertain the relationship between high EI and

high performance ratings?

Additional studies are needed to determine if managers scoring high in EI

competencies are actually more effective than managers with lower scores in the EI

competencies are. However, this organization’s leaders are implementing an EI program

internally, and, therefore, support the principles of EI. As the manager of management

134

and leadership development explained, a goal of the program is to generate “thoughtful

and thorough discussion at the executive level about our company's strategic vision to

develop talent within the organization as a business strategy.”

As the literature pointed out, attracting, training, and retaining leaders high in

emotional intelligence might help organizations gain a competitive edge. Bank leaders

may consider implementing programs to identify and enhance levels of emotional

competencies in managers as one way to respond to changing times.

135

Reference List

Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: A Conceptualization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209-224.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the Emotional

Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On and J.S.A. Parker (Eds.). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence (pp. 363-388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Batten, J. (1989). Tough-minded leadership. New York: AMACOM, a Division of

American Management Association. Blank, W. (1995). The 9 Natural Laws of Leadership. New York: AMACOM Books. Boyatzis, R. (1994). Stimulating self-directed change: A required MBA course called

managerial assessment and development. Journal of Management Education, 18(3), 304-323.

Boyatzis, R., Baker, A., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Thompson, L. (1995). Will it make a

difference? Assessing a value-based, outcome-oriented, competency-based professional program. In Boyatzis, R., Cowen, S., & Kolb, D. (Eds.). Innovating in professional education: Steps on a journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco: Josses-Bass.

Boyatzis, R., Cowen, S., & Kolb, D. (1995). Innovation in professional education: Steps

on a journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco: Josses-Bass. Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D.& McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power

of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Boyatzis, R., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Wheeler, J. (1996). Competencies can be

developed, but not the way we thought. Capability, 2(2), 25-41. Boyatzis, R., Wheeler, J., & Wright, R. (in press). Competency development in graduate

education: A longitudinal perspective. Proceedings of the First World Conference on Self-Directed Learning. Montreal: GIRAT.

136

Burckle. M. (1999). Can you assess your own emotional intelligence? Evidence supporting multi-rater assessment. Hay/McBer Research Report.

Burckle. M. (2000). ECI and MBTI. Hay/McBer Research Report. Capezio, P. and Morehouse, D. (1997). Secrets of Breakthrough Leadership. New Jersey:

The Career Press. Cavallo, K. & Brienza, D., Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson

& Johnson: The emotional intelligence and leadership study. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/jj_ei_study.htm on October 28, 2002.

Cacioppo, J., &.Gardner, W. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999. 50

(1), 191-214. Chatterjee, C. (2000). Emotional ignorance. Psychology Today. 33(6), 12. Cherniss, C. The business case for emotional intelligence. Retrieved November 5, 2002,

from (http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/business_case_for_ei.htm). Cherniss, C. (2000). What is emotional intelligence and why it matters? Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA, April 15, 2000. Retrieved October 14, 2002, from (http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/what_is_emotional_intelligence.htm).

Cherniss, C., & Adler, M. (2000). Promoting emotional intelligence in organizations.

Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (1998). A technical report issued by the Consortium for

Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Retrieved on November 6, 2002, from http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/technical_report.htm.

137

Cooper. R. and Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ. Emotional intelligence in leadership and organizations. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group.

Cornella, K. (2000, October). E-mail correspondence from the HayGroup.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crosby, P. (1988). The Eternally successful organization: The art of corporate wellness.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Diamantopoulou, M. (2001). An investigation of type A and type B behavior patterns in relation with the emotional intelligence of bank employees in their working environment. An unpublished Doctoral dissertation. DEI-Middlesex University of London, Department of Social Psychology.

Druskat, V. (2001, March). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard

Business Review, 79 (3), 80. Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. (1990.) Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin. 108 (2), 233-256) Eagly, A., Karau, S. & Makhijani, M. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-22. Eagly, A., Karau, S. & Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (1), 125-145. EI Consortium (2002). Retrieved from

http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/wpi_ei.htm on October 16, 2002. Fineman, S. (Ed.) (1993). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage.

138

Frechette, H. & Wertheim, E. (1985). Performance appraisal. In W.R. Tracey (Ed.) Human Resources Management & Development (pp. 218-243). New York: American Management Associations.

Forgas, J. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.

Frechette, H. and Wertheim, E. (1985). Performance appraisal. In W.R. Tracey (Ed.).

Human Resources Management & Development (pp. 218-243). New York: American Management Associations.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. The theory in practice. New York: Basic

Books. Garson, G. (2002). ANOVA. Retrieved from

http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/anova.htm on October 16, 2002.

George, J. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.

George, J. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

George, J. & Battenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 112, 310-329.

Goleman, D. (1998a) What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93-104 Goleman, D. (1998b). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Gordon, J. (1998, November). My leader, myself: Faux freethinkers and the new cult of

the CEO. TRAINING Magazine, 35 (11), 54.

139

Grote, R. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: AMACOM

Books. Hampton, D., Summer, C., & Webber, R. (1987). Organizational behavior and the

practice of management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

Hart, B. (2002, July 28). Men and women should celebrate differences. Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News Publishing Co.

Hay Group (2002a). How can the ECI be used? Retrieved October 14, 2002, from

http://ei.haygroup.com/products_and_services/content_assessment_tools.html. Hay Group (2002b). How has emotional intelligence made an impact on the bottom line?

Retrieved October 14, 2002, from “EI in Organizations” at http://ei.haygroup.com/about_ei/

Hay Group (2002c). The emotional competency framework. Retrieved October 15, 2002

from “Framework” at http://ei.haygroup.com/about_ei/.

Hay/McBer (1996). Generic competency dictionary. Boston: Hay/McBer. Hay/McBer (2002). Emotional Competency Inventory. Boston: Hay/McBer (used with

permission). Hickman, C., & Silva, M. (1984). Creating excellence: Managing corporate culture,

strategy, and change in the new age. New York: New American Library. Humphrey, R., Kellett, J. & Sleeth, R. (2001). Emotional competence, complex task

choice, and leadership emergence. Unpublished paper: Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Business.

Kotter, J. (1998). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review on Leadership.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

140

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (1997). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Landau, J. (1996). The relationship of race and gender to managers’ ratings of promotion

potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16 (4), 391-400. Mayer, J. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence: Implications for

educators. In P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional development, emotional literacy, and emotional intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (1998). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In R.J.

Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of human intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 3-31.

Mayer J., & Cobb, C. (2000). Educational policy on emotional intelligence: Does it make

sense? Educational Psychology Review, 12 (2), 163-183.

McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 1-14.

McClelland, D. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral event interviews.

Psychological Science, 9(5), 331-340. Naisbitt, J., & Aburdene, P. (1985). Re-inventing the Corporation. New York: Warner

Books. Peters, T., & Waterman R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-

run companies. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2000, March). Gender differences in measured and self-

estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 42(5-6), 449-461.

Ragins, B. (1991). Gender effects in subordinate evaluations of leaders: Real or artifact?

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(3), 259-268.

141

Roberts, W. (1987). Leadership secrets of Attila the Hun. New York: Warner Books. Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., & Gowing, M. (2002). Developing

competency models to promote integrated human resources practices. Human Resources Management, 41(3), 309-324.

Rosier, R. & Jeffrey, P. (1994). The competence model handbook (Volume 1). Boston:

Linkage Incorporated. Rosier, R. & Jeffrey, P. (1995). The competence model handbook (Volume 2). Boston:

Linkage Incorporated. Rosier, R. (Ed.). (1994-1997). The competency model handbook: Volumes 1-4.

Lexington, MA: Linkage Incorporated. Sala, F. (2001). Do programs designed to increase emotional intelligence at work--work?

Retrieved October 10, 2002, from http://www.eiconsortium.org/ Sala, F. (2002). Emotional competency inventory technical manual. Hay Acquisition

Company. (e-mail correspondence from author). Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, cognition, and

personality, 9(3), 185-211. Schulman, P. (1995). Explanatory style and achievement in school and work. In G.

Buchanan, M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.) Explanatory Style. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sevinc, L. (2001). The effect of emotional intelligence on career success: Research on the

1990 graduates of Business Administration Faculty of Istanbul University. Unpublished Master Thesis: Istanbul University.

Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Hall, L., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J., Golden, C., & Dornheim, L.

(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

142

Spencer, L. & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior

performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. UCLA Department of Statistics. Statistics Handout 5. Retrieved on November 6, 2002,

from http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~vie//ANOVA.pdf. Truskie, S. (1999). Leadership in high-performance organizational cultures. Westport,

Conn.: Quorum Books. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1996). Mosaic competencies for professionals

and administrators. Washington, DC: Author. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Inc. Zaleznik, A. (1998). Managers and Leaders: Are They Different? Harvard Business

Review on Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

143

Appendix A Emotional intelligence leadership competencies.

Emotional intelligence leadership competencies (Boyatzis, Goleman, and McKee,

2002, pp. 253-256).

Table A1 Self-awareness competencies

Emotional self-awareness. Leaders high in this competence:

Are attuned to their inner signals, recognizing how their feelings affect them and their performance Are attuned to their guiding values and often see the big picture in a complex situation

Can be candid and authentic

Accurate self-assessment. Leaders high in this competence:

Know their strengths and weaknesses

Exhibit a sense of humor about themselves

Welcome constructive criticism and feedback

Know when to ask for help

Know where to focus to acquire new leadership strengths

Self-confidence. People with this competence:

May welcome a difficult assignment

Have a sense of presence (self assurance)

Are able to play to their strengths

144

Table A2 Self-management competencies

Self-control. Managing disruptive emotions and impulses.Manage their impulsive feelings and disturbing emotions

Stay composed, positive, and unflappable even in trying moments

Think clearly and stay focused under pressure

Transparency. Authentic openness to others about one’s feelings, beliefs, and actions. People with this competency:

Live their values others

Admit mistakes or faults

Confront unethical behaviors in

Adaptability. Flexibility in handling change. People with this competency:Smoothly handle multiple demands without losing focus or energy

Are comfortable with inevitable ambiguities of organizational life Are flexible in adapting to new challenges, nimble in adjusting to change, and limber in their thinking

Achievement. Leaders high in the achievement competency:Have high standards that drive them to constantly seek performance improvements

Are pragmatic, setting measurable and challenging goals; they are able to calculate risk so that goals are worthy yet attainable

Are continually learning and teaching ways to improve

Initiative. Leaders with this competence:Have a sense of efficacy—that they are able to control their own destiny

Seize or create opportunities

Do not hesitate to cut through red tape or bend the rules to create better possibilities

Optimism. Leaders high in the optimism competency:

Roll with the punches; they see an opportunity rather than a threat in a setback

See others positively, expecting the best of others

Have a “glass-half-full” outlook, which leads them to expect that changes in the future will be for the better

145

Table A3 Social Awareness competencies Empathy. Leaders high in the empathy competency: Are attentive to a wide range of emotional signals Listen attentively and can grasp others’ perspectives Are able to get along well with diverse people

Organizational awareness. A leader with a keen organizational awareness can:

Be politically astute, able to detect crucial social networks and key power relationships

Understand the political forces at work as well as the guiding values and unspoken rules

Service. Leaders with a high service competency:

Foster an emotional climate so that people directly in touch with customers will keep the relationship on track

Monitor customer satisfaction Make themselves available as needed

146

Table A4 Relationship management competencies

Inspiration. Leaders with this competency

Inspire others, create resonance and move people with a compelling vision or shared mission Embody what they ask of others Can articulate a shared mission in a way to inspire others Offer a sense of common purpose and help make work exciting

Influence. People with this competency: Find the right appeal for a given listener Know how to build buy-in from key people and a network of support for an initiative Are persuasive and engaging

Developing others: Leaders with this competency:

Show a genuine interest in those they are helping, understanding their goals, strengths, and weaknesses Are able to provide timely and constructive feedback Are natural mentors and coaches

Change catalyst. People with this competency: Recognize the need for change Challenge the status quo to acknowledge the need for change Champion the change and enlist others in its pursuit Find ways to overcome barriers to change

Conflict management. Leaders with this competency:

Draw out all parties Understand differing perspectives Find a common ideal that everyone can endorse Surface the conflict, acknowledge the feelings and views of all sides, and redirect the energy toward a shared ideal

Teamwork and collaboration. Leaders with this competency: Generate an atmosphere of friendly collegiality Are models of respect, helpfulness, and cooperation Draw others into active, enthusiastic commitment to the collaborative effort Build spirit and identify Forge and cement close relationships beyond work obligations

147

Appendix B ECI

157

Appendix C Chronbach’s alpha coefficients

Chronbach’s alpha coefficients for self and total others ECI ratings from the Hay

North American Database. Scores based on average item scores.

Table C Chronbach’s alpha coefficients Competency Total Others Rating

(N=3,931) Alpha Coefficient

Self Rating (N=4,001) ECI Alpha Coefficient

Emotional Self-awareness .74 .61 Accurate self-Assessment .83 .68 Self-confidence .88 .80 Self-control .89 .78 Trustworthiness .73 .74 Conscientiousness .90 .81 Adaptability .77 .60 Achievement Orientation .87 .78 Initiative .83 .72 Empathy .92 .81 Org. Awareness .84 .75 Service Orientation .91 .85 Developing Others .88 .77 Leadership .80 .69 Influence .83 .73 Communication .86 .77 Change Catalyst .91 .84 Conflict Management .86 .75 Building Bonds .84 .75 Teamwork & Collaboration .91 .81 Self-awareness .76 .61 Self-management .88 .79 Social Awareness .81 .71 Social Skills .96 .92

158

Appendix D Test-retest stability

Test-retest stability coefficients for Self and Total Others ECI ratings with

Brazilian consumer retail executives (N=20).

Table D Test-retest stability coefficients

Competency Total Others Rating

Stability Coefficients

Self Rating

Stability Coefficients

Emotional Self-awareness .55 .23 Accurate Self-assessment .58 .26 Self-confidence .69 .33 Self-control .49 .43 Trustworthiness .67 .22 Conscientiousness .92 .56 Adaptability .52 .55 Achievement Orientation .60 .19 Initiative .45 .15 Empathy .62 .61 Organizational Awareness .82 .22 Service Orientation .41 .05 Developing Others .75 .55 Leadership .56 .47 Influence .19 .30 Communication .56 .08 Change Catalyst .69 .35 Conflict Management .39 .43 Building Blocks .72 .44 Teamwork & Collaboration .57 .82

159

Appendix E Sales Appraisal Form Sales Appraisal Form

Confidential

160

Appraisal Detail Form – Area Executive Appraisal Detail Form – Area Executive

165

2002 Sales Appraisal Form Workbook

Instructions

166

2002 Sales Appraisal Workbook Instructions

167

2002 Sales Appraisal Workbook Instructions2002 Sales Appraisal Workbook Instructions

168

Appendix F Support Appraisal Checklist

173

Appendix G Demographics

Study Demographic Information

1. What is your position at the Company? Individual Contributor Supervisor Manager Senior Manager Executive

2. What is your title?

Assistant Vice President Vice President Senior Vice President

Executive/Group Vice President No title Other

3. In which area of the Company do you work?

Sales Support Other (please name)

4. Gender:

Male Female

5. Education (please check all that apply):

High School or equivalent Bachelor of Science Bachelor of Arts Advanced degree (master’s degree or higher)

6. Have you been in a management position with direct reports for

more than five years or less than five years?

7. What was the rating on your 2002 performance appraisal?

1 2 3 4 5

Participant Code: __________________

174

Appendix H Statistical analysis

Table H1 ANOVA for Ratings Competency

ID NAME SOURCE TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.5358847469 . . 2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.6856078933 7.2997848745 0.001562982 3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.6856078933 7.2997848745 0.001562982 4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.2749000305 . . 5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.6921352237 5.706327175 0.005646296 6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.6921352237 5.706327175 0.005646296 7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.3043828707 . . 8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0901432729 0.5654395625 0.571437495 9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0901432729 0.5654395625 0.571437495 10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.1862437933 . . 11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3382253087 4.1770654138 0.020571706 12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3382253087 4.1770654138 0.020571706 13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.7489429023 . . 14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.506155152 2.8777328736 0.064928497 15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.506155152 2.8777328736 0.064928497 16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 0.796925776 . . 17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0186902927 0.6332307452 0.534769608 18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0186902927 0.6332307452 0.534769608 19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.5469236174 . . 20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.7445209454 5.6674650187 0.005830488 21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.7445209454 5.6674650187 0.005830488 22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.5239522914 . . 23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0603071723 0.4620646131 0.6324492 24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0603071723 0.4620646131 0.6324492 25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.1896935063 . . 26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.4459869983 2.8741121364 0.065141304 27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.4459869983 2.8741121364 0.065141304 28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 5.8217337648 . . 29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.7553339565 3.5030830418 0.037114254 30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.7553339565 3.5030830418 0.037114254 31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.2452514974 . . 32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3448037066 2.8687145159 0.06545989 33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3448037066 2.8687145159 0.06545989 34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.2586874905 . . 35 ECI2002INI Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.5085364617 4.2135014499 0.01993308 36 ECI2002INI Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.5085364617 4.2135014499 0.01993308 37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 5.2868930947 . . 38 ECI2002INL Total_Others rating SS1 2 1.1029984974 5.6329793123 0.005999154 39 ECI2002INL Total_Others rating SS3 2 1.1029984974 5.6329793123 0.005999154 40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.587368478 . . 41 ECI2002OA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.1309798263 1.3668154886 0.263594211

175

42 ECI2002OA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.1309798263 1.3668154886 0.263594211 43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.0870906189 . . 44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3336252218 4.3159989834 0.018244515 45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3336252218 4.3159989834 0.018244515 46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.5765527733 . . 47 ECI2002SC Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.3330888579 3.4904773758 0.03753078 48 ECI2002SC Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.3330888579 3.4904773758 0.03753078 49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.7610466387 . . 50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.4460309675 3.2019906368 0.048513352 51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.4460309675 3.2019906368 0.048513352 52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.9154021244 . . 53 ECI2002TW Total_Others rating SS1 2 0.0870849676 0.8065076533 0.451718166 54 ECI2002TW Total_Others rating SS3 2 0.0870849676 0.8065076533 0.451718166

176

Table H2 ANOVA for Position

Obs Competency ID NAME SOURCE TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.17854 . .

2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others position SS1 4 0.03588 0.14392 0.96487 3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others position SS3 4 0.03588 0.14392 0.96487

4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.89688 . .

5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.06954 0.22752 0.92174 6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.06954 0.22752 0.92174

7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.72758 . .

8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.63600 2.17540 0.08492 9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.63600 2.17540 0.08492

10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.43870 . .

11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others position SS1 4 0.04646 0.24291 0.91264 12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others position SS3 4 0.04646 0.24291 0.91264

13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 4.78360 . .

14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others position SS1 4 0.44535 1.18702 0.32771 15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others position SS3 4 0.44535 1.18702 0.32771

16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 0.78113 . .

17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others position SS1 4 0.03019 0.49284 0.74097 18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others position SS3 4 0.03019 0.49284 0.74097

19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 4.10256 . .

20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others position SS1 4 0.10668 0.33155 0.85548 21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others position SS3 4 0.10668 0.33155 0.85548

22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.11699 . .

23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others position SS1 4 0.46724 1.91124 0.12276 24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others position SS3 4 0.46724 1.91124 0.12276

25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 4.02061 . .

26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.61137 1.93876 0.11815 27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.61137 1.93876 0.11815

28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 6.11700 . .

29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others position SS1 4 0.40562 0.84545 0.50299 30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others position SS3 4 0.40562 0.84545 0.50299

31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.48619 . .

32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others position SS1 4 0.03901 0.14265 0.96543 33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others position SS3 4 0.03901 0.14265 0.96543

177

34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.51276 . .

35 ECI2002INI Total_Others position SS1 4 0.19644 0.71301 0.58687 36 ECI2002INI Total_Others position SS3 4 0.19644 0.71301 0.58687

37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 6.19729 . .

38 ECI2002INL Total_Others position SS1 4 0.10422 0.21441 0.92925 39 ECI2002INL Total_Others position SS3 4 0.10422 0.21441 0.92925

40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.64199 . .

41 ECI2002OA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.07631 0.36826 0.83013 42 ECI2002OA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.07631 0.36826 0.83013

43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.33014 . .

44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others position SS1 4 0.08434 0.46151 0.76359 45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others position SS3 4 0.08434 0.46151 0.76359

46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.71850 . .

47 ECI2002SC Total_Others position SS1 4 0.17993 0.84387 0.50394 48 ECI2002SC Total_Others position SS3 4 0.17993 0.84387 0.50394

49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 3.92826 . .

50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others position SS1 4 0.27438 0.89057 0.47638 51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others position SS3 4 0.27438 0.89057 0.47638

52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 51 2.80129 . .

53 ECI2002TW Total_Others position SS1 4 0.18580 0.84566 0.50286 54 ECI2002TW Total_Others position SS3 4 0.18580 0.84566 0.50286

178

Table H3 ANOVA for Titles Obs Competency

ID NAME SOURCE TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.99526 . . 2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others title SS1 6 0.22623 0.62942 0.70594 3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others title SS3 6 0.22623 0.62942 0.70594 4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.76195 . . 5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.20508 0.45429 0.83851 6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.20508 0.45429 0.83851 7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.19693 . . 8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.19760 0.39235 0.88048 9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.19760 0.39235 0.88048 10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.32637 . . 11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others title SS1 6 0.19809 0.70960 0.64340 12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others title SS3 6 0.19809 0.70960 0.64340 13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.28878 . . 14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others title SS1 6 0.96631 1.87760 0.10318 15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others title SS3 6 0.96631 1.87760 0.10318 16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 0.79923 . . 17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others title SS1 6 0.01638 0.17082 0.98346 18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others title SS3 6 0.01638 0.17082 0.98346 19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.93929 . . 20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others title SS1 6 0.35216 0.74497 0.61615 21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others title SS3 6 0.35216 0.74497 0.61615 22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.10837 . . 23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others title SS1 6 0.47589 1.27582 0.28539 24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others title SS3 6 0.47589 1.27582 0.28539 25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.35978 . . 26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.27590 0.52735 0.78484 27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.27590 0.52735 0.78484 28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 6.19172 . . 29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others title SS1 6 0.38535 0.51864 0.79141 30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others title SS3 6 0.38535 0.51864 0.79141 31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.32241 . . 32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others title SS1 6 0.26764 0.67131 0.67319 33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others title SS3 6 0.26764 0.67131 0.67319 34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 3.59462 . . 35 ECI2002INI Total_Others title SS1 6 0.17260 0.40014 0.87543 36 ECI2002INI Total_Others title SS3 6 0.17260 0.40014 0.87543 37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 5.95711 . . 38 ECI2002INL Total_Others title SS1 6 0.43278 0.60541 0.72469 39 ECI2002INL Total_Others title SS3 6 0.43278 0.60541 0.72469 40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.42009 . . 41 ECI2002OA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.29826 1.02702 0.41893 42 ECI2002OA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.29826 1.02702 0.41893

179

43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.22672 44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others title SS1 6 0.19400 0.72603 0.63070 45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others title SS3 6 0.19400 0.72603 0.63070 46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.67567 . . 47 ECI2002SC Total_Others title SS1 6 0.23397 0.72871 0.62864 48 ECI2002SC Total_Others title SS3 6 0.23397 0.72871 0.62864 49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 4.05321 50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others title SS1 6 0.15386 0.31634 0.92547 51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others title SS3 6 0.15386 0.31634 0.92547 52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 50 2.76993 . . 53 ECI2002TW Total_Others title SS1 6 0.23255 0.69963 0.65112 54 ECI2002TW Total_Others title SS3 6 0.23255 0.69963 0.65112

180

Table H4 ANOVA for Gender

Obs Competency ID NAME SOURC

E TYPE DF SS F PROB

1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.15343 . . 2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.01728 0.29597 0.58866 3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.01728 0.29597 0.58866 4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.78377 . . 5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.03271 0.46681 0.49738 6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.03271 0.46681 0.49738 7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.39278 . . 8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00006 0.00075 0.97820 9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00006 0.00075 0.97820 10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.33973 . . 11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.01072 0.24742 0.62092 12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.01072 0.24742 0.62092 13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 5.02505 . . 14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.21767 2.33916 0.13199 15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.21767 2.33916 0.13199 16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 0.80283 . . 17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00361 0.24289 0.62412 18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00361 0.24289 0.62412 19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.25004 . . 20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00498 0.06328 0.80234 21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00498 0.06328 0.80234 22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.33951 . . 23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.11698 1.89160 0.17470 24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.11698 1.89160 0.17470 25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.45321 . . 26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.08132 0.98609 0.32513 27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.08132 0.98609 0.32513 28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.42722 . . 29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00386 0.03245 0.85772 30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00386 0.03245 0.85772 31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.55415 . . 32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00204 0.03093 0.86106 33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00204 0.03093 0.86106 34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.76480 . . 35 ECI2002INI Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00000 0.00005 0.99419 36 ECI2002INI Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00000 0.00005 0.99419 37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.23456 . . 38 ECI2002INL Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.08131 0.70425 0.40506 39 ECI2002INL Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.08131 0.70425 0.40506 40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.66472 . . 41 ECI2002OA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00988 0.20024 0.65632 42 ECI2002OA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00988 0.20024 0.65632

181

43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.39560 . . 44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00704 0.15870 0.69193 45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00704 0.15870 0.69193 46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.79047 . . 47 ECI2002SC Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.08432 1.63176 0.20693 48 ECI2002SC Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.08432 1.63176 0.20693 49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.09124 . . 50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.00095 0.01256 0.91117 51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.00095 0.01256 0.91117 52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.97749 . . 53 ECI2002TW Total_Others gender SS1 1 0.02498 0.45312 0.50373 54 ECI2002TW Total_Others gender SS3 1 0.02498 0.45312 0.50373

182

Table H5 ANOVA for Area


1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.97956 . . 2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others area SS1 1 0.15147 2.69432 0.10663 3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others area SS3 1 0.15147 2.69432 0.10663 4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.71232 . . 5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.16493 2.35470 0.13085 6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.16493 2.35470 0.13085 7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 4.21716 . . 8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.09095 1.14298 0.28987 9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.09095 1.14298 0.28987 10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.42944 . . 11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others area SS1 1 0.06880 1.50100 0.22593 12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others area SS3 1 0.06880 1.50100 0.22593 13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 5.23872 . . 14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00066 0.00663 0.93542 15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00066 0.00663 0.93542 16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 0.77499 . . 17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00563 0.38471 0.53775 18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00563 0.38471 0.53775 19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 4.23546 . . 20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others area SS1 1 0.03183 0.39827 0.53070 21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others area SS3 1 0.03183 0.39827 0.53070 22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.27908 . . 23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others area SS1 1 0.28915 4.67359 0.03517 24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others area SS3 1 0.28915 4.67359 0.03517 25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 4.26349 . . 26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.34424 4.27933 0.04347 27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.34424 4.27933 0.04347 28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 6.25993 . . 29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others area SS1 1 0.19592 1.65880 0.20336 30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others area SS3 1 0.19592 1.65880 0.20336 31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.52631 . . 32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others area SS1 1 0.02246 0.33758 0.56369 33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others area SS3 1 0.02246 0.33758 0.56369 34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.70573 . . 35 ECI2002INI Total_Others area SS1 1 0.05736 0.82041 0.36916 36 ECI2002INI Total_Others area SS3 1 0.05736 0.82041 0.36916 37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 6.30411 . . 38 ECI2002INL Total_Others area SS1 1 0.07743 0.65100 0.42336 39 ECI2002INL Total_Others area SS3 1 0.07743 0.65100 0.42336 40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.63680 . . 41 ECI2002OA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.06658 1.33834 0.25251 42 ECI2002OA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.06658 1.33834 0.25251 43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.37940 . . 44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others area SS1 1 0.03023 0.67331 0.41558 45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others area SS3 1 0.03023 0.67331 0.41558 46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.89001 . .

183

47 ECI2002SC Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00002 0.00044 0.98331 48 ECI2002SC Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00002 0.00044 0.98331 49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 3.76317 . . 50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others area SS1 1 0.43661 6.14911 0.01636 51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others area SS3 1 0.43661 6.14911 0.01636 52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 53 2.94486 . . 53 ECI2002TW Total_Others area SS1 1 0.00438 0.07875 0.78009 54 ECI2002TW Total_Others area SS3 1 0.00438 0.07875 0.78009

184

Table H6ANOVA for Tenure


1 ECI2002ACH Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.18432 . . 2 ECI2002ACH Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00297 0.05036 0.82328 3 ECI2002ACH Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00297 0.05036 0.82328 4 ECI2002ADA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.96285 . . 5 ECI2002ADA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00411 0.05601 0.81381 6 ECI2002ADA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00411 0.05601 0.81381 7 ECI2002ASA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.07147 . . 8 ECI2002ASA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.03283 0.43549 0.51211 9 ECI2002ASA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.03283 0.43549 0.51211 10 ECI2002CFM Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.49387 . . 11 ECI2002CFM Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00875 0.18943 0.66512 12 ECI2002CFM Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00875 0.18943 0.66512 13 ECI2002CHC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.92573 . . 14 ECI2002CHC Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.01426 0.15630 0.69414 15 ECI2002CHC Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.01426 0.15630 0.69414 16 ECI2002CSO Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 0.80149 . . 17 ECI2002CSO Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00068 0.04573 0.83148 18 ECI2002CSO Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00068 0.04573 0.83148 19 ECI2002DEV Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.00251 . . 20 ECI2002DEV Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.27324 3.68649 0.06014 21 ECI2002DEV Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.27324 3.68649 0.06014 22 ECI2002EMP Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.52233 . . 23 ECI2002EMP Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00919 0.14084 0.70892 24 ECI2002EMP Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00919 0.14084 0.70892 25 ECI2002ESA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.58187 . . 26 ECI2002ESA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.03520 0.41481 0.52226 27 ECI2002ESA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.03520 0.41481 0.52226 28 ECI2002ESC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.45622 . . 29 ECI2002ESC Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.02009 0.16807 0.68346 30 ECI2002ESC Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.02009 0.16807 0.68346 31 ECI2002INFL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.57464 . . 32 ECI2002INFL Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.01411 0.21316 0.64616 33 ECI2002INFL Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.01411 0.21316 0.64616 34 ECI2002INI Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 3.72862 . . 35 ECI2002INI Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00638 0.09246 0.76224 36 ECI2002INI Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00638 0.09246 0.76224 37 ECI2002INL Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 6.27214 . . 38 ECI2002INL Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00669 0.05762 0.81121 39 ECI2002INL Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00669 0.05762 0.81121 40 ECI2002OA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.48934 . . 41 ECI2002OA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.09757 2.11653 0.15151 42 ECI2002OA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.09757 2.11653 0.15151 43 ECI2002OPT Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.41169 . . 44 ECI2002OPT Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00614 0.13740 0.71233 45 ECI2002OPT Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00614 0.13740 0.71233 46 ECI2002SC Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.83631 . .

185

47 ECI2002SC Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.03724 0.70905 0.40347 48 ECI2002SC Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.03724 0.70905 0.40347 49 ECI2002TRA Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 4.17179 . . 50 ECI2002TRA Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00134 0.01731 0.89581 51 ECI2002TRA Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00134 0.01731 0.89581 52 ECI2002TW Total_Others ERROR ERROR 54 2.91709 . . 53 ECI2002TW Total_Others tenure SS1 1 0.00001 0.00013 0.99104 54 ECI2002TW Total_Others tenure SS3 1 0.00001 0.00013 0.99104

186

Table H7 T-Test for Educational Level (master’s degree versus high school and bachelor’s degrees)

Competency ID Variable Method Variances t Value DF Pr > |t|

1 ECI2002ACH Total Others Pooled Equal 0.89 55 0.3761

2 ECI2002ACH Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.85 10.8 0.4148

3 ECI2002ADA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.58 55 0.5639

4 ECI2002ADA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.57 11.1 0.5788

5 ECI2002ASA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.79 55 0.4333

6 ECI2002ASA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.76 10.9 0.4623

7 ECI2002CFM Total Others Pooled Equal 1.35 55 0.1818

8 ECI2002CFM Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 1.04 9.43 0.3252

9 ECI2002CHC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.18 55 0.8616

10 ECI2002CHC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.20 13 0.8427

11 ECI2002CSO Total Others Pooled Equal -0.27 55 0.7880

12 ECI2002CSO Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.26 10.7 0.8033

13 ECI2002DEV Total Others Pooled Equal 0.22 55 0.8248

14 ECI2002DEV Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.18 9.63 0.8623

15 ECI2002EMP Total Others Pooled Equal -0.14 55 0.8877

16 ECI2002EMP Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.11 9.27 0.9186

17 ECI2002ESA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.15 55 0.8824

18 ECI2002ESA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.12 9.83 0.9042

19 ECI2002ESC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.11 55 0.9111

20 ECI2002ESC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.12 11.7 0.9085

21 ECI2002INFL Total Others Pooled Equal 0.71 55 0.4780

22 ECI2002INFL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.71 11.2 0.4917

23 ECI2002INI Total Others Pooled Equal 0.18 55 0.8607

24 ECI2002INI Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.18 11.4 0.8606

25 ECI2002INL Total Others Pooled Equal 0.69 55 0.4948

26 ECI2002INL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.71 11.6 0.4889

27 ECI2002OA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.04 55 0.9709

28 ECI2002OA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.04 11.1 0.9716

29 ECI2002OPT Total Others Pooled Equal 0.20 55 0.8413

30 ECI2002OPT Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.19 10.8 0.8515

31 ECI2002SC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.51 55 0.6142

187

32 ECI2002SC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.72 18.3 0.4791

33 ECI2002TRA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.78 55 0.4390

34 ECI2002TRA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.64 9.79 0.5349

35 ECI2002TW Total Others Pooled Equal 0.56 55 0.5802

36 ECI2002TW Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.60 12 0.5617

188

Table H8 T-Test for BA and BS

Competency ID Variable Method Variances t Value DF Pr > |t|

1 ECI2002ACH Total Others Pooled Equal -0.61 41 0.5435

2 ECI2002ACH Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.63 31.5 0.5313

3 ECI2002ADA Total Others Pooled Equal -0.68 41 0.5006

4 ECI2002ADA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.74 35.8 0.4659

5 ECI2002ASA Total Others Pooled Equal 1.47 41 0.1496

6 ECI2002ASA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 1.53 32.1 0.1365

7 ECI2002CFM Total Others Pooled Equal -2.39 41 0.0214

8 ECI2002CFM Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -2.27 24.9 0.0320

9 ECI2002CHC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.23 41 0.8160

10 ECI2002CHC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.22 23.8 0.8288

11 ECI2002CSO Total Others Pooled Equal -0.81 41 0.4220

12 ECI2002CSO Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.79 26.8 0.4361

13 ECI2002DEV Total Others Pooled Equal -0.03 41 0.9740

14 ECI2002DEV Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.04 38.3 0.9709

15 ECI2002EMP Total Others Pooled Equal 0.50 41 0.6189

16 ECI2002EMP Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.49 27.1 0.6276

17 ECI2002ESA Total Others Pooled Equal 2.29 41 0.0271

18 ECI2002ESA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 2.79 40.7 0.0080

19 ECI2002ESC Total Others Pooled Equal -0.26 41 0.7928

20 ECI2002ESC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.30 38.3 0.7692

21 ECI2002INFL Total Others Pooled Equal -0.33 41 0.7397

22 ECI2002INFL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.34 30.4 0.7352

23 ECI2002INI Total Others Pooled Equal -2.09 41 0.0431

24 ECI2002INI Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -1.95 23.7 0.0636

25 ECI2002INL Total Others Pooled Equal 0.08 41 0.9382

26 ECI2002INL Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.09 39.3 0.9300

27 ECI2002OA Total Others Pooled Equal -2.10 41 0.0422

28 ECI2002OA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -2.01 25.6 0.0550

29 ECI2002OPT Total Others Pooled Equal -0.24 41 0.8093

30 ECI2002OPT Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal -0.27 36.8 0.7912

31 ECI2002SC Total Others Pooled Equal 0.79 41 0.4340

189

32 ECI2002SC Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.80 29.8 0.4297

33 ECI2002TRA Total Others Pooled Equal 0.33 41 0.7431

34 ECI2002TRA Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.37 39.3 0.7100

35 ECI2002TW Total Others Pooled Equal 0.04 41 0.9716

36 ECI2002TW Total Others Satterthwaite Unequal 0.04 29.8 0.9713

Table H9 T-test for self and total others

Obs

Competency ID

Variable 1

Variable 2 Difference T

Value DF Probt

1 ECI2002ACH Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -0.87 56 0.3888

2 ECI2002ADA Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -1.27 56 0.2094

3 ECI2002ASA Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -0.15 56 0.8827

4 ECI2002CFM Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -1.62 56 0.1107

5 ECI2002CHC Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -0.39 56 0.6985

6 ECI2002CSO Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -1.87 56 0.0671

7 ECI2002DEV Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -1.35 56 0.1830

8 ECI2002EMP Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -0.78 56 0.4366

9 ECI2002ESA Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others 1.36 56 0.1795

10 ECI2002ESC Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -3.53 56 0.0008

11 ECI2002INFL Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -2.10 56 0.0404

12 ECI2002INI Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -1.95 56 0.0566

13 ECI2002INL Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -3.45 56 0.0011

14 ECI2002OA Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -1.68 56 0.0978

15 ECI2002OPT Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -0.65 56 0.5190

16 ECI2002SC Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -2.67 56 0.0099

17 ECI2002TRA Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others 0.97 56 0.3370

18 ECI2002TW Self Total_Others Self - Total_Others -0.80 56 0.4271

190

Appendix I Consent forms

191

North Carolina State University

INFORMED CONSENT FORM Title of Study: Emotional Competencies of Leaders: A Comparison of Managers in One

Organization Principal Investigator: Joni King Brooks Faculty Sponsor: Dr. James Burrow

You are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to determine if a relationship exists between a leader’s level of emotional intelligence and his or her workplace effectiveness in one company. The purpose of the study is to assess if leaders in a company differ on levels of emotional intelligence. The results of the ECI may be used to identify gaps in emotional intelligence, gaps which may be limiting maximum effectiveness, and/or to design development/training programs. Previous research indicates that benefits of emotionally intelligent organizations include: improved financial results, improved return on investment, improved productivity, increased retention of top talent, and increased sales. INFORMATION

1. List all procedures, preferably in chronological order, which will be employed in the study. Be sure to use lay language.

Each manager and others with whom he or she works closely are being asked by the organization’s management to complete the Emotional Competency Inventory. The data will be shared with the researcher. The identity of each manager will remain completely confidential and unknown to the researcher. The researcher will analyze the data aggregately from the two groups using a "key" provided by the HayGroup to address hypotheses and research questions. Each participant is asked to complete a brief demographic form and agree to the terms of this NCSU IRB consent form.

2. It is estimated that each survey requires 20 minutes to complete. RISKS There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts involved in this study. BENEFITS The results of the ECI may be used to identify gaps in emotional intelligence, gaps which may be limiting

maximum effectiveness, and/or to design development/training programs. Previous research indicates that benefits of emotionally intelligent organizations include: improved financial results, improved return on investment, improved productivity, increased retention of top talent, and increased sales.

CONFIDENTIALITY The information in the study records will be kept strictly confidential. Data will be stored securely and will

be made available only to persons conducting the study unless you specifically give permission in writing to do otherwise. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study.

COMPENSATION There is no compensation for participating in this study. CONTACT If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Joni

King Brooks, at 11613 Trottenham St., Raleigh, NC 27614, [email protected], or (919-518-2081). If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact Dr. Matthew Zingraff, Chair of the NCSU IRB for the Use of Human Subjects in Research Committee, Box 7514, NCSU Campus (919/513-1834) or Mr. Matthew Ronning, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Research Administration, Box 7514, NCSU Campus (919/513-2148)

PARTICIPATION Your participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate without penalty. If you decide to

participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty and without loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed your data will be returned to you or destroyed.

192

CONSENT I have read and understand the above information. I have received a copy of this form. I agree to participate

in this study. Subject's signature_______________________________________ Date _________________

Investigator's signature__________________________________ Date _________________

ABSTRACT BROOKS, JONI KING. Emotional competencies of ...

Documents

Transcript of ABSTRACT BROOKS, JONI KING. Emotional competencies of ...