Emotional and social competency inventory · participants’ self scores and rater scores,...

RESEARCH GUIDE AND TECHNICAL MANUAL

Emotional and social competency inventory

Emotional and social competency inventoryResearch guide and technical manual

This document contains proprietary business information of Korn Ferry and may be used by our clients solely for their internal purposes. No part of this work may be copied or transferred to any other expression or form without a license from Korn Ferry. This document should not be shared with other organizations, consultants, or vendors without the express written permission of Korn Ferry.

For the sake of linguistic simplicity in this product, where the masculine form is used, the feminine form should always be understood to be included.

© Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

www.kornferry.com

ESCI Research guide and technical manual

Version 17.1a—04/2017

Emotional intelligence is the capacity for recognizing our own and others’ feelings and for managing emotions effectively, including motivating ourselves and others.

© Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. i

Emotional and Social Competency Inventory – Research guide and technical manual

Introduction

This research guide and technical manual provides a detailed technical description of the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Developed by Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman, and Korn Ferry Hay Group, the ESCI is used to assess and develop leaders’ and individual contributors’ emotional and social intelligence competencies.

The manual introduces the ESCI model and competencies, provides guidance on its use, and delves deeply into its psychometric-based properties, including the recent review of the ESCI database and norm update.

It also summarizes a number of empirical studies conducted by Richard Boyatzis, Korn Ferry Hay Group, and many other researchers that validate the ESCI and the behavioral measurement of emotional and social intelligence.

Richard BoyatzisDistinguished professor of organizational behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University

Boyatzis’ partnership with Korn Ferry Hay Group resulted in a validated behavioral measure of emotional intelligence. His research explores how people and organizations engage in sustainable, desired change, and his publications include Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence with Daniel Goleman and Annie McKee.

Daniel GolemanCo-Director of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations

In Working with Emotional Intelligence, Goleman presented studies of the competencies that distinguish outstanding performers in a large range of organizations, resulting in the development of the ESCI. He co-founded the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, catalyzing research on the contribution of EI to workplace effectiveness.

Contributors

Richard Boyatzis, Distinguished Professor of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University

Samantha Guise, Technical Author, Korn Ferry Hay Group

Sarah Hezlett, Senior Assessment Scientist, Korn Ferry Institute

Paula Kerr, Senior Manager, Korn Ferry Institute

Stephen Lams, Talent Product Manager, Korn Ferry Hay Group

© Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.ii


Summary

Why EI continues to make a differenceWhen emotional intelligence (EI) became part of our everyday language in the 1990s, two decades of research had already established the significance of competencies. Derived from studies of performance, and using self and others’ perceptions, competencies demonstrated strong relationships to important workplace outcomes. Richard Boyatzis and Dan Goleman’s work focused on a specific group of competencies that were showing strong relationships to outstanding performance for leaders and individual contributors: the emotional and social intelligence (SI) competencies.

Since then, interest in and measurement of EI has grown globally. Korn Ferry Hay Group’s ongoing development work with Boyatzis and Goleman has resulted in the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), a validated measure of emotional and social intelligence and an extensive source of behavioral data. It is used by business organizations, education institutions, researchers, and independent consultants and coaches.

Since our last review in 2010, the ESCI database has grown from 4,000 to nearly 80,000 participants, from 42,000 to nearly 700,000 non-self raters, and from 270 to over 2,200 organizations. Based on this growth, Korn Ferry Hay Group has updated the ESCI global norms, reviewed its psychometric-based properties, and gathered the most recent research so that practitioners can share the most current findings.

What this manual coversThis research guide and technical manual presents an update on the ESCI’s psychometric-based properties and a summary of recent research studies and findings. It includes:

� Reliability data: A reassessment of the ESCI’s internal consistency with a much larger and more diverse sample, as well as interrater estimates.

� Validity data: Summaries of validity studies carried out with the ESCI or ESCI-U (the education/university version). These include Korn Ferry Hay Group’s review of ESCI data alongside our other measures of leadership and employee effectiveness and several independent research studies carried out with participants in a range of roles and organizations.

� Effect size data: A more practical alternative to norm tables, providing the opportunity to quantify and explore differences between participant groups by region, country, age, gender, job family, job level, and industry. These data also explore interesting differences between participants’ self scores and rater scores, reinforcing the importance of gathering 360-degree behavioral data.

The manual includes a full introduction to the ESCI model and its 12 competencies and how they are measured, scored, and reported. It describes the development of the ESCI and ESCI-U. It also provides ESCI practitioners with guidance on how to use the ESCI and ESCI-U to deliver meaningful feedback that equips leaders, employees, and students to develop their capabilities in the competencies that can make the biggest difference to their own and others’ overall performance.

© Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. iii


What the 2016 ESCI data revealOur own review of ESCI data in relation to other key behavioral data, alongside the independent ESCI studies, has reinforced the central role that emotional and social intelligence competencies play in employee and leadership performance.

EI supports employee and leadership performanceIndependent studies continue to spotlight emotional and social intelligence competencies as differentiators of outstanding performance across a range of roles. They confirm that 360-degree behavioral measures, such as the ESCI, are valuable predictors of performance.

Emotional self-awareness remains the cornerstone of EIConfirmed as a solid foundation for a range of capabilities, individuals who demonstrate Emotional self-awareness consistently are also likely to:

� Demonstrate an average of 10 ESCI competencies consistently (ESCI strengths).

� Make frequent use of four long-term leadership styles that have the most positive impact on their team’s work climate and performance. (See “Does EI strengthen a leader’s approach?” in Section 3.5.1.)

� Create the most positive work climates for their team members.

EI as a key predictor of leadership effectivenessA number of ESCI competencies are emerging as predictors of leadership effectiveness:

� Leaders with high scores in Conflict management are likely to make frequent use of four long-term leadership styles and restrain their use of the two short-term styles, consequently creating the most positive climates and having team members who intend to stay five years or longer.

� Inspirational leadership and Empathy follow close behind in their positive relationships with long-term leadership styles, team climate, and employee retention.

EI as a key predictor of employee effectiveness, engagement, and innovationHigher ESCI competency scores relate to increased employee effectiveness scores across all drivers of employee engagement and enablement:

� Demonstrating six or more ESCI competencies consistently can equip a leader to make frequent use of the long-term leadership styles, create a positive team climate, and encourage a majority of team members to stay five years or longer.

� Demonstrating three or fewer ESCI strengths relates to below average leadership strength and a majority of team members planning to leave within five years.

� Demonstrating no ESCI strengths typically results in bottom quartile leadership strength and over 10% of team members planning to leave within just one year.

© Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. v


Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... i

1. Assessing emotional and social intelligence competencies .................................................................. 11.1 What is emotional and social intelligence? ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 Measuring emotional and social intelligence........................................................................................... 1

1.3 The ESCI model ................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 The competencies measured by the ESCI ..............................................................................................3

1.5 The ESCI-U ...........................................................................................................................................................4

1.6 How ESCI data are gathered ........................................................................................................................4

1.7 How the ESCI is scored ...................................................................................................................................5

2. Delivering ESCI feedback ................................................................................................................................... 72.1 Using the ESCI and ESCI-U ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Sharing ESCI feedback ...................................................................................................................................9

2.3 The ESCI feedback report ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 The ESCI group report ...................................................................................................................................11

3. The scientific foundation for the ESCI .........................................................................................................133.1 The development of the ESCI ......................................................................................................................13

3.2 The 2016 review ...............................................................................................................................................18

3.3 Reliability ............................................................................................................................................................21

3.4 Model fit .............................................................................................................................................................23

3.5 Criterion validity ............................................................................................................................................ 24

3.6 Criterion validity studies using the ECI or ECI-U .............................................................................. 43

4. Developing EI and SI ...........................................................................................................................................51

5. Differences in EI and SI scores by key demographic variables ........................................................53

6. References ..............................................................................................................................................................77

7. Appendix A. ESCI: Behavioral level of Emotional and Social Intelligence ....................................81

© Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. 1


1. Assessing emotional and social intelligence competencies

The focus of behavioral EI is competencies. Identified from studies of performance, and subject to performance-based criteria, emotional and social intelligence competencies are closely related to work and life outcomes.

1.1 What is emotional and social intelligence?Emotional intelligence is the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions effectively in ourselves and others. An emotional and social competency is a learned capacity, based on emotional intelligence, which contributes to effective performance at work.

1.2 Measuring emotional and social intelligence

The Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI) is a 360-degree survey designed to assess 12 competencies that differentiate outstanding from average performance at work. The ESCI measures the demonstration of individuals’ behaviors through their perceptions and those of their raters, making it distinct from measures of EI that assess ability, self-assessments of ability, or personality preferences. Appendix A describes in more detail how the ESCI stands out conceptually from other approaches to measuring emotional and social intelligence.

“We find that most of the characteristics that differentiate outstanding performers are these things that we call social and emotional competencies.”Richard Boyatzis – Distinguished Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case

Western Reserve University

© Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.2


1.3 The ESCI model

The 12 competencies cover four distinct areas of emotional and social intelligence as developed and documented by Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman since 1996.

Figure 1. The ESCI model

Self-awareness

Self-management

Social awareness

Relationship management Performance

SELF

AC

TIO

NS

OTHERS

AW

AR

EN

ES

S



1.4 The competencies measured by the ESCI

Each competency is carefully defined so that it is distinct from the others, easy to comprehend, and properly summarizes its behavioral indicators. Listed below are the definitions of each cluster in the model and the competencies within it:

Self-awarenessRecognizing and understanding our own emotions, captured in the competency:

• Emotional self-awareness: The ability to understand our own emotions and their effects on our performance.

Self-managementEffectively managing our own emotions:

• Emotional self-control: The ability to keep disruptive emotions and impulses in check and maintain our effectiveness under stressful or hostile conditions.

• Achievement orientation: Striving to meet or exceed a standard of excellence; looking for ways to do things better, set challenging goals and take calculated risks.

• Positive outlook: The ability to see the positive in people, situations and events and our persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks.

• Adaptability: Flexibility in handling change, juggling multiple demands and adapting our ideas or approaches.

Social awarenessRecognizing and understanding the emotions of others:

• Empathy: The ability to sense others’ feelings and perspectives, taking an active interest in their concerns and picking up cues to what is being felt and thought.

• Organizational awareness: The ability to read a group’s emotional currents and power relationships, identifying influencers, networks and dynamics.

Relationship managementApplying emotional understanding in our dealings with others:

• Influence: The ability to have a positive impact on others, persuading or convincing others in order to gain their support.

• Coach and mentor: The ability to foster the long-term learning or development of others by giving feedback and support.

• Conflict management: The ability to help others through emotional or tense situations, tactfully bringing disagreements into the open and finding solutions all can endorse.

• Inspirational leadership: The ability to inspire and guide individuals and groups to get the job done, and to bring out the best in others.

• Teamwork: The ability to work with others toward a shared goal; participating actively, sharing responsibility and rewards and contributing to the capability of the team.



1.5 The ESCI-U

Students’ emotional and social competencies are measured using the ESCI-U, the education/university version of the ESCI.

Two additional competencies cover areas of cognitive ability relevant to the performance of students in further and higher education: Systems thinking and Pattern recognition.

1.6 How ESCI data are gathered

A 360-degree perspectiveThe ESCI is primarily used to gather 360-degree feedback data. Participants can choose to receive feedback from five groups of raters: their manager, team members, peers, clients/customers, and others. This provides participants with a range of perspectives on their behaviors.

Use of self-assessment scoresSelf-assessment data alone may be useful as the basis for developmental discussion, but they do not provide valid and reliable measures of emotionally and socially intelligent behavior. The 2016 data confirm that individuals who score low in Emotional self-awareness are more likely to significantly overrate themselves in other competencies (average Cohen’s d of 1.02), while those scoring high in Emotional self-awareness are more likely to moderately underrate themselves (average Cohen’s d of -0.55).

Using valid dataWhen using the ESCI, it is important to recognize that not all of the data collected may be usable. When the instrument is scored by Korn Ferry Hay Group, we discard data from a rater if the number of “don't know” responses exceeds 25%, indicating that the rater does not have enough information to accurately assess the participant. We therefore recommend that participants choose raters with whom they work on a regular basis, or who know them well.

To preserve raters’ confidentiality, we also insist on a minimum of two raters in each rating category (with the exception of the participant’s manager, where a single rater is permitted). If there is only one rater in a category, we do not include that category of rater in the final scores. Rater categories can also be combined to preserve confidentiality, if appropriate.

Finally, securing an accurate assessment of a participant’s emotional intelligence requires multiple raters. Each rater observes different aspects of the participant, which means that any one individual's perspective may be partial or skewed. We recommend a minimum of four to five raters, preferably with different perspectives of the participant drawn from different contexts.



1.7 How the ESCI is scored

What does a competency score represent?ESCI data are scored against a frequency range. Scores indicate how characteristic a behavior is for an individual. Raters are asked to assess how consistently an individual demonstrates the behavior described by each item on a five-point scale ranging as follows:

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Consistently

Each rater perspective is weighted equally. Scores are averaged across the relevant rater group (i.e., team members, peers, etc.). The “total others” score for each competency is the average across all rater groups (except self ratings). Raters’ surveys are accepted if they provide responses to 75% of the survey items.

An ESCI competency is considered to be a strength when the total others score—the average of all raters’ scores—is 4.3 or higher, meaning that the behavior is observed consistently.

Raters are asked how well they know the performance of the person for whom they are providing feedback. Responses, in a range from “Not at all well” to “Extremely well” are gathered for each rater group and reported as a percentage. This helps the participant make sense of their feedback in context: the higher the familiarity level, the more significant their raters’ feedback is for them. If a rater responds “Not at all well,” that rater’s survey responses are automatically rejected.

The level of rater agreement for rater groups with two or more raters is also reported as a percentage. The more consistent the scores within a rater group, the higher the agreement. Agreement level is determined from the difference between the highest and lowest raters’ scores as a percentage of the range of possible scores. Agreement can be low for a number of reasons. It may indicate that some raters are less familiar with a participant than others, or that raters interact with the participant in different situations and observe different behaviors.

The ESCI report allows participants to benchmark their scores against the norm group. The scores of participants at the 25th and 75th percentiles are shown for each competency in the feedback report.

Providing rater group choices and scores from the norm group presents participants with a broad perspective of how they are behaving across their work situations, as perceived by the different individuals and groups with whom they interact.



2. Delivering ESCI feedback

The ESCI shows participants how others experience their behavior in terms of the consistency with which they demonstrate emotional and social competencies. It helps participants appreciate their strengths, recognize how consistently they do certain things, and identify what they can do to be even more effective.

ESCI feedback can only be delivered by certified practitioners. For information on ESCI certification, contact your account manager. Use of the ESCI-U does not require certification.

The ESCI certification program helps practitioners gain a thorough understanding of the assessment and the feedback report and to experience and follow best practice in delivering ESCI data. The following is a summary—more detail is provided in the ESCI certification program materials.

2.1 Using the ESCI and ESCI-U

The ESCI and ESCI-U are used by practitioners for assessment and development and by researchers for studying the role of emotional intelligence in learning and performance. ESCI feedback can benefit individuals and groups in different roles and in a range of contexts.

In organizationsAt a group level, the ESCI can provide valuable data about human resource capability in business, not-for-profit, and public sector organizations. It is used to establish workforce strengths and development needs. Repeat use of the ESCI (e.g., retesting every year or so) enables organizations to respond quickly to capability issues and provides a summary of the condition of their human capital.

At an individual level, the ESCI—often combined with coaching—can help leaders and key contributors determine what outstanding performance means for them within their role and decide which competencies they want to work on.

The ESCI is not intended for use in HR resource management activities: selection, promotion, salary decisions, etc. Each competency measured by the ESCI may or may not be relevant to a specific job; therefore, it is inappropriate to use for resource decisions without first validating it against the performance requirements for that job. In addition, 360-degree assessment processes can be problematic when raters—participants and others—know that the data will be used to inform resource decisions.

The ESCI is best suited to development. The range of competencies that it measures is broad, providing feedback that participants can interpret in terms of their work context and their wider view of their own personal characteristics.

Korn Ferry Hay Group offers an extensive range of products and services to support the development of EI capabilities, including structured individual and leadership development training programs, workbooks, e-learning, and the new, self-directed FYI® for your improvement: Emotional Intelligence development guide. Please contact an account manager for the latest information on our offerings.

“The rules for work are changing. We’re being judged by a new yardstick: not just by how smart we are, but by how we handle ourselves and each other.”Daniel Goleman – Working with Emotional Intelligence (p. 3, 1998)



In educationStudents’ competencies are measured using the ESCI-U, the education/university version of the ESCI. This assessment is widely used in colleges and universities by educators who see EI competencies as the building blocks of students’ capacity to understand and work with others, understand and motivate themselves, and learn effectively. Some institutions use the ESCI-U as an outcome assessment across their student population to determine what their students are learning. This is useful in program improvements and accreditation reviews. Others use it to help students become more self-aware and engaged learners and to help teaching staff respond more effectively to their students’ needs.

In researchWe welcome research proposals from those using the ESCI. If your proposal meets our criteria, you will be offered access to our self-serve website for data collection. In return, we ask that you provide us with a copy of your research data and results.

Choosing the right instrument for the situationOur ESCI and ESCI-U instruments are available for use with specific participants in specific types of organizations:

Table 1. ESCI and ESCI-U

ESCI ESCI-U

Purpose For use in business organizations (public and private).

For use in universities, colleges, schools (with post-16 students).

Participants Leaders, managers, professionals, and individual contributors.

Pre- or post-graduate students with limited work experience.

Competencies The 12 emotional and social intelligence competencies.

The 12 emotional and social intelligence competencies, plus two cognitive competencies: Systems thinking and Pattern recognition.

Benchmarking Extensive global norm group across roles and industries.

Not benchmarked.

Rater and feedback choices

Data gathered from and reported across five rater categories: manager, team member, peer, client/customer, other.

Data gathered from and reported across two rater categories: self and others (i.e., no subdivision of other raters).

Certification Certification is required to provide ESCI feedback.

Certification is not required to use the ESCI-U.

Delivery Online: self-service and full service. Online self-service, and paper-based.

Languages (determined by demand)

The ESCI survey, feedback report, and group report are currently available in 39 languages.

Translation of the ESCI-U survey and feedback report into the same languages as the ESCI is in progress.



2.2 Sharing ESCI feedback

Certified practitioners are encouraged to use the following coaching framework when sharing ESCI feedback:

Introducing the process: The participant and coach discuss how they will work together and contract on important issues, e.g., confidentiality.

Setting the context: A discussion about the participant’s role, current challenges, and career and life aspirations so that both understand what the participant hopes to gain from the feedback process.

Explaining EI: The coach supports the participant’s understanding of EI and the ESCI model.

Encouraging self-assessment: A discussion of the participant’s view of their own strengths and development needs. The coach assesses the participant’s self-awareness and identifies any potential blind spots.

Explaining the ESCI report: An explanation of the ESCI assessment and report format. A discussion about the people whom the participant approached for feedback and the participant’s relationship with them.

Exploring the data: The coach helps the participant make sense of their feedback data in relation to the participant’s perceptions of their personal characteristics, the demands of their work contexts, and the priorities of their roles. Discussing a participant’s ESCI feedback involves open exploration and the testing of any hypotheses that the coach has formed when reviewing the data, in particular:

� Any areas of surprise or concern at the summary level.

� Any gaps between the participant’s self-assessment and raters’ perceptions (total others).

� Any patterns surfacing in the responses of the different rater groups.

� The potential reasons for different perceptions.

� Any areas of detail that the participant wants to explore or that are critical to their role.



2.3 The ESCI feedback report

The ESCI feedback report provides an overview of the emotional and social competency model and detailed descriptions of each competency.

It helps participants make sense of their feedback and form a judgment about its validity for them, based on their raters’ familiarity with their behavior and the level of agreement between their raters.

It presents feedback data in a number of ways to support participants’ understanding of how they demonstrate their emotional and social competencies:

• Competency profile: A summary of self and total others scores for each competency.

• Competency detail: Detailed competency scores, by rater group, with competency definitions.

• Item detail: A distribution of ratings, by rater group, for each ESCI item.

• Verbatim comments: Feedback, as written by raters, about a participant’s behavior and performance.

Feedback report

ESCI

Emotional and Social Competency InventoryName: Lee

Client: Sample Client

Date of report: 1/31/2016

© 2016 Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman, and Korn Ferry. All rights reserved

The ESCI competency profile provides a summary of how all your raters observe you using the competencies. You can comparetheir perception with your self perception.

Competencies Total othersConsistency of demonstration

NeverRarely

SometimesOften

Consistently

Self-Awareness

Emotional Self-Awareness 3.9

Self-Management

Achievement Orientation 3.2

Adaptability 2.7

Emotional Self-Control 4.1

Positive Outlook 3.9

Social Awareness

Empathy 4.4

Organizational Awareness 3.5

Relationship Management

Conflict Management 3.2

Coach and Mentor 4.4

Influence 3.2

Inspirational Leadership 3.5

Teamwork 4.8

Total others Self Norm group

Lee | Report generated on 10/4/2016

ESCI competency profile

© 2016 Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman, and Korn Ferry. All rights reserved 7

The following tables show how your raters responded to each questionnaire item. It indicates, item by item, where raters'perceptions of your behavior agree or differ.

The bars on the 'Average rating' column represent the average item score for each rater group. The distribution of ratings,with a column for each point on the rating scale, are shown to the right of the bars. The number in each column indicatesthe number of raters who rated you on that point. The left most column labeled with a * indicates the number of raters whodid not answer the question.

Self-Awareness cluster Emotional Self-Awareness

# ITEM Rater group Average ratingNever - Consistently

*

34 Able to describe how own feelings affect ownactions

Self 4.0 1

Manager 4.0 1

People you lead 4.0 4

Peers 3.8 1 3

39 Describes underlying reasons for own feelings Self 4.0 1

Manager 4.0 1

People you lead 3.8 2 1 1

Peers 4.3 1 1 2

41 Aware of the connection between what ishappening and own feelings

Self 4.0 1

Manager 2.0 1


Peers 4.3 3 1

44 Shows awareness of own feelings Self 4.0 1

Manager 4.0 1

People you lead 4.5 2 2

Peers 4.3 3 1

48 Does not describe own feelings Self 4.0 1

Manager 4.0 1


Peers 4.3 1 3

Reversed item* Indicates that some of your assessors did not respond to this item


ESCI item detail


Continued

The ESCI competency detail provides scores by rater group. You can compare the perceptions of each of your rater groups with

your self perception and the norm group.

Self-AwarenessEmotional Self-Awareness

Recognizing how our emotions affect ourperformance. People who demonstrate thiscompetency know the signals that tell themwhat they're feeling, and use them as anongoing guide to how they are doing.

3.9 4.0

3.54.0 4.1

Consistently

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Total Others Self Manager People you lead Peers


ESCI competency detail


8

Continued

Strengths

SelfI take the time to understand and address employee concerns. I also look for opportunities to celebrate events and

accomplishments. I am sincerely interested in the development of my people. I am always willing to help them in any way

I can. Morale is really good in my department and turnover very low.ManagerLee is a real people person, has created a pleasant work environment and gets on well with the team. Lee treats

colleagues with respect, and always maintains self control - even in difficult situations. Team members feel comfortable

approaching Lee with problems, and team issues are dealt with quickly. Lee is good at developing the team, and guiding

them through any issues they have. Lee works well in difficult situations, and is very quick to spot potential issues in the

team. Lee is effective at day to day management, and manages well with a large number of reports.

People you leadGreat mentor & coach a very understanding/compassionate leader.PeersLee is a very caring and understanding manager with a great capacity to get on with people. Lee goes to great lengths

to keep everyone in the team happy and will often put others first.Lee has transformed HR''s recruitment activities. 10 years ago the department had no regard for the needs of the line

manager - it just ran it''s processes as prescribed and any specific needs were viewed as an inconvenience. Lee has

worked hard to create a climate in which team members automatically think of line managers as their customers. They

ask us what we need, they listen to our ideas, they''re prepared to try something different. Lee has created a sense of

stability within the team, and a positive team spirit that we all benefit from.Improvement areas

SelfI sometimes get caught up in the people side of things, and miss out on opportunities to articulate/communicate/enforce

standards. I need to be better about that.ManagerLee needs to focus more time on delivery. Lee allows personal relationships to get in the way of productivity. One or two

team members seem to take advantage of their good relationship with Lee, and do not deliver as they should. Lee needs


Verbatim comments


27

Continued



2.4 The ESCI group report

Introducing the ESCI across a team or group can amplify its impact. It is often easier for people to develop their capabilities when others around them are doing the same, and an organization can gain momentum when a number of employees build their understanding of the emotional and social intelligence competencies together.

ESCI data can be reported across several participants using the group report. Complementing the feedback report for individuals, the group report helps practitioners to identify overall strengths and development needs so that appropriate development can be arranged across teams, business units, or organizations.

Group report

ESCI

Emotional and Social Competency InventoryGroup report

Client: Sample Client

Date of report: 12/20/2016


The summary results help you to understand the strengths and development needs of the group. The chart below based on theTotal Others' scores represents the degree of consistency with which participants in the group demonstrate each competency.The dark blue bar shows the percentage of participants where the competency is seen as a strength in their individual report(with a competency score greater than or equal to 4.3). The light blue bar shows the percentage of participants who demonstratethe competency sometimes or often (with a competency score between 3 and 4.3). The gray bar shows the percentage ofparticipants who demonstrate the competency never or rarely (with a competency score less than 3).

A check next to a competency indicates that it is a strength across the group; 75% or more of the participants demonstrate thecompetency as a personal strength.

n = 30

Cluster/Competency Percentage of participants Strength

0 25 50 75 100

Self-Awareness

Emotional Self-Awareness 20 80

Self-Management

Achievement Orientation 20 80

Adaptability 23 77

Emotional Self-Control 20 70 10

Positive Outlook 30 70

Social Awareness

Empathy 20 80

Organizational Awareness 33 67

Relationship Management

Conflict Management 27 70 3

Coach and Mentor 23 77

Influence 30 70

Inspirational Leadership 23 70 7

Teamwork 23 77

consistently demonstrates (equivalent score 4.3 or above)

sometimes or often demonstrates (equivalent score between 3 and 4.3)

never or rarely demonstrates (equivalent score less than 3)75 % or more participants demonstrate the competency consistently

Group report | Report generated on 12/20/2016

Summary results


The charts below show how the group is perceived, overall, by the different types of raters listed. Use these charts to focus onany perspectives that are particularly important to understand.

Total Others shows the average across all perspectives, excluding self ratings.

Emotional Self-Awareness

Recognizing how our emotions affect our performance.People who demonstrate this competency know the signalsthat tell them what they're feeling, and use them as anongoing guide to how they are doing.

Percentage of participants

0 25 50 75 100

Total Others 20 80

Self 53 33 13

Manager 30 60 10

People you lead 30 70

Peers 30 63 7

Other 17 83

Achievement Orientation

Striving to meet or exceed a standard of excellence. Peoplewho demonstrate this competency look for ways to do thingsbetter, set challenging goals, and take calculated risks.

Percentage of participants

0 25 50 75 100

Total Others 20 80

Self 47 50 3

Manager 30 53 17

People you lead 30 63 7

Peers 30 57 13

Other 17 63 21

consistently demonstrates (equivalent score 4.3 or above)

sometimes or often demonstrates (equivalent score between 3 and 4.3)

never or rarely demonstrates (equivalent score less than 3)


Competency results by rater group


The chart below based on the Total Others' scores shows the discrete behaviors that this group demonstrates most consistently.

It shows the 10 items that raters scored highest for this group. These are ranked by highest average score.

Items that are shaded represent those that were scored in reverse.# Item

CompetencyAverage score Percentage of participants0

50100

56 Works well in teams by encouragingparticipation of everyone present Teamwork

4.2

40

60

13 Understands the values and culture ofthe team or organization Organizational Awareness

4.1

37

63

2 Sees the positive in people, situations,and events more often than the negative

Positive Outlook

4.1

33

67

8 Tries to resolve conflict instead ofallowing it to fester Conflict Management

4.1

33

67

17 Convinces others by using multipleapproaches

Influence

4.1

30

70

28 Seeks to improve own self by settingmeasurable and challenging goals

Achievement Orientation4.1

27

73

18 Remains calm in stressful situations Emotional Self-Control4.1

30

70

52 Coaches and mentors othersCoach and Mentor

4.1

37

63

34 Able to describe how own feelings affectown actions

Emotional Self-Awareness4.1

37

63

32 Provides feedback others find helpful fortheir development Coach and Mentor

4.1

30

70

Indicates reversed item

consistently demonstrates (equivalent score 4.3

or above)sometimes or often demonstrates (equivalent

score between 3 and 4.3)never or rarely demonstrates (equivalent score

less than 3)


Highest scoring items


10

Relationship Management: Conflict Management# Item

Percent of participants0

50

100

8 Tries to resolve conflict instead of allowing it to fester

33

67

14 Resolves conflict by de-escalating the emotions in a situation

33

60 7

15 Allows conflict to fester

1730

53

26 Tries to resolve conflict by openly talking about disagreements with those

involved

37

63

46 Resolves conflict by bringing it into the open

30

70

Relationship Management: Coach and Mentor# Item

Percent of participants0

50

100

22 Provides on-going mentoring or coaching

33

57 10

32 Provides feedback others find helpful for their development

30

70

47 Personally invests time and effort in developing others

33

63 3

52 Coaches and mentors others

37

63

54 Does not spend time developing others

1733

50

66 Cares about others and their development

37

60 3

indicates reversed item

consistently demonstrates (equivalent score 4.3 or above)sometimes or often demonstrates (equivalent score between 3 and

4.3)never or rarely demonstrates (equivalent score less than 3)


Item results by competency


16



3. The scientific foundation for the ESCI

The ESCI provides a behavioral measure of emotional and social intelligence competencies. Developed for business and education organizations, it achieves research level psychometric-based standards (Boyatzis, Gaskin, & Wei, 2015). The ESCI database has grown from 4,000 to nearly 80,000 participants, from 42,000 to nearly 700,000 non-self raters, and from 270 to over 2,200 organizations. Based on this growth, Korn Ferry Hay Group has updated the ESCI global norms, reviewed its psychometric-based properties, and gathered the most recent research.

3.1 The development of the ESCIKorn Ferry Hay Group pioneered the understanding of work, organizational context, and the role of human motivation, competencies, and self-image in performance and development. Our partnership with Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman provides ongoing research into the 360-degree assessment of behavioral EI. This work has resulted in the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI).

Measuring competencies in preference to intelligenceTwenty years of research, initiated by McClelland in 1973 with his seminal article, “Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence,” led to an understanding that competencies provided a reliable way of differentiating performance in a variety of organizations. This work was captured in the Hay/McBer Generic Competency Dictionary (1985). It provided the basis for Boyatzis’ Self- and external assessment questionnaires (Boyatzis, Cowen, & Kolb, 1995). These were developed to assess the competencies of MBA and executive students against the generic model of management at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University.

Measuring emotional intelligence – Development of the ECI and ECI-UExpanding upon Boyatzis’ well-established measure and Daniel Goleman’s Working with Emotional Intelligence (1998), Boyatzis and Goleman developed a pool of items designed to capture the full spectrum of emotional competencies. Together, with Hay/McBer consultants, they further refined these items to form the Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), drawing upon expert opinion and prior studies to include developmental scaling and target levels (Boyatzis & Goleman, 1996/1999).

Target levels were established through a modeling process in which the behaviors of effective and outstanding performers were differentiated. The levels of behavioral complexity that each group demonstrated revealed “tipping points” along the competency scales. These points became indicators of strength—target levels for those participants wanting to work toward high performance across the ECI.

A sample of over 10,000 ECIs, taken between March 1999 and May 2001 and providing total others scores on over 4,000 managers and professionals, was compiled and analyzed. The result was version 2 of the ECI (ECI-2) with robust psychometric-based standards for reliability, validity, and factor differentiation (Boyatzis & Sala, 2004).



Table 2. Development of the ESCI

Key events in the development of the ESCI

1973 David McClelland’s seminal article, “Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence,” initiates interest into the research of competencies and their application in organizations.

1982 Richard Boyatzis publishes The Competent Manager, an empirical approach to identifying the characteristics which enable managers to be effective in various management jobs.

1985 Hay/McBer’s Generic Competency Dictionary is first developed by Richard Boyatzis et al.

1991 Richard Boyatzis develops a self and external assessment questionnaire for use with MBA and executive students to assess managerial competencies.

1993 Signe and Lyle Spencer develop and document the generic competency dictionary in their book Competence at Work.

1996 The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) is developed by Boyatzis and Goleman, in partnership with Hay Group, measuring 22 competencies.

1998 Daniel Goleman’s Working with Emotional Intelligence draws on Boyatzis’ work and the Hay/McBer generic competency dictionary to identify core emotional competencies.

2002 Ongoing testing, analysis, development, and validation results in version 2 of the ECI, measuring a reduced number of competencies (18).

2007 Boyatzis and Hay Group consultants reconceptualize the ECI-2 as a measure of emotional and social intelligence competencies. A review of all competencies and items, along with factor analysis, lead to the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI) with a reduced number of competencies (12) and a higher psychometric-based standard.

2009-2011 Ongoing item review, testing, and analysis of the ESCI.

2010 ESCI norms derived from a data set consisting of 4,014 participants, 42,092 raters, and 273 organizations.

2011 Version 2 of the ESCI launched with 12 competency scales and 68 items.

2016 ESCI norms updated from a data set consisting of nearly 80,000 participants, nearly 700,000 non-self raters, and over 2,200 organizations.

“Emotional intelligence is important to job performance, physical and mental health, leadership and job satisfaction… We find convincing evidence that EI is ‘the sine qua non of leadership’ (p. 45, Walter et al., 2001).”(Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2014, p. 33)



Measuring emotional and social intelligence – Development of the ESCI and ESCI-UIn response to the professional research community’s requirement for high psychometric-based standards, Boyatzis and Goleman reconceptualized the ECI-2 as a measure of emotional and social intelligence competencies (Boyatzis, 2006). They reviewed every item and competency scale, applying factor analyses and revising them as necessary.

The resulting instrument, the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), was piloted with a total of 116 participants and 1,022 raters in the US and the UK. The psychometric-based standards achieved in the resulting statistical analyses provided reassurance that the ESCI focuses on observable, recognizable, distinct, and concise behaviors (Boyatzis, 2007).

Subsequent detailed analyses to verify the scale and factor structure of the ESCI, with 5,700 participants and 62,000 raters, further improved the factor loadings (Boyatzis & Gaskin, 2010), resulting in version 2 of the ESCI with slight changes to the items.

How the ESCI differs from the ECI-2The outcome of these developments is that the ESCI is now Korn Ferry Hay Group’s recommended instrument. It offers an even higher psychometric-based standard than the ECI-2, it is easier for participants and raters to complete, and it provides feedback with greater insight and relevance to a wider range of job roles and levels.

The ESCI continues to measure behavioral EI competencies, gather multi-rater perspectives, and help participants understand the themes and messages in their feedback. However, because the ESCI and ECI-2 differ in a number of ways, it is not helpful for participants to compare previous ECI-2 scores with current ESCI scores directly.

The changes made during the development of the ESCI are as follows:

Survey items

� The total number of items for the ESCI is 68, and for the ESCI-U is 70; the ECI-2 contained 72.

� Each competency scale has five items and most have an additional reverse-scored item.

� All items were reviewed and, where appropriate, rewritten to make them more concise and understandable. The intent of each competency was written into each item to ensure that the responder is answering the intended question and providing insightful feedback.

� All the revised items were piloted.



Competencies

The ESCI contains 12 competencies, the ECI-2 contained 18. The ESCI-U has two additional competencies: Pattern recognition and Systems thinking. Competencies that did not appear valid as separate scales were merged, removed, or renamed:

� Emotional self-awareness and Accurate self-assessment showed considerable correlation and were merged. The label Emotional self-awareness captured the essence of the new competency.

� Achievement orientation and Initiative showed considerable correlation and were merged. The label Achievement orientation captured the essence of the new competency.

� Self-confidence was removed for two reasons. First, it was not sufficiently distinguishable from Achievement orientation. Second, it was considered that different cultural norms result in too much variation in how Self-confidence is demonstrated by participants and observed by others.

� Transparency was removed. It did not distinguish itself statistically, is difficult to observe and assess, and has limitations in coaching and development settings.

� Service orientation was removed because it was clear that it described the application of Empathy to customers and clients.

� Change catalyst was removed because it was highly correlated with Achievement orientation and described its consequence.

� Optimism was renamed as Positive outlook, better describing the behaviors expected.

� Developing others was renamed as Coach and mentor, better describing the behaviors expected.

Competency strength

� ESCI competencies do not have developmental levels, or levels of complexity, as they did in the ECI-2. All ESCI items have the same value, or weight, and item scores are averaged to give an overall competency score.

� The ESCI asks raters to report how often a person demonstrates the behavior described in each item. The feedback report provides an insight into the level of consistency with which a competency is demonstrated.

� The ECI-2 applied an algorithm, or formula, to indicate effectiveness based on the combination of certain competencies. The ESCI does not use an algorithm so that participants and coaches are free to decide which competencies are most important within a given role.

� An ESCI competency is considered to be a strength when the total others score—the average of all raters’ scores—is 4.3 or higher, meaning that the behavior is observed consistently.

� The ESCI report allows participants to benchmark their scores against the global norm. The scores of participants at the 25th and 75th percentiles are shown for each competency in the feedback report.



For certified practitioners who are experienced in using the ECI-2, Table 3 compares the two instruments and describes the benefits of the ESCI:

Table 3. Comparison of ESCI and ECI-2

ESCI ECI-2

Number of competencies 12 18

Number of items 68 72

Scoring Frequency of observed behavior: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Consistently.

Level of complexity of observed behavior: 1 to 4.

Grouping of competencies Competencies clustered according to the four quadrants of the model, allowing participants to identify the behaviors that support their personal preferences, roles, and work contexts.

An algorithm generated the clusters, within which the competencies were complementary, compensatory, and alternate manifestations.

Indication of strength Strength is indicated when the “total others” score – the average of all raters’ scores – is 4.3 or higher, meaning that the behavior is observed consistently.

A stretching target, appropriate only to leaders and key talent.

Strength was indicated by a participant’s achievement of a mix of competencies at the appropriate levels to meet the algorithm criteria.

Psychometric-based standard Research standards of reliability and validity.

Acceptable reliability and validity. Some instability between competency scales.



3.2 The 2016 review

In the five years since our last review, the ESCI database has grown significantly.

It now contains nearly 20 times the number of participants, over 15 times the number of raters, and over 8 times the number of organizations. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the key database changes.

Update of the ESCI normsScoring by total others (non-self) raters is very similar to that in 2010. The final balanced sample consists of data from the following:

Table 4. Final balanced sample

2016 norm group 2010 norm group

Total number of participants 79,731 4,014

Total number of non-self raters 655,806 42,092

Total number of organizations 2,276 273

Aggregate statistics for number of raters per participantFor total others ratings, the aggregate statistics are as follows:

Table 5. Aggregate statistics

ESCI 2016 norm group

Total number of participants with total others scores 67,604

Total number of participants with self scores only 12,127

Mean raters per participant 9.7

Mode raters per participant 7

Standard deviation 5.7

Participants rated by 1-9 raters 55.9%

Participants rated by 1-20 raters 95.7%



Inter-competency correlations for the ESCIThe review of inter-competency correlations confirms that each ESCI competency describes a distinct, discernible behavior. The correlations are expected to be high because the competencies are functionally related—that is, when a person uses one, there are certain others they are also likely to be invoking. For example, it is expected that if a person is showing the behaviors in the Teamwork competency, they are also using behaviors in the Empathy competency to assist or lay a foundation for understanding the others in the team.

The following tables show the Pearson correlations (p < .001, two-tailed, for all competencies) for total others and self scores for:

1 Achievement orientation

2 Adaptability

3 Coach and mentor

4 Conflict management

5 Empathy

6 Emotional self-awareness

7 Emotional self-control

8 Inspirational leadership

9 Influence

10 Organizational awareness

11 Positive outlook

12 Teamwork

Inter-competency correlations

Table 6. Total others scores

Note: The global sample has been weighted to ensure no single organization exceeds 5% overall. N = 67,468

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 1

2 .774 1

3 .661 .718 1

4 .711 .694 .711 1

5 .643 .731 .760 .742 1

6 .586 .604 .662 .657 .737 1

7 .540 .658 .645 .541 .735 .466 1

8 .727 .763 .749 .836 .751 .674 .554 1

9 .688 .795 .731 .736 .762 .671 .589 .800 1

10 .676 .791 .698 .711 .781 .661 .605 .749 .805 1

11 .679 .724 .678 .659 .694 .605 .648 .753 .706 .663 1

12 .719 .746 .770 .752 .865 .674 .742 .769 .752 .778 .740 1



Inter-competency correlations continued

Table 7. Self scores

Note: The global sample has been weighted to ensure no single organization exceeds 5% overall. N = 65,624

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 1

2 .482 1

3 .439 .401 1

4 .380 .424 .438 1

5 .360 .423 .452 .439 1

6 .352 .346 .380 .398 .518 1

7 .289 .431 .283 .402 .442 .209 1

8 .453 .476 .624 .489 .459 .386 .329 1

9 .356 .506 .416 .394 .468 .384 .287 .492 1

10 .356 .490 .369 .362 .504 .405 .314 .418 .515 1

11 .439 .491 .420 .417 .424 .344 .417 .513 .396 .374 1

12 .426 .445 .480 .474 .566 .385 .468 .510 .424 .469 .469 1



3.3 Reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency or dependability of scores on an assessment. Scores on unreliable assessments have a substantial amount of error, or noise. In contrast, scores on a reliable assessment have relatively little error. They contain a strong signal that reflects individuals’ true standing on what is being measured. In general, the reliability of an assessment can be viewed as the signal portion of the signal to noise ratio. Assessments with relatively large proportions of signal yield more consistent scores.

There are several ways of estimating an assessment’s reliability. None is perfect. Whenever possible, multiple methods of evaluating reliability should be used. Here, we discuss the internal consistency and interrater agreement of the ESCI scales.

The 2016 data enabled an assessment of the ESCI’s internal consistency with a much larger and more diverse sample. This section also provides interrater agreement values that support our approach to aggregating scores across raters. No data are provided on test-retest reliability, as participants who complete the ESCI more than once have typically undergone some intervention or targeted development work between assessments and so changes in their scores would be anticipated.



Internal consistency for the ESCICronbach’s alpha is one of the most widely used approaches to estimating reliability. Its popularity is in part due to the fact that it can be computed from scores collected during a single administration of an assessment. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha tends to yield a conservative, lower-bound estimate of reliability (Osburn, 2000). When Cronbach’s alpha is acceptably high, it suggests that other methods of estimating reliability will yield even more favorable results. For scales used in research, Devellis (2003) defines a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 to .80 as respectable and a value above .80 as very good.

Cronbach’s alpha reflects the internal consistency of a scale or measure. Evaluating the internal consistency of the ESCI is done to help ensure that all the items associated with a specific competency relate to each other.

Cronbach’s alphas for ESCI competencies

Cronbach’s alphas computed separately for self and non-self (total others) raters. All values for non-self raters are .85 or greater, indicating very good internal consistency for the ESCI scales.

Table 8. Cronbach’s alphas for ESCI competencies

ESCI cluster Competency Total others raters(N = 679,039)

Self raters(N = 77,802)

Self-awareness Emotional self-awareness 0.87 0.79

Self-management Achievement orientation 0.88 0.78

Adaptability 0.87 0.75

Emotional self-control 0.90 0.85

Positive outlook 0.90 0.85

Social awareness Empathy 0.88 0.71

Organizational awareness 0.87 0.76

Relationship management Coach and mentor 0.93 0.87

Conflict management 0.85 0.75

Influence 0.85 0.72

Inspirational leadership 0.89 0.77

Teamwork 0.90 0.77



Interrater agreement for the ESCIEvaluating interrater agreement for ESCI scores provides evidence to support the aggregation of scores across raters. One widely used measure of interrater agreement is the rWG(J) index (Cohen, Doveh, & Nahum-Shani, 2009) which was developed by James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984, 1993). In their comprehensive review of the ESCI, Boyatzis, Gaskin, and Wei (2015) cite the following:

“Badri (2013), using a sample of 468 respondents, reported the following rWG(J) for each competency: Emotional self-awareness, 0.86; Achievement orientation, 0.94; Adaptability, 0.95; Emotional self-control, 0.92; Positive outlook, 0.95; Empathy, 0.92; Organizational awareness, 0.92; Coach and mentor, 0.91; Influence, 0.93; Conflict management, 0.88; Inspirational leadership, 0.94; and Teamwork, 0.97 (p. 250).”

All of these values are well in excess of the threshold of 0.70, the level at which aggregating rater scores is considered appropriate (Cohen et al., 2009). They also all fall into the category that Brown and Hauenstein (2005) would call strong agreement (i.e., values of .80 and higher).

3.4 Model fit

Another important feature of an assessment is the extent to which the observed pattern of relationships among its items and scales reflect the underlying model that the assessment was designed to measure. A strong model fit indicates that the items are organized into the appropriate scales and that the scales are meaningful. This supports the interpretation of the feedback provided by the assessment.

In a recently published chapter in the Handbook of Intelligence, Boyatzis, Gaskin, and Wei (2015) described the results of their thorough review of the ESCI and the ESCI-U. They noted that exploratory factor analysis showed that for both the ESCI and the ESCI-U, items load on the appropriate (predicted) factor. In addition, confirmatory factor analyses, performed separately for self and total others ratings, showed that most fit indices supported the models for both the ESCI and ESCI-U. For example, RMSEA was < .05 for all four models (self and total others for both ESCI and ESCI-U). As is often the case with large sample sizes, the chi-square ratios were substantial, which may account for the chi-square to df ratio being outside the typical standards. Overall, the research on model fit supports the interpretability of ESCI and ESCI-U scales.



3.5 Criterion validity

During the decades of development leading to the ESCI, research into EI has been widespread. Alongside Boyatzis’ and Korn Ferry Hay Group’s ongoing reviews and studies, EI has become a focus for academic investigation. More than a quarter of a million participants in business organizations and education institutions around the world have received ESCI and ECI feedback, providing a rich source of data.

During this time, the nature of this research work has changed. Early studies focused on the ECI’s and ESCI’s validity in a general sense—its capacity to measure what it was designed to measure. Recent work has focused on the criterion validity of the ESCI, evaluating the extent to which scores on ESCI competencies relate to outcomes of interest. In addition, research has demonstrated the incremental validity of the ESCI—the extent to which the ESCI can provide unique predictive value to real-world outcomes beyond that provided by intelligence and personality (Boyatzis, 2016).

The following sections on the criterion validity of the ESCI summarize recent research findings from a number of different countries. They investigate a range of workplace outcomes in different contexts, often business organizations within which Korn Ferry Hay Group or other researchers are studying or providing consultancy services. They explore the use of emotional and social intelligence behaviors by leaders and employees in different roles, along with other factors that affect outcomes. They also offer recommendations for the use of emotional and social intelligence competencies in HR practices.

Most of these studies use the ESCI, the ESCI-U, or parts of these instruments. Others use interview techniques to gather behavioral data and code it against ESCI competencies. They build on decades of research studies that focused on the ECI and ECI-U. Summaries of the ECI and ECI-U studies are included in Section 3.6 “Criterion validity studies using the ECI or ECI-U.”

Each study provides distinct insights into how emotional and social intelligence affects outcomes in a specific setting. Together they illustrate the difference that EI can make to performance and engagement at work. They reveal how important it is for leadership and talent practitioners to engage with what EI means for their organizations.

Criterion validation studies build our understanding of EI and organizational outcomes, including leadership performance, financial performance, team climate, and engagement. They help organizations understand the full impact of using the ESCI so that they can maximize its benefits for their leaders and employees. If you are interested in working with us to conduct an ESCI validation study, please contact your Korn Ferry Hay Group account manager.

3.5.1 Comparisons across data from Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership and employee effectiveness surveysOur 2016 update of the ESCI allowed us to conduct the following study investigating trends since our 2010 review, as well as exploring the relationships between ESCI competencies and data gathered from the Korn Ferry Hay Group Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys and our Employee Effectiveness Survey (Kerr, in press). The findings reinforce the central role that ESCI competencies play in employee and leadership performance.



Are people becoming more emotionally and socially intelligent?

Since 2010, our ESCI database has grown significantly. It now contains nearly 20 times more participants and over 8 times more client organizations. What do these data tell us? Is this increased engagement with EI translating into increased capability?

When individuals demonstrate an ESCI competency consistently (i.e., with an average total others score of 4.3 and above), they can feel confident that it is a strength for them. The comparison between our 2010 and 2016 data is encouraging:

� The proportion of participants who demonstrate no ESCI strengths has remained stable at around 20%.

� The proportion who demonstrate three or fewer ESCI strengths has fallen from 52% to 48%.

� The proportion who demonstrate nine or more ESCI strengths has increased from 16% to 19%.

The behavioral bell curve appears to be shifting to the right. A growing interest in emotional and social intelligence is showing signs of impacting individuals’ capabilities as well as their organizations’ aspirations.

Detailed investigation shows that participants continue to be strongest in the competencies that typically define baseline employability: Achievement orientation, Teamwork, and Organizational awareness. Those that require most development are the more complex personal and interpersonal qualities: Emotional self-awareness, Influence, Empathy, and Inspirational leadership. These competencies reinforce the importance of coaching and support, and the data go on to reveal other findings that inform ESCI coaching practice.

Does Emotional self-awareness support overall EI capability?

Practitioners and participants alike ask most questions about Emotional self-awareness. Deep-seated and difficult to observe, it can be challenging for raters to score. Its role in participants’ overall demonstration of EI is something we continue to explore.

As we discovered in 2010, Emotional self-awareness lies at the heart of emotional and social intelligence (Havers, 2010). Participants with high Emotional self-awareness display strength in more of all the other ESCI competencies. The 2016 database shows that:

� A participant who demonstrates Emotional self-awareness never or rarely is likely to show strength in just one ESCI competency.

� A participant who demonstrates Emotional self-awareness often or consistently is likely to show strength in 10 ESCI competencies.

Figure 2. Average number of ESCI strengths based on total others Emotional self-awareness (ESA) score

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.0

Ave

rag

e nu

mb

er

of

ESC

I str

eng

ths

10.0

ESA high

5.3

ESA medium to high

2.3

ESA low to medium

1.0

ESA low



Emotional self-awareness remains a pivotal competency for employees and leaders. Without it, an individual’s chance of demonstrating strength in other EI behaviors is low. With it, they are likely to shine in all other competencies. The 2016 data give practitioners an insight into the specific competencies, all strongly related to leadership capability, which may need development if Emotional self-awareness is low.

Table 9. Impact of Emotional self-awareness scores

Impact of Emotional self-awareness (ESA) scores on other ESCI competencies

Participants requiring development:in the high ESA scoring group

in the low ESA scoring group

Self-management Achievement orientation 0% 10%

Adaptability 0% 19%

Emotional self-control 0% 18%

Positive outlook 0% 17%

Social awareness Empathy 0% 40%

Organizational awareness 0% 13%

Relationship management

Coach and mentor 0% 31%

Conflict management 1% 39%

Influence 0% 36%

Inspirational leadership 1% 48%

Teamwork 0% 16%

Of those low in Emotional self-awareness, around 40% are likely to require development to strengthen their Inspirational leadership, Empathy, and Conflict management. A third are likely to need help with Influence and Coach and mentor. The significance of the first three of these competencies is reinforced when ESCI data are compared with leaders’ Korn Ferry Hay Group Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 data.

Does EI strengthen a leader’s impact?

The purpose of investing in emotional and social intelligence is to enable employees to be more effective, engaged, and satisfied, and to equip leaders to maintain this experience for their team members. Getting the work climate right is one of the key drivers of team performance, and leaders play the biggest part in making it happen.

Korn Ferry Hay Group’s recent update of the Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys (Hay Group 2015a, 2015b), so close to the ESCI norm update, offered a unique chance to compare these databases alongside each other. The availability of data from participants on our Making Great Leaders program enabled us to focus on 2,052 leaders who completed ESCI and Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys within a six-week period. This analysis answered new questions about how leaders use their emotional and social intelligence to be effective.



How do we measure team climate?

The Korn Ferry Hay Group Organizational Climate survey measures the six dimensions of climate that have the biggest impact on team performance:

• Clarity: People know what is expected of them and how they contribute to organizational goals.

• Standards: Challenging but attainable goals are set for the organization and its employees.

• Flexibility: There are no unnecessary rules and procedures, and new ideas are acted upon.

• Responsibility: People are empowered to get on with their job and held accountable for it.

• Rewards: Good performance is recognized and rewarded, and people know what they do well and what they need to improve.

• Team commitment: People are proud to belong to the organization, and collaborate towards a common objective.

The survey asks team members to rate the climate they currently experience and their ideal climate—what they need to help them perform at their best. Effective leaders create high levels on each climate dimension and as close as possible to their team members’ ideal levels. They do it by understanding what needs to change in their team’s climate, by using their leadership styles to make it happen, and by drawing on their competencies to sustain their efforts. This process is captured in the Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership effectiveness model:

Leadership styles

Team climate Results

70%50%

A leader’s individual qualities

The demands of the leadership job/situation

of the variance in team climate can be explained by di�erences in leadership style

of the variance in financial results can be explained by di�erences in team climate

30%

Does Emotional self-awareness help leaders create positive team climates?

In exploring the relationships between ESCI competencies and leadership effectiveness, we started with Emotional self-awareness, the heart of EI. We compared leaders’ Emotional self-awareness scores with their Climate Index, an overall measure of leadership impact. Based on an individual’s current climate scores and the gaps between current and ideal across all six dimensions, Climate Index is benchmarked against other leaders and reported by quartiles.

We discovered that only 5% of leaders with low Emotional self-awareness created top quartile climates for their teams, compared with 62% of leaders with high Emotional self-awareness. If an employee’s manager has low Emotional self-awareness, the employee’s chance of being in a team that does little to support their performance is high.



Table 10. Leaders’ Emotional self-awareness compared with Climate Index

Percentage of leaders, by Climate Index, with:

Climate Index High Emotional self-awareness Low Emotional self-awareness

Top quartile 62% 5%

Above average 19% 12%

Below average 14% 24%

Bottom quartile 5% 59%

Do other specific EI competencies support positive climates?

The ESCI model gives people 12 distinct competencies to work with. It allows them to compare their feedback with their leadership situation and make choices: to use their strengths more frequently, to work on underdeveloped or underused competencies, or both. But do any specific competencies stand out for leaders? Do the data reveal relationships between specific competencies and climate?

A deeper dive into the data revealed the following positive and significant correlations (p < 0.0001):

� Leaders with high scores in Conflict management are likely to create the most positive climates overall (r = .58).

� Inspirational leadership comes second in the strength of its relationship with climate (r = .56).

� In close third place is Empathy (r = .54).

These findings equip practitioners to give confident guidance to leaders using leaders’ ESCI feedback to improve their impact. The findings give coaches permission to focus attention on the personal and interpersonal qualities that support the more obvious leadership skills, particularly on Emotional self-awareness, which is emerging as foundational to strength in all other competencies. They also provide insight for individuals who are not yet leaders, indicating those who are most likely to be successful in a leadership position.

When climate is low, how accurately does the leader’s boss observe what is happening?

ESCI feedback allows an individual to compare the average scores of different groups of raters: their manager, their team members, their peers, and others. Managers are typically the lowest scoring group: their perception of emotional and social intelligence often appears more discerning than that of other raters. The 2016 data allowed us to investigate how leaders’ Climate Index scores varied with their EI scores, comparing the perceptions of their team members with those of their own managers.

We investigated leaders’ Climate Index data against the three ESCI competencies with the biggest gaps between manager and team members’ scores: Conflict management, Inspirational leadership, and Empathy. Higher scores in all three ESCI competencies were related to more positive team climates. However, we also found that when team members experience a positive climate, they score their leader’s ESCI competencies more positively than their leader’s manager does. When team members experience a negative climate, they score their leader’s ESCI competencies more negatively than their leader’s manager does.



Figure 3. Climate Index for the competencies with the largest gaps between manager and team member scores

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Bottom quartile

Below average

Above average

Top quartile

Mea

n co

mp

eten

cy s

core

Climate Index

Conflict management

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Bottom quartile

Below average

Above average

Top quartile

Climate Index

Empathy

Manager scores

Team members' scores

Climate Index

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Bottom quartile

Below average

Above average

Top quartile

IInspirational leadership

This finding is of real value to leaders who receive ESCI and Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 feedback. It offers an important reminder that team members’ experiences matter most in understanding climate and its impact on their performance. It also reveals that when it comes to assessing a leader’s behavior, their team members’ bottom-up observations are likely to be more discerning than their manager’s top-down perspective.

Does EI strengthen a leader’s approach?

The Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership effectiveness model demonstrates that effective leaders draw on their capabilities to sustain their use of a wide range of leadership styles, ready to respond to different situations, challenges, and team members. This enables them to create and maintain team climates that support performance. ESCI feedback helps them use and develop the competencies that are most effective, given their situation and their capabilities.

The data from 2,052 leaders who completed ESCI Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys within a six-week period enabled us to explore how leaders use their emotional and social intelligence in their leadership.



How do we measure leadership styles?

The Korn Ferry Hay Group Leadership Styles survey measures the six leadership styles that have the biggest impact on climate:

• Visionary: Providing long-term direction and context.

• Participative: Building commitment and generating new ideas.

• Coaching: Supporting long-term development.

• Affiliative: Creating trust and harmony.

• Pacesetting: Accomplishing tasks to high standards.

• Directive: Gaining immediate compliance.

Effective leaders have multiple styles in their toolkit, equipping them to respond flexibly to changing demands. However, the styles are different in nature. The Visionary, Participative, and Coaching styles are best for working toward long-term goals: they create the conditions for the employee engagement, involvement, and development required to deliver over time. The Directive and Pacesetting styles are best reserved for short-term fixes: addressing the situation when there is a drop in standards or the job is not being done. Overuse of these styles typically has a negative impact on team climate.

The Leadership Styles survey asks team members to rate the styles that they observe their leader using. Leaders can compare this with their own view of their leadership styles—their intended approach.

Do specific EI competencies support the leadership styles?

ESCI feedback enables leaders to play to their strengths as well as develop their weaker competencies. But do any specific competencies stand out for leaders? Do the data reveal relationships between specific competencies and specific leadership styles?

We explored the intuitive relationships, hypothesized by Korn Ferry Hay Group expert practitioners, and confirmed the following positive and significant correlations (p < 0.0001):

� Inspirational leadership with the Visionary leadership style (r = .60).

� Teamwork with the Participative style (r = .50).

� Coach and mentor with the Coaching style (r = .48).

� Empathy with the Affiliative style (r = .52).

� For leaders with high Achievement orientation, use of the Pacesetting style is higher for those with lower Positive outlook scores (Cohen’s d = 0.24). Those who maintain their Positive outlook are less likely to take work back from their team members and, consequently, will be better at delegating effectively.



These findings equip practitioners to give confident guidance to leaders who are using ESCI feedback to improve their approach. Other more detailed relationships also emerged that reveal the importance of developing specific competencies. Given the strong correlation between climate and leadership styles, it is no surprise to observe again the importance of a few key competencies:

� Leaders with high scores in Conflict management are likely to be strong in their use of the long-term leadership styles: Coaching (r = .63), Visionary (r = .59), Affiliative (r = .53), and Participative (r = .52). It also helps them hold back on their use of the Pacesetting style (r = -.44). Conflict management stands out from the data as one of the most significant competencies, potentially an emerging key indicator for effective leadership, and one that strengthens with age and experience.

� Inspirational leadership comes second in support of Coaching (r = .59), Participative (r = .53), and Affiliative (r = .50), as well as Visionary (r = .60) and restraining Pacesetting (r = -.40).

� In close third place is Empathy in support of Visionary (r = .53), Coaching (r = .52), and Participative (r = .52), as well as Affiliative (r = .52) and restraining Pacesetting (r = -.37).

� Use of the Directive style is typically restrained by leaders who are strong in Empathy (r = -.29), Teamwork (r = -.30) and, most significantly, Emotional self-control (r = -.37).

� The significance of Emotional self-awareness emerged again. Leaders with high scores are likely to be strong in the long-term styles: Visionary (r = .50), Coaching (r = .47), Participative (r = .46), and Affiliative (r = .49).

Does EI broaden a leader’s range of leadership styles?

Developing a range of leadership styles takes practice. It requires leaders to make clear and accurate links between the demands of a situation and their choice of behaviors. So, how significant are EI competencies in equipping leaders to develop strength and flexibility in their leadership styles?

Our overall measure of leadership strength is the Leadership Styles Index. Based on an individual’s six leadership styles scores, weighted to reflect their impact on climate, the index is benchmarked against other leaders and reported by quartiles. The relationships between ESCI strengths and Leadership Styles Index scores show that demonstrating just some ESCI competencies consistently can make all the difference:

� Leaders demonstrating six ESCI competencies consistently are typically top quartile for leadership strength.

� Those demonstrating four competencies are typically above average for leadership strength.

� Those demonstrating two competencies are typically below average for leadership strength.

� Those demonstrating only one ESCI competency consistently are typically bottom quartile for leadership strength.



Dominant leadership styles, those that a leader demonstrates most frequently, make a difference to a team’s climate. The more dominant long-term styles in a leader’s toolkit, the greater their capacity to support their team’s performance. The relationships between ESCI strengths and dominant leadership styles show how the number and type of styles accessible to a leader typically changes with ESCI strength:

� With two or fewer ESCI strengths, leaders are typically able to draw upon only one or two leadership styles. A deeper dive into the data reveal that these are most likely to be the short-term styles that typically result in negative climates: Directive and Pacesetting.

� With three to nine ESCI strengths, leaders tend to show signs of holding back on the short-term styles and using the long-term Visionary, Participative, Coaching, and Affiliative styles more often.

� With ten or more ESCI strengths, leaders typically use the long-term styles frequently and the short-term styles only when required.

Figure 4. Changes in the number of leadership styles with ESCI strength

Ave

rag

e nu

mb

er

of

do

min

ant

lead

ersh

ip s

tyle

s

1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9

2.4 2.32.6

2.8 2.8

3.33.6

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Average number of ESCI strengths

Does a leader’s EI boost employee effectiveness?

Korn Ferry Hay Group’s Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys provide feedback that helps individual leaders understand and improve their effectiveness. Our Employee Effectiveness Survey measures employee engagement and enablement across an organization, identifying specific factors that prevent employees from performing at their best.

Our 2016 data contained 867 employees who had completed the ESCI for their managers and the Employee Effectiveness Survey. It should be noted that when an employee completes the ESCI, their focus is on their manager’s behavior; when they complete the Employee Effectiveness Survey, their focus is on their organization. This analysis, therefore, compared data on two different “targets,” collected at slightly different times. This removes the likelihood of an employee providing an overall response, regardless of the survey. It provides a fascinating perspective of the impact that a leader has on their team members compared with how their team members feel about working for the organization.



How do we measure employee effectiveness?

The Employee Effectiveness Survey goes beyond a typical employee satisfaction survey. As well as measuring how motivated and engaged employees feel, it also identifies the factors that help or hinder them in their work. By reporting both engagement and enablement drivers, the Employee Effectiveness Survey helps organizations understand and address their particular barriers to employee and organizational performance.

Figure 5. Employee Effectiveness Survey framework

1. Clear and promising direction2. Confidence in leaders3. Quality and customer focus4. Respect and recognition5. Development opportunities6. Compensation and benefits

7. Performance management8. Authority and empowerment9. Resources10. Training11. Collaboration12. Work, structure and process

Performance drivers configured to each client’s business priorities

EngagementCommitted and loyal people, willing to go the extra mile.

EnablementThe right people in the right roles, in an enabling work environment.

Engaged Performance™

Customer loyalty

Strong employer brand

Operational excellence

Financial performance

Attract and retain talent

The results they achieveWhat our surveys measure

Does a leader’s EI increase employee effectiveness?

Comparing team members’ Employee Effectiveness Survey responses with their scores for their managers’ EI confirmed that emotionally and socially intelligent leaders engage and enable their team members:

� Overall, ESCI competency scores relate positively and significantly with employee effectiveness (mean r of .31, p < .001 for all correlations).

� Every ESCI competency relates positively and significantly with every engagement and enablement driver.

The establishment of engagement and enablement drivers may emerge from top-down strategy and policy, but leaders who demonstrate ESCI competencies sustain employee effectiveness across their organizations.

Does ESCI strength increase employee retention?

One of the key indicators of employee effectiveness that leaders have most influence over is retention. The 2016 data allowed us to compare leaders’ ESCI scores with the employees’ tenure plans: the length of time that they intend to remain in their organization.



Across this sample of 867 employees, 21.6% reported the intention to leave within two years. However, their plans varied considerably according to their perception of their leaders’ ESCI strengths:

� For leaders demonstrating three or fewer ESCI competencies consistently (ESCI strengths), 42% of team members planned to remain for at least five years.

� Those with four to seven ESCI strengths were likely to retain 53% of their team members for at least five years.

� Those with eight or more ESCI strengths could hope to retain 69% of their team members for at least five years.

Figure 6. Leaders’ ESCI strengths compared with employees’ tenure plans

29%

20%16%

30% 27%

15%

42%

53%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 12

Per

cent

age

of

emp

loye

es

ESCI strengths

Planning to leave within 2 years

Planning to leave 3-5 years

Planning to stay 5+ years or until retirement

For team members intending to leave within one year, even low levels of emotional and social intelligence in their leaders can make a difference:

� 6% who observe their leader demonstrating at least one ESCI strength intend to leave imminently.

� This nearly doubles to 11% for those who observe their leader demonstrating no ESCI strengths.

These findings give reassurance that even very focused and targeted EI development can pay off. Demonstrating strength in just one competency leads to more motivated and engaged employees, lower turnover, and reduced cost of hire. Broader EI development can positively impact longer-term employee retention.

Which ESCI competencies have the biggest relationship with employee retention?

To investigate the impact of specific ESCI competencies, we compared the scores of two groups of team members: those intending to stay at least five years and those planning to leave within two years. Their scores differed significantly across all competencies; all effect sizes (as measured with Cohen’s d) were medium.



Their perceptions of their leaders’ emotional and social intelligence differed the most for Coach and mentor (Cohen’s d = 0.58), Conflict management (0.53), and Inspirational leadership and Organizational awareness (both 0.46). These were followed by Achievement orientation (0.45), Teamwork (0.44), and Empathy (0.43).

These findings equip practitioners to give confident guidance to leaders using the leaders’ ESCI feedback to improve their team members’ effectiveness.

3.5.2 Financial services leaders – PerformanceThis study (Boyatzis, Good, & Massa, 2012) investigated how emotional and social intelligence competencies, cognitive intelligence, and personality affected the performance of 60 financial services sales leaders. The purpose was to assess what predictive value EI has in terms of impact on performance, beyond that provided by personality factors and intelligence. One of the key factors affecting the organization’s financial results was the ability of its sales leaders to recruit and train new sales staff, since they helped to offset losses when more experienced staff left the organization and took their clients with them. Accordingly, the number of new financial advisors joining their team over a one-year period was used as the objective outcome measure for participant performance. Since the size of their division was strongly correlated with the performance outcome variable, it was used as a control variable in all analyses.

The study’s overall findings were:

� Emotional and social intelligence, as measured by the ESCI, predicted performance. ESCI total others scores, combined across the 12 competencies, were significantly positively related to the number of new recruits (r = .33, p < .01).

� Conscientiousness, as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), predicted performance. This was the only one of the Big Five traits that related to the number of new recruits (r = .30, p < .05).

� Cognitive intelligence, as measured by Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1962) and the Mill Hill Vocabulary (MHV) Scale (Raven, 1982), did not predict performance. Nor did it correlate with any other variable in the study, including ESCI scores.

� Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that only combined ESCI total others scores had significant incremental predictive value beyond that provided by division size, cognitive intelligence, and personality.

� When the EI and SI competencies within the ESCI were examined independently, Adaptability and Influence emerged as significant predictors of performance.

The study recommended that training and development for aspiring sales leaders focus on Adaptability and Influence and concluded that “the findings suggest the importance of training future sales leaders about the emotional aspects of leadership in influencing followers to promote organizational objectives” (p. 198).



3.5.3 IT and Administration team members – EngagementIn response to reports that a low percentage of people feel engaged in their work, researchers (Mahon, Taylor, & Boyatzis, 2014) explored how emotional intelligence is related to engagement. Their study started from an accepted understanding that a number of factors contribute to employee engagement, including:

� Employees’ perceptions that their organizations value their contributions and care about their well-being (organizational support).

� Two climate factors: positivity about their organizations’ view of the future (shared personal vision) and positivity about their work and their organizations (shared positive mood).

The study tested the further contribution of emotional intelligence as a moderator: amplifying or depressing the effect that these factors have on employee engagement.

The IT department of a manufacturer and the administrative staff in a community college, both based in the US, were approached. The researchers recruited over 600 employees, 231 of whom completed a number of surveys to measure their perceptions of shared personal vision, shared positive mood, organizational support, and engagement. They also completed the 360-degree ESCI, rating only the emotional intelligence (EI) competencies and excluding the social intelligence (SI) competencies to avoid potential duplication with the other measures.

The findings confirmed that EI does not have its own direct relationship with engagement. However, the researchers clarified the way that EI interacted with the conditions for engagement:

� EI increased the potency of shared personal vision. On its own, shared personal vision related positively with engagement (b = .24, p < .01). EI amplified the relationship (b = .31, p < .01). Compared with individuals with low EI, those with high EI and low shared vision were less engaged. Those with high EI and high shared vision were more engaged.

� Shared positive mood contributed to engagement. On its own, shared positive mood showed the strongest relationship with engagement (b = .46, p < .01). EI showed no moderating effect.

� EI increased the potency of perceived organizational support. On its own, perceived organizational support related positively with engagement (b = .24, p < .01). EI amplified the relationship (b = .16, p < .05). Compared with individuals with low EI, those with high EI and low perceived organizational support were less engaged; those with high EI and high perceived organizational support were more engaged.

The researchers concluded that EI alone is insufficient to increase engagement. However, the self-management abilities within EI appear to work with shared personal vision and perceived organizational support to activate an employee’s ability to commit themselves to their organization. They attributed the low association between EI and shared positive mood to the differences in their focus: EI reflecting our ability to be aware of and manage specific emotions, while mood reflects more general and diffuse feeling states.

The findings encouraged the researchers to recommend that HR practitioners invest in strengthening the conditions for engagement, and measure and develop EI, in order to strengthen their employees’ capacity to engage positively in their work and their organizations.



3.5.4 Engineers – EffectivenessThis study by Boyatzis, Rochford, and Cavanagh (2017) was designed to examine the relationship between EI and peer rated effectiveness and to look at the impact of EI above and beyond that provided by personality and general mental ability in a highly technical occupation.

The study was conducted in a multi-national manufacturing organization with 40 engineers from the US and Northern Europe. They were rated by their peers on effectiveness, and their peers also completed the multi-rater ESCI. Participants completed measures of personality (using the NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1992) and general mental ability (Raven’s APM, Raven, 1962). Results of multiple regression analyses showed that:

� 31% of the unique variance in the engineer’s effectiveness was predicted by ESCI ratings.

� There were no significant effects for either personality or general mental ability.

These findings strongly indicate that emotional and social competencies are important for success, even in a highly technical field such as engineering. The authors recommended expanding the training of engineers to include EI. They also commented that “These results shed light on a very powerful idea: People do not get convinced of things by rational arguments. People are convinced of things by emotional arguments and then use rational arguments later to feel better about it. ESI enables people to work together, communicate well, and help others share in the excitement about innovations and ideas” (p. 78).

3.5.5 Software managers – Leadership effectiveness and leadership styleThis study (Bajaj, 2013; Bajaj & Medury, 2013) investigated how emotional and social intelligence competencies affected the leadership effectiveness of managers in a number of Indian software organizations. Building on the strong links between EI and leadership effectiveness—in particular, transformational leadership—the researcher explored the relationships between emotional and social intelligence competencies, three leadership styles, and leadership outcomes.

Conducted with a number of software organizations employing at least 100 people in the National Capital Region of India, 156 managers and their direct reports took part in and completed the ESCI and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 5x (rater form).

The MLQ 5x (Bass & Avolio, 1995) assesses three leadership outcomes (effectiveness, generates extra effort, generates satisfaction) and three leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant). Structural equation modeling was used to explore the correlations between EI and these leadership measures.

The findings for these software managers were:

� Emotional intelligence was significantly and positively related to leadership effectiveness. 55.7% of the variance in leadership effectiveness was explained by the demonstration of emotional and social intelligence competencies. The Social awareness and Relationship management clusters of the ESCI related most positively to leadership effectiveness. Team members were likely to perceive supervisors with high EI to be more effective, be satisfied with their leadership, and put in extra effort.



� Emotional intelligence was significantly and positively related to use of the transformational leadership style. 60% of the variance in transformational leadership was explained by EI, particularly by the Social awareness and Relationship management clusters. Individuals, teams, and organizations experiencing significant change are likely to be positively influenced by leaders with high ratings on competencies within the Social awareness and Relationship management clusters.

� Emotional intelligence was significantly and positively related to use of the transactional leadership style. 68% of the variance in transactional leadership was explained by the Social awareness cluster of competencies—Empathy and Organizational awareness. Team members who perceived their supervisors to have high Social awareness were likely to feel rewarded and supported for their efforts.

� The Relationship management competencies were significantly negatively related to use of the passive/avoidant leadership style. 31% of the variance in this style was explained by EI. Relationship management related negatively to it.

This study offers a valuable insight into the cross-cultural relevance of EI and supports the case for the assessment and development of emotional and social intelligence competencies to improve leadership effectiveness across a range of leadership styles.

3.5.6 Business unit managers – Financial performanceTasked with building and validating a 360-degree competency-based questionnaire for use in succession planning and management development, Ryan, Spencer, and Bernhard (2012) explored the specific competencies that best predicted business unit profit growth in a European-based electronic controls firm. They carried out a two-part study.

In the first part, critical incident interviews were conducted with 15 superior performing business unit managers from the US and six European countries. Interviews were coded and analyzed, with results showing that 12 competencies accounted for over 80% of the behaviors demonstrated by these managers. The competencies described most frequently in the interviews included Achievement orientation, Impact and influence, Team leadership, Interpersonal understanding, Analytical thinking, Teamwork and cooperation, and Initiative.

In the second part of the study, questionnaire items were developed for each competency to create a competency-based questionnaire, which was then completed by the bosses of 70 business unit managers from North America and two European countries. The outcome measure was business unit profit growth assessed over a two- to three-year period.

Results showed that:

� Eight competencies predicted profit growth: Results of a preliminary review of the 12 competencies showed that eight of them were correlated with profit growth at levels that exceeded the screening threshold of r2 > .05. They were Achievement orientation, Impact and influence, Developing others, Teamwork and cooperation, Analytical thinking, Concern for quality and order, Conceptual thinking, and Information seeking.

� Eight competencies differentiated the best from the average managers: Achievement orientation, Impact and influence, Developing others, Initiative, Interpersonal understanding, Teamwork and cooperation, Concern for quality and order, and Conceptual thinking (p < .05).



� Four competencies explained 17% of the variance in profit growth: Team leadership, Developing others, Achievement orientation, and Impact and influence made the greatest contribution to performance outcomes in this context.

The broad and open approach of this study revealed the significance of emotional and social intelligence competencies to the profitability of the business units led by these managers. Of note is that the four competencies that collectively explained 17% of the variance in profit growth are all elements of the Self-management and Relationship management clusters within the ESCI.

3.5.7 High potential executives – PerformanceThis research (Ryan, Emmerling, & Spencer, 2009) explored the EI competencies that predict performance and differentiate effective executives in two different European organizations.

Study 1 explored the competencies demonstrated by managers in a professional knowledge worker company. Two contrasting groups were formed from among a pool of managers who had previously been identified as possibilities for promotion. Group 1 consisted of 17 managers who ultimately were promoted while Group 2 consisted of 30 managers who were not. Prior to the promotion decision, each manager underwent critical incident interviews (Spencer & Spencer, 1993), which were then coded for evidence of 12 emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies. Results showed the two groups differed on 11 of the 12 competencies.

Further investigation explored the correlation with manager performance ratings for 15 managers who had been promoted and in their new position for one year or more. Initiative and Developing others showing the strongest relationships with overall manager ratings.

Study 2 explored the competencies demonstrated by managers in a fast-moving consumer goods company. The company had been running a high potential program for three years and decided to compare 44 participants’ competency results against another group of 62 managers who had not participated in the program. Again, 12 emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies were measured using critical incident interviews. Ten of the 12 competencies differentiated the high potential group of managers from the comparison group (p < .05). A subsequent study in this same organization used structural equation modeling to examine the predictive value of competencies. Results showed that six competencies (Achievement, Team leadership, Teamwork, Analytical thinking, Conceptual thinking, and Expertise) explained 35% of the variance in the identification of star performers (i.e., managers with top performance ratings over multiple years).

These multi-stage, multi-context studies confirmed the researchers’ confidence in the ability of emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies to differentiate superior performers from others and to predict future performance.



3.5.8 Principals of urban schools – PerformanceThis study (Williams, 2008) focused on a group of 20 principals from a large Midwestern United States urban school district.

Nominations from peers and supervisors, as well as ratings from teachers, over a two-year period were used to identify 12 outstanding and eight typical performers. Behavioral event interviews (Spencer & Spencer, 1993) were then used to gather demonstrated behaviors, coded against 20 emotional and social intelligence competencies.

An analysis of the frequency and complexity of the competencies used by these school principals showed significant differences between the two groups:

� Outstanding school principals use more EI competencies. At least 50% of the outstanding group demonstrated 18 competencies at least once. In contrast, the same proportion of the typical group demonstrated only 10 competencies at least once.

� Outstanding school principals use EI competencies more often. At least 25% of the outstanding group demonstrated eight competencies 3 times. None of the typical group demonstrated any competencies 3 times.

� Twelve of the 20 competencies distinguish outstanding performance. The two groups differed significantly in their use of Self-confidence, Self-control, Conscientiousness, Achievement orientation, Initiative, Organizational awareness, Developing others, Leadership, Influence, Change catalyst, Conflict management, and Teamwork/collaboration.

� Six competencies stand out as the most critical differentiators. 80% to 100% of the outstanding principals demonstrated Self-confidence, Achievement orientation, Initiative, Organizational awareness, Leadership, and Teamwork/collaboration in at least two of their three events, compared with only 25% of the typical group.

This study concluded that emotional and social intelligence competencies support school principals through the demands of their leadership role. It encouraged urban school districts to use competencies as the basis for preparing candidates for the role. It also recommended that universities and other development providers incorporate competency assessment and development into their programs.

3.5.9 Family businesses – Next-generation leadership talentIn his doctoral dissertation, Miller (2015) investigated the development of leadership talent in family businesses using several measures, including 44 items from the ESCI-U.

The findings revealed that:

Emotional and social intelligence as seen by others is significantly related to leadership effectiveness among next-generation leaders of family-owned businesses (β = .64, p < .01).

Leaders who rated themselves higher on EI and SI competencies were also more engaged in their work (β = .48, p < .01). However, those who were low in self-awareness were less engaged (β = -.21, p < .05).

The study offered a number of recommendations on how to best support the development of next-generation family business leaders, including focusing on communication within the family and conducting regular multi-rater assessments to ensure leaders are receiving honest feedback on how their behaviors are perceived by others.



3.5.10 IT professionals – EngagementThis study (Pittenger, 2015) addressed a concern that the “engagement gap” is greatest amongst IT professionals and could be contributing to performance deficits across the industry. It explored how EI impacts employees’ perceptions of their interpersonal environments and their levels of engagement.

By approaching several professional IT associations, the study recruited over 1,000 IT professionals working in global companies; 795 of them completed a number of surveys to measure their emotional and social competencies, their readiness to go beyond the confines of their roles, their perceptions of their interpersonal environments, and their levels of engagement.

A shortened version of the ESCI-U was used to gather self-report data only and limited to those competencies that the researcher perceived most applicable to employee engagement.

The relationships between competencies and employees’ perceptions of their interpersonal environment were many and complex. Following are two relevant findings that emerged from structural equation modeling:

1 Achievement orientation had an overall positive impact on all three aspects of interpersonal environment that were assessed. It related positively to shared vision (β = .385, p = .000), shared compassion (β = .192, p = .000), and shared positive mood (β = .442, p = .000). The tendency in IT professionals to overachieve seemed to relate to two things: their belief that success is a choice, and their sense of what matters for their organizations as well as for themselves.

2 Influencing others had an overall negative impact on all three aspects of interpersonal environment that were assessed. It related negatively to shared vision (β = -.101, p = .000), shared compassion (β = -.312, p = .000), and shared positive mood (β = -.138, p = .004). It was considered that this finding aligns with research on the personality traits of IT professionals. With a tendency to be introverted, influencing others is unlikely to appeal to most IT professionals.

The study offered an understanding of how specific EI competencies might make a difference to IT professionals, for whom low engagement levels can present particular concerns.

3.5.11 Community college presidents – Effectiveness and employee engagementIn a PhD thesis, Babu (2016) examined the relationship between EI and success among high-level leaders in education. Participants were 218 community college presidents who were rated by their direct reports on nine of the ESCI competency scales and also on their perceived effectiveness. For the purpose of this study, the ESCI competencies were grouped into two custom clusters:

� Strategic leadership included Adaptability, Teamwork, Emotional self-control, Influence, and Inspirational leadership.

� Achieving goals included Achievement orientation, Coach and mentor, and Positive outlook.

Their direct reports also completed a measure of their own engagement as employees. Results of structural equation modeling showed significant direct relationships between:

� The Achieving goals competencies of the community college presidents and their effectiveness as perceived by direct reports (β = .44, p = .001).



� The Achieving goals competencies of the community college presidents and the engagement of their direct reports (β = .14, p = .001).

� The Strategic leadership competencies of the community college presidents and their effectiveness (β = .43, p = .015), but no relationship with employee engagement.

These findings provide further support for the importance of leader EI in driving both effectiveness and employee engagement within the highest levels of community colleges.

3.5.12 MBA students – IntelligenceAcademic debates continue over the relationship between EI and general intelligence, along with claims about which is the better predictor of life and work outcomes. To explore this question, Boyatzis, Batista-Foguet, Fernandez-i-Marin, and Truninger (2015) used a Bayesian model to study the relationships between general intelligence (g), measured through the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), and emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies, measured by the ESCI-U, amongst a group of 624 European MBA students. They also explored differences in relationships based on gender and type of rater: self, personal (e.g., family or friends), or professional (e.g., workplace contacts).

As predicted, across all rater types, general intelligence related more strongly with the two cognitive competencies in the ESCI-U than with its EI and SI competencies.

This study also exposed the extent to which people’s perceptions of EI are influenced by their context and the expectations and attributions they employ as a result:

� Personal sources—friends and family—observe no relationship between EI competencies and g nor cognitive competencies and g.

� Professional sources observe a positive relationship between both cognitive competencies and EI competencies and g for men, but a slight negative relationship between EI competencies and g for women.

� Self-assessment data show a slight negative relationship between EI competencies and g.

The researchers also noted that ratings from personal and professional sources were more similar to one another than to self ratings. This finding supports our approach to calculating ESCI scores in which self ratings are kept separate from aggregate total others ratings.

The authors conclude that “Emotional intelligence exists at multiple levels. The behavioral level of EI shows a different relationship to g than other levels or approaches to EI. Different people around us, at home and at work, will see different facets of our behavior, depending on the kind of relationship and rapport they have established. Some raters are best equipped to assess certain competencies than others because they witness frequently the activities that elicit those behaviors” (p. 11).

3.5.13 R&D leaders – Innovation and organizational performanceKendall (2016) examined the impact of leader behaviors on successful product innovation and organizational performance among R&D leaders in high-tech companies. Participants consisted of 105 leaders who had responsibility for delivering commercial products, each from a different high-tech firm, the vast majority of which were operating in the US. Participants completed self-report measures of product innovation and organizational performance, while their peers, managers, and direct reports rated them on 10 of the ESCI competency scales, as well as completing a measure of relational climate.



Kendall summarized the results of structural equation modeling as follows: “First, we show that leadership behaviors and relational climate influence product innovation and positively effect operational performance. Second, we show that leadership effects performance directly and indirectly through relational means, affirming the role of emotional intelligence in effective leadership (Boyatzis et al., 2015a; Boyatzis et al., 2012)” (p. 127).

3.5.14 Indian service industry leaders – Employee well-being and engagementPardasani (2016) explored the impact of resonant leadership—measured through the ESCI—on positive outcomes for their employees. Participants consisted of 222 leaders in service industries in India, each of whom was rated on the ESCI by one randomly selected direct report. Direct reports also completed surveys to measure various outcomes, including well-being in the workplace, burnout, engagement, and perceptions of organizational virtuousness. While results of structural equation modeling showed no direct effects for leader EI on employee burnout, there were significant positive direct effects for:

� Employee engagement (β = .278, p < .05).

� Employee well-being (β = .266, p < .01).

� Employee perceptions of organizational virtuousness (β = .338, p < .01).

The author concluded that “Findings of this research study can lend itself to various practical implications. It underscores the importance of meeting emotional needs of the employees and suggests resonant leadership as a strategic intervention to enhance positive states such as psychological well-being and engagement for the employees and virtuousness for the organization” (p. iv).

3.6 Criterion validity studies using the ECI or ECI-U

The ESCI has a rich research heritage that dates back over 20 years.

Much of the research on the earlier versions of the instrument can be found in the previous versions of our technical manuals and will therefore not be duplicated here. Instead, this section provides information on more recent studies that were conducted with the ECI and ECI-2, and their education/university versions, and whose findings are relevant in providing support for the validity of the ESCI and the behavioral approach to measuring EI.

3.6.1 Physicians – Leadership potentialThis study (Nowacki et al., 2015) focused attention on EI in the health sector, exploring the relationships between EI and the promotion of physicians into leadership roles. The study explored subsequent promotion of 272 physicians to formal leadership roles for up to 10 years after they completed the 360-degree ECI-2 during a leadership development program that included formal EI training and follow-up coaching. Results of t-tests comparing scores from those who were and were not promoted showed that:

For the achievement of any of three possible promotions (43% of the sample), no difference in overall ECI-2 score was observed; however, three specific competencies were higher in those promoted: Change catalyst (p = .002), Achievement orientation (p = .01), and Self-confidence (p = .01).



For the achievement of at least two promotions (18% of the sample), the average overall ECI-2 score was higher (p = .02) and 10 specific competencies stood out: Change catalyst (p = .0003), Self-confidence (p = .002), Influencing (p = .004), Organizational awareness (p = .007), Inspirational leadership (p = .01), Achievement orientation (p = .02), Adaptability (p = .02), Optimism (p = .03), Initiative (p = .04), and Conflict management (p = .05).

The exploration of participants’ EI scores revealed a number of other interesting findings:

� No gender difference. Male and female participants showed no difference in overall ECI-2 scores, but women did score higher than men in Conflict management (p = .03).

� EI matures. Age showed significant positive associations with Empathy (p = .03), Emotional self-awareness (p = .006), Organizational awareness (p = .0003), and Transparency (p = .006).

� No role difference. Surgeons and non-surgical physicians showed no difference in overall ECI-2 scores, but non-surgical physicians scored higher in Conflict management, Change catalyst, and Emotional self-awareness (all p = .05).

� No level difference. Managers showed no difference in overall ECI-2 score compared with those at a higher level, but they did score higher in the following specific competencies: Developing others (p = .02), Emotional self-awareness (p = .02), and Teamwork (p = .04).

The ability to track promotions over time, and in particular to identify multiple promotions, strengthened the researchers’ conclusion that emotional and social competencies are essential for leadership success in healthcare.

3.6.2 MBA graduates – Career and life satisfaction and career successThis study used longitudinal data on 266 graduates of a US MBA program. The researchers (Amdurer, Boyatzis, Saatcioglu, Smith, & Taylor, 2014) wanted to explore how students’ emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies at the time of graduation would predict their later success and satisfaction.

Building on the evidence that EI predicts effectiveness in various jobs, and in support of efforts in higher education to equip students for their future working lives, this study was designed to offer a long-term view of the impact of emotional, social, and cognitive competencies on important aspects of well-being.

Competencies were measured using critical incident interviews, the 360-degree ECI-U, and the earlier EAQ in order to gather others’ perceptions of graduates’ EI capabilities. Competencies were examined both as composite measures of emotional intelligence (EI), social intelligence (SI), and cognitive intelligence (CI), as well as through 12 individual subscales. The outcome measures of life satisfaction, career satisfaction, and career success came from self-report online surveys completed 5 to 19 years after graduation.

The study provided an intriguing glimpse into how emotional and social intelligence competencies impact individuals’ long-term perceptions of their personal and working lives:

What makes graduates feel successful?

� Higher levels of EI predicted self-reported career success (β = .115, p < .10). Further analysis showed that Adaptability was the strongest contributor (β = .097, p < .01) and that the SI competency Influence reduced the sense of success (β = -.062, p < .10), as did the CI competency Systems thinking (β = -.067, p < .10).



What makes graduates feel satisfied?

� Higher levels of EI predicted career satisfaction (β = .161, p < .05) but not life satisfaction. Again, Adaptability played the biggest part in predicting career (β = .089, p < .05) and life satisfaction (β = .079, p < .05). Teamwork also predicted life satisfaction (β = .069, p < .10), but Achievement orientation reduced ratings of life satisfaction (β = -.061, p < .10), as did the SI competency Influence (β = -.071, p < .05). Influence was also a negative predictor of career satisfaction (β = -.099, p < .01). Individuals who scored higher on CI (Pattern recognition and Systems thinking) at graduation were subsequently lower in their ratings of life satisfaction (β = -.085, p < .05).

These complex findings challenge assumptions about the significance of specific competencies. They suggest that graduate programs should place increased emphasis on the development of Adaptability while continuing to build competence in Teamwork. Influence and Achievement orientation, while believed to be important behaviors in today’s complex organizations, related negatively to individuals’ subsequent perceptions of their own career success. Students and new recruits should therefore be encouraged to mitigate their potentially negative impact by increasing their awareness of how—and how often—they use these competencies.

This study encourages educators to raise their students’ understanding of their EI and SI capabilities and help them prepare for the ways in which they are likely to be assessed and developed during their working lives.

3.6.3 Parish vibrancy – Leader effectivenessThis study (Boyatzis, Brizz, & Godwin, 2011) investigated how emotional and social intelligence competencies contributed to church pastors’ effectiveness as organizational and community leaders.

Participants were 52 pastors in a Catholic diocese in Ohio who all undertook the 360-degree ECI-2. Their parishioners were also asked to complete the Vibrant Parish Life Survey, designed to measure their improvement in satisfaction. Parishioner support was calculated from three years’ worth of data on sacramental participation (frequency of attending weekend mass) and financial donations.

Results of the study’s multiple regression analyses showed that higher levels of overall ECI-2 ratings predicted improved parishioner satisfaction (β = .418, p < .01) but not parishioner support.

Further investigation into the effects of specific competencies showed that Influence and Transparency had significant positive effects—parishioners feel increased satisfaction when their pastor is authentic as well as influential. However, Self-confidence had a significant negative effect—which the authors believe may indicate that a self-confident pastor is perceived as unapproachable, lacking humility, or not role modeling servant leadership.

This study highlights the importance of emotional and social intelligence competencies in the development of trainee priests and in their early socialization into the priesthood. Though limited by a small number of participants, it offers insights into parishioner perceptions, suggesting the specific competencies that impact parishioner satisfaction.

Religious leaders typically go unexamined in leadership studies, and yet their impact can be considerable. This study of pastor emotional and social intelligence may yield useful insights for other contexts in which people voluntarily participate.



3.6.4 Mining refinery staff – Job performanceThis study was published as part of a special issue of Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal (now published as Cross Cultural and Strategic Management). Along with the other studies in this issue, it shared insights into the demonstration, outcomes, and implications of EI in non-US organizations. This research (Araujo & Taylor, 2012) focused on the influence of emotional and social competence on job performance by comparing performance data with self ratings and the ratings of others.

Probably the first study to examine these relationships in a Peruvian company, the researchers gathered performance evaluations of all 36 staff members from three departments of a national copper refinery to use as an outcome measure. These evaluations consisted of the refinery manager’s and superintendents’ annual job performance ratings of each participant’s work organization planning, use of abilities, interpersonal relations, results, initiative, aptitude for work, and creativity.

The 36 participants also completed the 360-degree ECI-2, along with their supervisors, peers, and team members. Their self and total others scores were correlated against their performance ratings.

The study shared valuable findings about the relative predictive validity of self and others’ assessments of EI:

� Self ratings of emotional and social competence were not predictive of job performance.

� Others’ assessments of overall emotional and social competence explained 70% of the variance in job performance ratings.

Further analysis into the impact of specific competencies showed that four of the 18 emotional and social competencies explained 62% of the variation in performance: Self-confidence, Achievement orientation, Optimism, and Teamwork and collaboration.

This study provided helpful cross-cultural validation of the measurement of emotional and social intelligence competencies and encouraged other researchers to explore EI with larger groups of employees in other Peruvian organizations. However, it strongly recommended that self ratings should not be used as a means to interpret individual competence or to predict workplace performance.

3.6.5 Public company executives – Managerial performanceThis study was published as part of a special issue of the Journal of Management Development. Along with the other studies in this issue, it provided insights into the measurement of competencies to explore how EI behaviors relate to work performance. This research (Ramo, Saris, & Boyatzis, 2009) compared the predictive validity of emotional and social competencies with that of universal personality dimensions.

The study was carried out with the cooperation of three medium-sized Spanish public companies. Two of these companies represented the interests of trade, industrial, and service organizations within their regions and one represented an energy sector institution. Ninety-six employees completed Spanish language versions of the 360-degree ECI-2 and the NEO-FFI, a short version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, which measures the Big Five personality domains: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992).



The researchers chose to group the competencies by the three social motives (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). They also identified a group of competencies related to being aware of one’s own and others’ emotions. The competencies of the ECI-2 were therefore organized into custom clusters as follows:

� Power cluster: Achievement orientation, Initiative, Optimism, Change catalyst.

� Achievement cluster: Developing others, Conflict management, Influence, Inspirational leadership.

� Affiliation cluster: Adaptability, Transparency, Service orientation, Teamwork and collaboration.

� Awareness cluster: Self-confidence, Emotional self-awareness, Empathy, Emotional self-control.

Performance was scored from the nominations of their bosses and peers in response to the question: “If you were going to create and run your own company, which individuals would you take with you?”

Analyses were run on various combinations of competencies and personality domains, resulting in a model of their relationships to performance and a number of specific findings:

� Overall EI scores had significant predictive value beyond that provided by personality measures (R2 change = .276).

� Some competency clusters showed stronger relationships with performance than others. The Power competencies provided the strongest predictor (r = .728, p < .01), followed by Achievement (r = .274, p < .01), and then Affiliation (r = .222, p < .05). There was no significant correlation between performance and the Awareness cluster.

� Specific competencies which predicted performance were found in the Power and Achievement clusters. Inspirational leadership, Developing others, Change catalyst, Influence, Organizational awareness, and Achievement all had significant (p < .01) correlations with performance. Adaptability, Conflict management, Initiative, and Service orientation also contributed (p < .05).

� Self-confidence can potentially have a negative effect on performance. Results of a LISREL analysis demonstrated that when associated with other competencies, the contribution of Self-confidence was positive. However, on its own—perhaps demonstrated as overconfidence—its effect on performance was negative.

This study was carried out alongside a development program that included 360-degree competency assessment, two training sessions on emotional and social competencies, and one-to-one coaching conversations around the competency feedback. It supported the business case for behaviorally focused EI development—the links to performance indicating that EI feedback and development provide a better return on investment than the assessment of personality. It also highlighted competencies of specific value in this context.



3.6.6 Aircrew and maintenance teams – Team performanceThis study was published as part of a special issue of the Journal of Management Development. Along with the other studies in this issue, it provided insights into the competencies that relate to performance in various occupations and how they can be developed. This research (Koman & Wolff, 2008) examined the relationships between team leader EI, team level EI, which the authors define as “The ability of a team to generate operating norms that increase awareness of emotion and management of behavior in ways that have positive emotional consequences” (p. 58), and team performance.

Sixty-four aircrew and maintenance teams from a US military organization took part in the research. Team leader EI was measured using the 360-degree ECI-2, with ratings from peers, supervisors, and team members. Team level EI was assessed using the Group Emotional Intelligence measure (Hamme, 2003), with which team members rated their team’s behavior against nine emotionally competent group norms. Outcome measures were based on subjective and objective performance measures that were gathered and combined. Senior officers above each team provided ratings of the team’s effectiveness against multiple criteria, while objective measures included such things as number of accidents, percentage of flight objectives met, and percentage of raw material waste.

Results of structural equation modeling revealed the way in which leader EI impacted team EI and team performance: “Specifically, it was found that awareness norms contribute to the development of regulation norms and that the regulation norms are related to performance… On the individual level, one cannot have a regulation of emotions without having an awareness of their emotions first. It is logical that the same relationship would be present with the group level emotional intelligence; the group has an awareness of the emotion, which leads to the ability to regulate it” (p. 68).

The researchers point out that this military context creates a culture in which the outcome of a team’s work has very different consequences to those in a business context. However, this study offers a valuable focus on the importance of leaders’ emotional and social competence. It shows how leaders’ EI not only increases their own performance, but can also influence both the performance and the emotional competence of their team members at the group level.

It raises an interesting question about how a leader’s impact on their team’s climate might also affect group EI. The study promotes EI competency and group norm development, describing the multiplying effect that could result from cascading emotional and social intelligence competencies from the leadership at the top of an organization down through its managers and teams.



3.6.7 Financial services executives – Effectiveness and engagementIn her 2013 PhD thesis, Van Oosten looked at the relationship between emotional intelligence competencies and effectiveness, using a sample of 85 senior leaders at a Fortune 500 financial services organization in the US. Participants were involved in an EI development program that also included multi-rater feedback using the ECI-2 and executive coaching. Effectiveness was assessed using the participants’ annual performance ratings from their managers as well as self-reported engagement, career satisfaction, and personal vision. Raters for the ECI-2 included the participants’ managers, direct reports, peers, clients, and others.

For the purposes of this study, 12 of the 18 ECI-2 competencies were used in the final analyses and they were grouped into two custom clusters as follows:

� Emotional acumen included Accurate self-assessment, Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control, Transparency, Teamwork and collaboration, and Optimism.

� Change leader included Achievement, Change catalyst, Initiative, Inspirational leadership, and Self-confidence.

Results of structural equation modeling showed the following significant direct relationships between the Change leader competencies of the executives and their:

� Annual performance ratings (β = .37, p < .001).

� Self-rated engagement (β = .254, p < .05).

Results were interpreted as support for previous studies showing the impact of EI on performance outcomes. Regarding the additional link to leader engagement, the author suggests that “A potential explanation for the empirical link to performance and engagement might be that leaders who have high EI are more engaged because they know themselves well and have chosen roles and organizations that provide a good fit” (Van Oosten, 2013, p. 63).



4. Developing EI and SI

Given their robust relationships with performance, engagement, effectiveness, and other outcomes, EI and SI competencies clearly make a difference in work and educational settings. Fortunately, research by Boyatzis and others demonstrates that adults can dramatically improve their EI and SI competencies even in 1–2 years.

A series of 39 longitudinal studies conducted at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University from 1987–present show that when adults participate in a leadership development course focused on EI and SI and designed on the basis of Boyatzis’ Intentional Change Theory (Boyatzis, 2008), the dramatic improvements last for 5–7 years (Boyatzis, 2008; Boyatzis, Stubbs, & Taylor, 2002; Boyatzis & Cavanagh, in press). Other studies of this course have been done at ESADE (Barcelona) and Ca’ Foscari (University of Venice).

The impact of this course shows an increase of 61% of emotional and social intelligence (ESI) over 1–2 years after entry into an MBA program and taking the course for full-time students. For part-time MBAs, the impact is slightly less at 54% over the 3–5 years after taking the course. Two of the part-time MBA cohorts were assessed two years after graduation and showed sustained improvement of 54% (Boyatzis, 2008). The dramatic improvement in ESI was also found from this course in older professionals in special executive programs (Ballou, Bowers, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 1999).

In contrast, eight above-average MBA programs showed about 3% improvement 1–2 years after entry, and some training programs in industry or government showed 11% improvement 3–18 months after the programs (Boyatzis, 2008; Cherniss & Adler, 2000, from a study of best practices over the last 50 years from the Consortium on Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).

The components of the leadership development course studied at Case Western Reserve University are: (1) helping the participant build a personal vision; (2) helping the participant see how they enact EI and SI competencies with others from 360-degree results and coded videotaped group simulations, thereby developing a personal balance sheet; (3) development of a learning agenda and plan; (4) experimentation and practice of the new behavior, thoughts, and feelings; and (5) development of a set of resonant relationships that foster and nurture change over time. Three particularly distinctive components of the course that may contribute to its success are: (1) creation of a personal vision before any assessment is viewed; (2) discussing one’s vision with a coach trained in coaching with compassion (i.e., coaching to the Positive Emotional Attractor [PEA]); and (3) development of peer coaching groups. The coaching to the PEA has been shown to result in development of a more comprehensive and deeper personal vision, as well as sustained behavior change (Mosteo, Batista-Foguet, McKeever, & Serlavos, 2016).

This program of research, which offers insight into effective coaching and leadership development for EI and SI, provides a reminder that adults learn what they want to learn (Boyatzis, 2002; Boyatzis et al., 2002; Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006; Boyatzis, 2008). Our learning process, as adults, is a self-directed one, driven by our perception of the person we want to be. Moments of awareness, urgency, or discontinuity often trigger the process of self-directed learning (Boyatzis, 2002). ESCI feedback supports self-directed learning by offering participants choices in the behaviors they want to develop—choices that are relevant to their aspirations and preferences, and to the demands of leadership and professional roles.



5. Differences in EI and SI scores by key demographic variables

The size of the ESCI database—containing data from professionals and leaders in a wide range of roles, at different levels, in organizations in many different countries—provides the opportunity to quantify and explore notable and interesting differences between participant groups.

These scoring differences are reported in the following tables:

Table 11. Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores

Table 12. Effect sizes for manager scores compared to other rater groups

Table 13. Effect sizes by region compared to the global norm

Table 14. Effect sizes by country of residence

Table 15. Effect sizes by country of residence compared to the global norm

Table 16. Effect sizes by age compared to the global norm

Table 17. Effect sizes by gender

Table 18. Effect sizes by job family

Table 19. Effect sizes by job family compared to the global norm

Table 20. Effect sizes by job level compared to the global norm

Table 21. Effect sizes for self compared to total others raw values by job level

Table 22. Effect sizes for self compared to total others absolute values by job level

Table 23. Effect sizes by industry

Table 24. Effect sizes by industry compared to the global norm

Cohen’s d (for independent samples) and Cohen’s dz (for paired samples) are reported as a ready comparison of the standardized difference between mean scores. Effect sizes with a Cohen’s d of 0.2 are considered small, 0.5 medium, and 0.8 large.



Do people score themselves differently from their raters?Paired sample t-tests were carried out to look at differences between participants’ self scores and their total others scores. The findings show that self scores for Emotional self-control are lower than those from other raters by a small amount. However, the gaps between self and total others scores can be in either direction, minimizing the differences between mean scores. When viewed as absolute gaps, the differences between self and total others scores were notably larger.

This reinforces the importance of gathering 360-degree feedback to ensure that individuals have the opportunity to understand others’ perceptions of their EI competencies.

Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores

Negative figures indicate that participants’ self scores are lower than total others scores.

Table 11. Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores

Competency

Effect sizes (Cohen’s dz) for self compared to total others (N = 65,559)

Raw gaps Absolute gaps

Achievement orientation 0.08 1.25

Adaptability -0.06 1.30

Coach and mentor 0.01 1.28

Conflict management 0.09 1.27

Emotional self-awareness 0.01 1.30

Emotional self-control -0.34 1.28

Empathy 0.06 1.28

Influence -0.09 1.29

Inspirational leadership 0.02 1.27

Organizational awareness -0.05 1.28

Positive outlook 0.05 1.29

Teamwork 0.13 1.26

Average effect size -0.01 1.28



Do different rater groups score differently?Paired sample t-tests were carried out to look at differences between manager scores and those of other rater groups. Manager scores were used as the comparison, as they tend to be the lowest scores. Negative figures indicate that a rater group’s scores are higher than managers’.

The findings show that:

� Team members provide higher ratings than managers on Adaptability by a small amount.

� Customers provide higher ratings than managers on all competencies by a small amount, except Achievement orientation and Emotional self-awareness.

� Others provide higher ratings than managers by a small amount on Adaptability, Coach and mentor, Empathy, Inspirational leadership, Influence, and Organizational awareness.

Effect sizes for manager scores compared to other rater groups

Negative figures indicate that manager scores are lower than those of other rater groups.

Table 12. Effect sizes for manager scores compared to other rater groups

Competency

Effect sizes (Cohen’s dz) for manager scores compared to other rater groups

Team member scores

n = 43,335

Peerscores

n = 48,928

Othersscores

n = 30,020

Customers scores

n = 16,990

Achievement orientation -0.09 0.02 -0.13 -0.17

Adaptability -0.24 -0.06 -0.23 -0.30

Coach and mentor -0.17 -0.06 -0.23 -0.39

Conflict management 0.06 0.06 -0.10 -0.22

Emotional self-awareness 0.02 -0.02 -0.13 -0.19

Emotional self-control -0.15 -0.02 -0.19 -0.37

Empathy -0.06 -0.03 -0.22 -0.40

Influence -0.14 -0.07 -0.23 -0.33

Inspirational leadership -0.12 -0.02 -0.24 -0.32

Organizational awareness -0.16 -0.09 -0.24 -0.30

Positive outlook -0.17 0.03 -0.18 -0.30

Teamwork -0.07 0.07 -0.14 -0.26



Does region affect raters’ scores?Average total others scores from seven regions were compared with the global norm. The findings show that participants from:

� North and Central America exceeded the global norm by a small amount on all competencies except Coach and mentor.

� Europe were lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness and Positive outlook.

� Asia were lower by a moderate amount on all competencies except Emotional self-awareness.

� South America were lower by a small amount on Conflict management, Emotional self-control, Influence, and Organizational awareness.

� Africa were lower by a small amount on all competencies except Achievement orientation, Inspirational leadership, and Positive outlook.

� The Middle East were lower by a small amount on Emotional self-control.

� Australia scored consistently with the global norm.

Effect sizes by region

Negative figures indicate that a region’s scores are lower than the global norm.

Table 13. Effect sizes by region compared to the global norm

Competency

Regional effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared to the global norm

N&C America

n = 27,174

Europe

n = 17,498

Asia

n = 12,751

South America

n = 1,135

Africa

n = 1,356

Middle East

n = 1,001

Australia

n = 3,486

Achievement orientation 0.29 -0.07 -0.50 -0.02 -0.16 -0.04 0.03

Adaptability 0.28 -0.13 -0.40 -0.08 -0.32 -0.08 0.10

Coach and mentor 0.18 -0.13 -0.20 -0.01 -0.24 0.11 0.07

Conflict management 0.26 -0.15 -0.32 -0.24 -0.20 0.01 0.07

Emotional self-awareness 0.27 -0.30 -0.10 0.08 -0.29 -0.13 -0.08

Emotional self-control 0.28 -0.08 -0.40 -0.27 -0.42 -0.24 0.10

Empathy 0.23 -0.17 -0.23 -0.12 -0.20 0.11 0.02

Influence 0.28 -0.17 -0.37 -0.25 -0.21 0.06 0.08

Inspirational leadership 0.22 -0.18 -0.23 0.01 -0.06 0.13 0.04

Organizational awareness 0.29 -0.10 -0.45 -0.24 -0.26 -0.01 0.12

Positive outlook 0.28 -0.21 -0.30 -0.05 -0.11 -0.03 0.07

Teamwork 0.26 -0.10 -0.40 -0.05 -0.20 0.09 0.06

Mean effect size 0.26 -0.15 -0.33 -0.10 -0.22 0.00 0.06

Median effect size 0.27 -0.14 -0.35 -0.07 -0.21 0.00 0.07



Does country of residence affect raters’ scores?Average total others scores by country of residence were compared with the global norm. Effect sizes are reported for 21 countries: those with at least 300 participants and an appropriate level of diversity in clients.

Table 14. Effect sizes by country of residence

Country Country effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared to the global norm

US Higher by a small amount on all competencies.

Canada Higher by a small amount on Adaptability, Influence, and Organizational awareness.

Mexico Lower by a moderate amount on Influence and by a small amount on all others except Inspirational leadership and Positive outlook.

Brazil Lower by a small amount on Conflict management, Empathy, Emotional self-control, Influence, and Organizational awareness.

South Africa Lower by a small amount on all competencies.

UAE Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Australia Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

China Lower by a moderate amount on Achievement orientation and Organizational awareness, and by a small amount on Adaptability, Conflict management, Empathy, Emotional self-control, Influence, and Teamwork.

Hong Kong Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Coach and mentor, Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, and Influence.

India Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability, Coach and mentor, Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control, and Teamwork.

Japan Lower by a large amount on all competencies.

Belgium Lower by a large amount on Emotional self-awareness and by a small amount on all other competencies.

France Lower by a large amount on Emotional self-awareness, by a moderate amount on Positive outlook, and by a small amount on all other competencies.

Germany Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Inspirational leadership, and Organizational awareness.

Greece Lower by a moderate amount on Conflict management, Inspirational leadership, Influence, and Positive outlook, and by a small amount on all others except Emotional self-awareness.

Italy Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control, Inspirational leadership, Influence, and Positive outlook.

The Netherlands

Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-control and Positive outlook, and by a moderate amount on all other competencies.

Poland Lower by a moderate amount on Conflict management and Inspirational leadership, and by a small amount on all others except Adaptability and Emotional self-control.

Spain Lower by a moderate amount on Influence and Positive outlook, and by a small amount on all other competencies.

Turkey Lower by a moderate amount on Positive outlook and by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Conflict management, Empathy, Emotional self-control, Inspirational leadership, and Teamwork.

UK Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.



Effect sizes by country of residence

Negative figures indicate that a country’s scores are lower than the global norm.

Table 15. Effect sizes by country of residence compared to the global norm

CompetencyCountry effect sizes (d) compared to the global norm

US

n = 25,662

Canada

n = 684

Mexico

n = 783

Brazil

n = 668

S Africa

n = 811

UAE

n = 440

Australia

n = 3,486

Achievement orientation 0.31 0.16 -0.23 -0.11 -0.19 0.04 0.03

Adaptability 0.30 0.21 -0.31 -0.15 -0.39 0.05 0.10

Coach and mentor 0.19 0.15 -0.20 -0.14 -0.36 0.15 0.07

Conflict management 0.29 0.13 -0.37 -0.40 -0.27 -0.02 0.07

Emotional self-awareness 0.29 0.08 -0.29 0.10 -0.30 -0.09 -0.08

Emotional self-control 0.30 0.13 -0.39 -0.39 -0.44 -0.12 0.10

Empathy 0.25 0.15 -0.35 -0.27 -0.27 0.18 0.02

Influence 0.31 0.23 -0.54 -0.33 -0.25 0.15 0.08

Inspirational leadership 0.23 0.15 -0.18 -0.17 -0.13 0.14 0.04

Organizational awareness 0.31 0.20 -0.39 -0.41 -0.30 0.06 0.12

Positive outlook 0.30 0.15 -0.14 -0.18 -0.15 0.11 0.07

Teamwork 0.28 0.16 -0.26 -0.13 -0.30 0.17 0.06

Mean effect size 0.28 0.16 -0.30 -0.22 -0.28 0.07 0.06

Median effect size 0.29 0.15 -0.30 -0.17 -0.28 0.08 0.07


China

n = 6,537

Hong Kong

n = 530

India

n = 1,403

Japan

n = 834

Achievement orientation -0.60 -0.34 -0.32 -0.91

Adaptability -0.40 -0.27 -0.26 -1.10

Coach and mentor -0.07 -0.17 -0.25 -1.11

Conflict management -0.26 -0.27 -0.19 -0.86

Emotional self-awareness 0.07 -0.06 -0.21 -1.05

Emotional self-control -0.34 -0.22 -0.45 -0.98

Empathy -0.20 -0.11 -0.13 -0.82

Influence -0.46 -0.18 0.02 -1.03

Inspirational leadership -0.11 -0.37 -0.03 -1.04

Organizational awareness -0.52 -0.34 -0.15 -1.27

Positive outlook -0.18 -0.33 0.01 -1.39

Teamwork -0.43 -0.22 -0.20 -1.27

Mean effect size -0.29 -0.24 -0.18 -1.07

Median effect size -0.30 -0.24 -0.20 -1.05



Table 15. continued


Belgium

n = 366

France

n = 555

Germany

n = 740

Greece

n = 539

Italy

n = 642

Achievement orientation -0.33 -0.20 0.08 -0.41 0.02

Adaptability -0.41 -0.23 0.00 -0.41 -0.18

Coach and mentor -0.43 -0.30 -0.18 -0.38 -0.18

Conflict management -0.35 -0.36 -0.06 -0.67 -0.12

Emotional self-awareness -0.92 -1.03 -0.41 -0.06 -0.35

Emotional self-control -0.31 -0.44 0.10 -0.43 -0.28

Empathy -0.39 -0.29 -0.16 -0.37 -0.16

Influence -0.43 -0.39 -0.15 -0.77 -0.42

Inspirational leadership -0.43 -0.23 -0.35 -0.63 -0.21

Organizational awareness -0.41 -0.36 -0.21 -0.35 -0.18

Positive outlook -0.42 -0.58 -0.09 -0.75 -0.24

Teamwork -0.34 -0.32 -0.07 -0.24 -0.07

Mean effect size -0.43 -0.39 -0.13 -0.46 -0.20

Median effect size -0.41 -0.34 -0.12 -0.41 -0.18


Netherlands

n = 1,215

Poland

n = 484

Spain

n = 1,451

Turkey

n = 933

UK

n = 8,866

Achievement orientation -0.50 -0.23 -0.26 -0.20 0.06

Adaptability -0.71 -0.08 -0.34 -0.17 0.03

Coach and mentor -0.58 -0.23 -0.18 0.01 -0.01

Conflict management -0.49 -0.56 -0.33 -0.41 0.04

Emotional self-awareness -0.85 0.23 -0.39 0.01 -0.16

Emotional self-control -0.39 -0.14 -0.34 -0.41 0.07

Empathy -0.59 -0.34 -0.35 -0.24 -0.04

Influence -0.58 -0.22 -0.68 -0.16 0.08


Organizational awareness -0.48 -0.31 -0.40 -0.02 0.07


Teamwork -0.58 -0.26 -0.34 -0.29 0.03

Mean effect size -0.57 -0.26 -0.36 -0.23 0.01

Median effect size -0.58 -0.25 -0.34 -0.22 0.03



Does participant age affect raters’ scores?Average total others scores for participants in different age groups were compared with the global norm. The findings show that:

� For participants in their 30s to 50s, there were no noticeable differences from the global norm.

� Participants in their 20s scored higher by a small amount on Adaptability.

� Participants in their 60s scored higher by a small amount on Conflict management, Emotional self-control, Influence, and Inspirational leadership. However, effects from this age group should be interpreted with caution, given the relatively small sample size.

Effect sizes by age

Negative figures indicate that scores are lower than the global norm.

Table 16. Effect sizes by age compared to the global norm

CompetencyAge effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared to the global norm

20-29

n = 5,340

30-39

n = 20,099

40-49

n = 20,585

50-59

n = 10,093

60+ years

n = 1,506

Achievement orientation 0.20 0.07 -0.04 -0.08 -0.04

Adaptability 0.01 0.04 -0.01 -0.02 0.07

Coach and mentor -0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.13

Conflict management -0.19 -0.03 0.03 0.12 0.32

Emotional self-awareness 0.14 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 0.19

Emotional self-control -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.07 0.21

Empathy 0.08 0.01 -0.03 0.01 0.19

Influence -0.09 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.21

Inspirational leadership -0.11 -0.02 0.03 0.06 0.20

Organizational awareness -0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.06 0.21

Positive outlook 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14

Teamwork 0.09 0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.14

Mean effect size 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.16

Median effect size 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.19



Do men and women score differently?The most recent research from Korn Ferry Hay Group (2016) indicates that women score higher than men on 11 of the 12 ESCI competencies. Based on a review of ESCI data gathered between 2011 and 2015 from 55,000 professionals across 90 countries and all levels of management, the research found that:

� The greatest difference between men and women can be seen in Emotional self-awareness: women are 86% more likely than men to be seen as using the competency consistently (18.4% of women demonstrate the competency consistently compared to 9.9% of men).

� Women are 45% more likely than men to be seen as demonstrating Empathy consistently.

� Other competencies in which women outperform men are Coach and mentor, Influence, Inspirational leadership, Conflict management, Organizational awareness, Adaptability, Teamwork, and Achievement orientation.

� The smallest margin of difference is in Positive outlook: women are 9% more likely to exhibit the competency consistently than men.

� Emotional self-control is the only competency in which men and women showed equal performance.

These findings, and their implications for how women and men use their EI competencies to increase their own effectiveness and the performance of others, have attracted considerable interest globally:

“Historically, in the workplace, there has been a tendency for women to evaluate themselves as less competent as compared to others, while men tend to overrate themselves in their competencies. Research shows, however, that the reality is often the opposite. If more men acted like women in employing their emotional and social competencies, they would be substantially and distinctly more effective in their work.”Richard Boyatzis – Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western

Reserve University



Effect sizes by gender

With slightly updated and larger data, we continue to see similar results. Women scored higher than men by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Achievement orientation, Conflict management, Empathy, Teamwork, and Organizational awareness.

Table 17. Effect sizes by gender

Competency Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) by gender n = 24,992 women, n = 36,332 men

Achievement orientation 0.29

Adaptability 0.14

Coach and mentor 0.13

Conflict management 0.28

Emotional self-awareness 0.43

Emotional self-control 0.01

Empathy 0.26

Influence 0.18

Inspirational leadership 0.15

Organizational awareness 0.23

Positive outlook 0.09

Teamwork 0.25

Mean effect size 0.20

Median effect size 0.20

“The data suggest a strong need for more women in the workforce to take on leadership roles. When you factor in the correlation between high emotional intelligence and those leaders who deliver better business results, there is a strong case for gender equity. Organizations must find ways to identify women who score highly on these competencies, and empower them.”Daniel Goleman – Co-director of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, and author of

Working with Emotional Intelligence



Does participant job type affect raters’ scores?Average total others scores for participants in different job families were compared with the global norm. Job families are not reported if they contain fewer than 300 participants. Samples were weighted, where needed, to ensure that no organization exceeded 15% of each job family benchmark.

Job families where the average effect size across all competencies was equal to or greater than d = .20 were reviewed by gender and country of residence to determine if they deviated substantially from the global norm. These observations are noted in Table 18.

Table 18. Effect sizes by job family

Job family Job family effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared to the global norm

Management Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Sales Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Finance & Accounting Lower by a small amount on Inspirational leadership.

Human Resources Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Manufacturing / Production

Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Coach and mentor and Inspirational leadership.

Note: Lower scores may be partly due to the demographic profile of this job family, which is underrepresented by two groups who tend to score higher: women (17% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from the US (24% vs. 38% in the global norm). Participants from China, who tend to score lower, are overrepresented in this sample (25% vs. 10% in the global norm).

Administration / Support Higher by a small amount on Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.

Information Technology Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Marketing Lower by a small amount on Conflict management.

Engineering Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness.

Project Management Lower by a small amount on Conflict management.

Logistics / Supply Chain Lower by a small amount on Conflict management, Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control, Inspirational leadership, Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.

Research & Development Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Quality Assurance Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.



Job family Job family effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared to the global norm

Legal Higher by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability, Coach and mentor, Empathy, Emotional self-control, Influence, Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.

Note: Higher scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of this job family, which is overrepresented by two groups who tend to score higher: women (51% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from the US (51% vs. 38% in the global norm).

Risk, Regulatory & Compliance

Higher by a small amount on Emotional self-control.

Physician Higher by a small to medium amount on all competencies.

Note: 84% of the participants in this job family are from the US, so these results may not generalize to other regions or countries.

Educator Higher by a medium amount on all competencies and by a large amount on Conflict management.

Note: 93% of the participants in this job family are from the UK (50%) or US (43%), so these results may not generalize to other regions or countries. Higher scores among Educators may also be due in part to the overrepresentation of women in this job family (61% vs. 41% in the global norm).

MBA / Exec MBA Students

Higher by a medium amount on all competencies except Conflict management.

Note: 81% of the participants in this job family are from the US, so these results may not generalize to other regions or countries.

Table 18. continued



Effect sizes by job family

Negative figures indicate that scores are lower than the global norm. To ensure no single organization exceeded 15% of the job family benchmark, the samples for Sales, Finance & Accounting, Information Technology, Project Management, and Risk, Regulatory & Compliance were weighted.

Table 19. Effect sizes by job family compared to the global norm

CompetencyJob family effect sizes (d) compared to the global norm

Managers

n = 5,253

Sales

n = 5,722

F&A

n = 5,446

HR

n = 4,484

Mfg

n = 2,629

Admin

n = 3,978

Achievement orientation -0.02 -0.10 -0.03 0.03 -0.28 0.18

Adaptability 0.04 -0.13 -0.01 -0.08 -0.26 0.19

Coach and mentor -0.01 -0.04 -0.12 0.09 -0.17 0.17

Conflict management -0.03 -0.14 -0.12 0.15 -0.23 0.18

Emotional self-awareness -0.09 -0.06 -0.08 0.19 -0.28 0.22

Emotional self-control -0.05 -0.18 -0.03 0.03 -0.29 0.19

Empathy -0.10 -0.07 -0.07 0.17 -0.32 0.21

Influence 0.05 -0.01 -0.12 0.06 -0.38 0.16

Inspirational leadership 0.16 -0.04 -0.20 -0.04 -0.17 0.18

Organizational awareness -0.03 -0.08 -0.07 0.07 -0.35 0.22

Positive outlook 0.19 -0.01 -0.19 0.04 -0.22 0.19

Teamwork -0.08 -0.14 -0.05 0.13 -0.31 0.21

Mean effect size 0.00 -0.08 -0.09 0.07 -0.27 0.19

Median effect size -0.02 -0.08 -0.08 0.07 -0.28 0.19

CompetencyJob family effect sizes (d) compared to the global norm

IT

n = 2,599

Mktg

n = 3,737

Engr

n = 1,096

Proj Mgt

n = 912

Logistics

n = 666

R&D

n = 1,887

Achievement orientation -0.07 -0.11 -0.02 0.01 -0.11 -0.12

Adaptability 0.01 -0.07 0.00 0.07 -0.14 -0.13

Coach and mentor -0.01 -0.11 -0.05 0.12 -0.18 -0.12

Conflict management -0.10 -0.24 -0.15 -0.25 -0.26 -0.06

Emotional self-awareness -0.07 -0.02 -0.27 -0.05 -0.27 -0.14

Emotional self-control 0.07 -0.13 0.07 0.04 -0.20 -0.07

Empathy -0.05 -0.08 -0.12 0.00 -0.32 -0.13

Influence -0.02 -0.08 -0.11 0.06 -0.19 -0.23

Inspirational leadership -0.13 -0.15 -0.16 -0.13 -0.23 -0.12

Organizational awareness -0.04 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 -0.23 -0.22

Positive outlook -0.08 -0.03 -0.14 -0.08 -0.16 -0.15

Teamwork 0.01 -0.05 -0.01 0.14 -0.23 -0.11

Mean effect size -0.04 -0.10 -0.09 -0.01 -0.21 -0.13

Median effect size -0.04 -0.08 -0.09 0.01 -0.21 -0.13



Table 19. continued

Competency

Job family effect sizes (d) compared to the global norm

QA

n = 433

Legal

n = 661

Regul

n = 370

Physician

n = 643

Educator

n = 1,105

MBA Student

n = 1,427

Achievement orientation 0.09 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.66 0.45

Adaptability 0.00 0.26 0.04 0.44 0.51 0.38

Coach and mentor 0.04 0.28 0.05 0.47 0.54 0.26

Conflict management 0.05 0.14 -0.03 0.60 0.85 0.13

Emotional self-awareness 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.67 0.66 0.34

Emotional self-control 0.05 0.32 0.21 0.45 0.56 0.29

Empathy 0.03 0.34 0.09 0.54 0.60 0.36

Influence -0.03 0.34 0.05 0.55 0.63 0.29

Inspirational leadership 0.01 0.07 -0.09 0.56 0.68 0.20

Organizational awareness -0.01 0.30 0.07 0.47 0.57 0.35

Positive outlook -0.02 -0.06 -0.15 0.42 0.59 0.36

Teamwork 0.11 0.30 0.16 0.44 0.56 0.36

Mean effect size 0.03 0.22 0.04 0.52 0.62 0.31

Median effect size 0.02 0.27 0.05 0.50 0.59 0.34



Does participant job level affect raters’ scores?Average total others scores for participants at different organizational levels were compared with the global norm. The findings show that:

� Entry level individual contributors scored lower than the global norm by a small amount on Coach and mentor, Conflict management, and Inspirational leadership. They scored higher by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness. (Please note this group is small relative to the overall sample.)

� Scores are consistent with the global norm for Mid- and Senior level individual contributors, and for First, Mid-, and Senior level managers and leaders. However, effects from this group should be interpreted with caution, given the relatively small sample size.

Effect sizes by job level

Negative figures indicate that scores are lower than the global norm.

Table 20. Effect sizes by job level compared to the global norm

Competency

Job level effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared to the global norm

Entry level individual

contributor

n = 2,028

Mid-level individual

contributor

n = 6,477

Senior level

individual contributor

n = 5,991

First level leader

n = 9,895

Mid-level leader

n = 16,967

Senior level

leader

n = 18,693

Achievement orientation 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.01 -0.02 -0.05

Adaptability -0.15 0.02 0.09 -0.01 0.01 0.03

Coach and mentor -0.20 -0.02 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.01

Conflict management -0.27 -0.14 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.03

Emotional self-awareness 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.01 -0.04 -0.08

Emotional self-control -0.03 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.00 -0.02

Empathy 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.04 -0.03 -0.09

Influence -0.19 -0.02 0.11 -0.04 0.00 0.05

Inspirational leadership -0.22 -0.15 -0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.12

Organizational awareness -0.13 0.06 0.14 -0.01 -0.01 0.00

Positive outlook 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.10 -0.03 0.12

Teamwork 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.04 -0.01 -0.09

Mean effect size -0.06 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00

Median effect size -0.08 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00



Does the gap between self and total others scores vary by job level?The mean gaps between self and average total others scores for participants at different job levels were investigated. While absolute gaps (i.e., the difference between self vs. total others ratings, regardless of the direction of the difference) were both large and relatively consistent across job levels, raw gaps (i.e., self ratings minus total others ratings) were not. The findings show that on average:

� Individual contributors and First level leaders score themselves slightly lower than others.

� Senior level leaders score themselves higher than others, particularly those who are low in Emotional self-awareness.

Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores by job level

Raw gap sizes: negative figures indicate that participants’ self scores are lower than total others scores.

Table 21. Effect sizes for self compared to total others raw values by job level

Competency

Effect sizes (dz) for self compared to total others raw values by job level


contributor

n = 2,019


contributor

n = 6,455

Senior level


n = 5,979

First level leader

n = 9,887

Mid-level leader

n = 16,961

Senior level

leader

n = 18,689

Achievement orientation -0.07 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.10 0.19

Adaptability -0.29 -0.22 -0.12 -0.16 -0.02 0.07

Coach and mentor -0.16 -0.21 -0.15 -0.09 0.05 0.17

Conflict management -0.28 -0.23 -0.10 0.01 0.18 0.30

Emotional self-awareness -0.14 -0.15 -0.12 -0.08 0.03 0.15

Emotional self-control -0.51 -0.53 -0.44 -0.41 -0.32 -0.21

Empathy -0.08 -0.09 -0.06 -0.02 0.08 0.19

Influence -0.18 -0.21 -0.21 -0.15 -0.06 -0.01

Inspirational leadership -0.22 -0.20 -0.11 -0.09 0.06 0.19

Organizational awareness -0.08 -0.15 -0.13 -0.12 -0.03 0.05

Positive outlook -0.16 -0.13 -0.04 -0.03 0.09 0.18

Teamwork -0.13 -0.08 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.27



Table 22. Effect sizes for self compared to total others absolute values by job level

Competency

Effect sizes (dz) for self compared to total others absolute values by job level


contributor

n = 2,019


contributor

n = 6,455

Senior level


n = 5,979

First level leader

n = 9,887

Mid-level leader

n = 16,961

Senior level

leader

n = 18,689

Achievement orientation 1.18 1.21 1.21 1.27 1.27 1.27

Adaptability 1.32 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.29 1.30

Coach and mentor 1.29 1.29 1.30 1.28 1.28 1.28

Conflict management 1.27 1.28 1.25 1.29 1.28 1.28

Emotional self-awareness 1.30 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.30 1.29

Emotional self-control 1.32 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.28

Empathy 1.25 1.28 1.28 1.30 1.28 1.27

Influence 1.29 1.31 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.28

Inspirational leadership 1.24 1.28 1.25 1.29 1.28 1.27

Organizational awareness 1.24 1.29 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.27

Positive outlook 1.25 1.28 1.27 1.31 1.30 1.30

Teamwork 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.27 1.27 1.25



Does industry affect raters’ scores?Average total others scores for participants in different industries compared with the global norm. Industries are not reported if they contain fewer than 300 participants. Samples were weighted where needed to ensure that no organization exceeded 15% of each industry benchmark.

Industries where the average effect size across all competencies was equal to or greater than d = .20 were reviewed by gender and country of residence to determine if they deviated substantially from the global norm. These observations are noted in Table 23.

Table 23. Effect sizes by industry

Industry Industry effect sizes compared to the global norm

Manufacturing Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Coach and mentor and Positive outlook.

Note: Since women tend to score higher than men, lower scores in Manufacturing may be due in part to the underrepresentation of women in this industry sample (24% vs. 37% in the global norm).

Food Products Lower by a small amount on Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control, Influence, Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.

Note: Since US participants tend to score higher than the global norm, lower scores in the Food Products industry may be due in part to the underrepresentation of US participants in this industry sample (27% vs. 38% in the global norm).

Consumer Products Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability, Empathy, Emotional self-control, Influence, Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.

Note: Since US participants tend to score higher than the global norm while participants in China score lower, lower scores in the Consumer Products industry may be due in part to the underrepresentation of US participants in this industry sample (23% vs. 38% in the global norm), and the overrepresentation of participants from China (33% vs. 10% in the global norm).

Chemical Lower by a medium amount on all competencies.

Note: Lower scores may be partly due to the demographic profile of this industry sample. Women, who tend to score higher, are underrepresented (17% vs. 41% in the global norm), as are participants from the US (13% vs. 38% in the global norm) who also tend to score higher. Participants from Japan, who tend to score substantially lower, are greatly overrepresented in this sample (15% vs. 1% in the global norm), as are participants from Spain (11% vs. 2% in the global norm).




Pharmaceuticals Lower by a small amount on most competencies.

Note: Lower scores in this industry sample may be due in part to the underrepresentation of US participants (20% vs. 38% in the global norm), who tend to score higher, and the overrepresentation of participants from China (18% vs. 10% in the global norm) and Japan (7% vs. 1% in the global norm), who tend to score lower.

Technology Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation and Organizational awareness.

Telecoms Lower by a small amount on all competencies.

Note: Lower scores may be partly due to the demographic profile of this industry sample. Women, who tend to score higher, are underrepresented (24% vs. 41% in the global norm), as are participants from the US (6% vs. 38% in the global norm). Participants from Portugal, who tend to score lower, are greatly overrepresented in this sample (15% vs. 0.8% in the global norm), as are participants from China (18% vs. 10% in the global norm).

Financial Services Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Banking Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Insurance Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Health Higher by a small amount on all competencies.

Note: Higher scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of this industry sample, which is overrepresented by two groups who tend to score higher: women (59% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from the US (62% vs. 38% in the global norm).

Utilities Lower by a small amount on all competencies.

Note: Lower scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of this industry sample, which is underrepresented by two groups who tend to score higher: women (24% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from the US (21% vs. 38% in the global norm).

Construction Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control, and Positive outlook.

Petroleum Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Retail Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Inspirational leadership and Positive outlook.

Note: Lower scores may be due in part to the underrepresentation of US participants in this sample (21% vs. 38% in the global norm) and the overrepresentation of participants from Mexico (8% vs. 2% in the global norm) and China (16% vs. 10% in the global norm).

Hospitality/Tourism Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation and Teamwork.

Table 23. continued




Transportation Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Inspirational leadership.

Note: Lower scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of this sample, which is underrepresented by two groups who tend to score higher: women (26% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from the US (13% vs. 38% in the global norm), and is overrepresented by countries such as China that tend to score lower (24% vs. 10% in the global norm).

Broadcast Media Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Coach and mentor, Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, Inspirational leadership, Influence, and Positive outlook.

Professional Services Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Legal Higher by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability, Conflict management, Emotional self-control, Influence, Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.

Non-profits/Assocs. Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

US Public Services Higher by a small amount on all competencies.

UK Public Services Higher by a small amount on all competencies.

Note: Since women tend to score higher than men, higher scores in the UK Public Services may be due in part to the overrepresentation of women in this industry (58% vs. 41% in the global norm).

Australian Public Services

Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Table 23. continued



Effect sizes by industry

While it may initially appear that a disproportionate number of industries have scores lower than the global average (as indicated by the negative value associated with their effect size), this is actually a function of the differences in sample size among industry groups. Many of the industry groups that are scoring below the global average are smaller in size, while some of the largest groups (e.g., Government and Health) score above the global mean. In addition, participants who could not be clearly classified into one of the industry groups, and are therefore not represented in Table 24, also scored, on average, above the global mean.

To ensure no single organization exceeded 15% of the industry benchmark, the samples for Food Products, Chemical, Telecommunications, Financial Services, Banking, Insurance, Health, Construction, Petroleum, Hospitality & Tourism, Broadcast Media, Professional Services, Legal, Non-profits, and Australian Public Services were weighted.

Table 24. Effect sizes by industry compared to the global norm

CompetencyIndustry effect sizes compared to the global norm

Mfg

n = 4,174

Food

n = 1,913

Consumer

n = 1,068

Chemical

n = 702

Pharma

n = 2,272

Achievement orientation -0.24 -0.16 -0.29 -0.64 -0.18

Adaptability -0.22 -0.19 -0.25 -0.65 -0.21

Coach and mentor -0.16 -0.18 -0.10 -0.57 -0.20

Conflict management -0.27 -0.16 -0.16 -0.54 -0.16

Emotional self-awareness -0.30 -0.26 -0.10 -0.73 -0.16

Emotional self-control -0.22 -0.25 -0.21 -0.41 -0.26

Empathy -0.29 -0.27 -0.22 -0.60 -0.17

Influence -0.27 -0.20 -0.33 -0.63 -0.22


Organizational awareness -0.27 -0.23 -0.37 -0.70 -0.30


Teamwork -0.26 -0.20 -0.24 -0.63 -0.21

Mean effect size -0.24 -0.20 -0.21 -0.60 -0.20

Median effect size -0.25 -0.19 -0.21 -0.61 -0.20



Table 24. continued


Tech

n = 3,633

Telecoms

n = 654

Financial

n = 4,542

Banking

n = 1,637

Insur

n = 1,721

Achievement orientation -0.22 -0.45 -0.12 -0.02 0.02

Adaptability -0.10 -0.29 -0.05 -0.01 0.08

Coach and mentor -0.07 -0.28 -0.04 0.07 0.04

Conflict management -0.17 -0.35 -0.07 0.00 0.09

Emotional self-awareness -0.16 -0.28 -0.03 0.04 -0.02

Emotional self-control -0.06 -0.37 0.00 -0.09 0.10

Empathy -0.13 -0.27 -0.02 -0.04 0.01

Influence -0.16 -0.22 -0.04 0.00 0.03


Organizational awareness -0.20 -0.27 -0.07 0.02 0.06

Positive outlook -0.15 -0.25 -0.16 -0.12 0.02

Teamwork -0.13 -0.33 -0.03 -0.02 0.03

Mean effect size -0.14 -0.30 -0.06 -0.02 0.04

Median effect size -0.15 -0.28 -0.04 -0.01 0.03


Health

n = 3,284

Utilities

n = 318

Constr

n = 836

Petroleum

n = 589

Retail

n = 1,302

Achievement orientation 0.30 -0.33 -0.03 0.01 -0.24

Adaptability 0.24 -0.25 -0.02 -0.02 -0.24

Coach and mentor 0.22 -0.24 0.00 0.01 -0.22

Conflict management 0.33 -0.35 -0.17 0.02 -0.20

Emotional self-awareness 0.31 -0.46 -0.26 -0.18 -0.24

Emotional self-control 0.30 -0.21 -0.23 -0.08 -0.24

Empathy 0.29 -0.27 -0.16 -0.08 -0.32

Influence 0.30 -0.25 -0.10 0.00 -0.27

Inspirational leadership 0.32 -0.30 -0.04 0.01 -0.13

Organizational awareness 0.28 -0.26 0.03 -0.01 -0.29

Positive outlook 0.26 -0.39 -0.23 0.03 -0.13

Teamwork 0.27 -0.24 -0.11 0.00 -0.34

Mean effect size 0.28 -0.30 -0.11 -0.02 -0.24

Median effect size 0.29 -0.26 -0.10 0.00 -0.24



Table 24. continued

Competency

Industry effect sizes compared to the global norm

Hospitality/Tourism

n = 357

Transport

n = 770

Broadcast Media

n = 353

Profess. Services

n = 1,111

Legal

n = 206

Achievement orientation -0.24 -0.40 -0.21 0.09 0.17

Adaptability -0.11 -0.28 -0.14 0.03 0.31

Coach and mentor -0.09 -0.23 -0.28 -0.04 0.14

Conflict management -0.07 -0.32 -0.17 0.11 0.22

Emotional self-awareness -0.18 -0.31 -0.24 0.03 0.03

Emotional self-control -0.17 -0.33 -0.10 0.02 0.28

Empathy -0.17 -0.31 -0.20 0.03 0.15

Influence -0.06 -0.29 -0.27 0.05 0.21

Inspirational leadership 0.01 -0.17 -0.25 0.00 0.15

Organizational awareness -0.11 -0.39 -0.12 0.05 0.21

Positive outlook -0.08 -0.25 -0.26 0.06 0.07

Teamwork -0.21 -0.36 -0.19 0.08 0.19

Mean effect size -0.12 -0.30 -0.20 0.04 0.18

Median effect size -0.11 -0.31 -0.20 0.04 0.18

Competency

Industry effect sizes compared to the global norm

Non-profits

n = 401

US Public Services

n = 1,967

UK Public Services

n = 1,613

Australian Public Services

n = 215

Achievement orientation 0.10 0.41 0.23 -0.04

Adaptability 0.00 0.47 0.25 0.07

Coach and mentor -0.01 0.33 0.25 0.00

Conflict management 0.15 0.42 0.33 0.11

Emotional self-awareness 0.02 0.40 0.07 -0.14

Emotional self-control 0.01 0.43 0.32 0.06

Empathy 0.06 0.36 0.23 0.00

Influence 0.09 0.50 0.31 0.11

Inspirational leadership 0.18 0.35 0.24 0.01

Organizational awareness 0.15 0.47 0.33 0.19

Positive outlook 0.12 0.29 0.07 -0.11

Teamwork 0.10 0.38 0.25 0.04

Mean effect size 0.08 0.40 0.24 0.02

Median effect size 0.09 0.41 0.25 0.02



6. References

Amdurer, E., Boyatzis, R. E., Saatcioglu, A., Smith, M. L., & Taylor, S. N. (2014). Long-term impact of emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies and GMAT on career and life satisfaction and career success. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1447.

Araujo, S. V. A., & Taylor, S. N. (2012). The influence of emotional and social competencies on the performance of Peruvian refinery staff. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal (now published as Cross Cultural and Strategic Management), 19(1), 19-29.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441-452.

Babu, M. (2016). Characteristics of effective leadership of community college presidents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Bajaj, B. (2013). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence, leadership styles and leadership effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida, India.

Bajaj, B., & Medury, Y. (2013). Relationship between emotional and social competences and transformational leadership style. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management, 3(2), 56-59.

Ballou, R., Bowers, D., Boyatzis, R., & Kolb, D. (1999). Fellowship in lifelong learning: An executive development program for advanced professionals. Journal of Management Education, 23(4), 338-354.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2002). Unleashing the power of self-directed learning. In R. R. Sims (Ed.), Changing the way we manage change (pp. 13-32). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). The transformation of the ECI (Research Report). Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2007). The creation of the emotional and social competency inventory (ESCI) (Research Report). Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Leadership development from a complexity perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 298-313.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2016). Commentary on Ackley (2016): Updates on the ESCI as the behavioral level of emotional intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68(4), 287-293.

Boyatzis, R. E., Batista-Foguet, J. M., Fernandez-i-Marin, X., & Truninger, M. (2015). EI competencies as a related but different characteristic than intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 72.

Boyatzis, R. E., Brizz, T. J., & Godwin, L. (2011). The effect of religious leaders’ emotional and social competencies on improving parish vibrancy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(2), 192-206.



Boyatzis, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. V. (in press). Leading change: Developing emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies in managers during an MBA program. In K. V. Keefer, J. D. A. Parker, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence in education: The Springer series on human exceptionality. Springer Press.

Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Gaskin, J. (2010). A technical note on the ESCI/ESCI-U: Factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity using EFA and CFA (Research Report). Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., Gaskin, J., & Wei, H. (2015). Emotional and social intelligence and behavior. In S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary theory, historical perspective and current concepts (pp. 243-262). New York, NY: Springer Press.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Goleman, D. (1996/1999). Emotional competency inventory. Boston, MA: The Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., Good, D., & Massa, R. (2012). Emotional, social and cognitive intelligence and personality as predictors of sales leadership performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(2), 191-201.

Boyatzis, R. E., Rochford, K., & Cavanagh, K. (2017). Emotional intelligence competencies in engineer’s effectiveness and engagement. Career Development International, 22(1), 70-86.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Sala, F. (2004). The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence (pp. 147-180). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing sustainable leaders through coaching and compassion. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(1), 8-24.

Boyatzis, R. E., Stubbs, E. C., & Taylor, S. N. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies through graduate management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 150-162.

Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rWG indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8(2), 165-184.

Cherniss, C., & Adler, M. (2000). Promoting emotional intelligence in organizations. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

Cohen, A., Doveh, E., & Nahum-Shani, I. (2009) Testing agreement for multi-item scales with the indices rWG(J) and ADM(J). Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 148-164.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.



Hamme, C. (2003). Group emotional intelligence: The research and development of an assessment instrument (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ.

Havers, G. (2010). EI at the heart of performance: The implications of our 2010 ESCI research (Research Report). Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Hay/McBer. (1985). Generic competency dictionary. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer.

Hay Group. (2015a). Leadership styles technical notes.

Hay Group. (2015b). Organizational climate technical notes.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within groups interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rWG: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

Kendall, L. (2016). A theory of micro-level dynamic capabilities: How technology leaders innovate with human connection (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Kerr, P. S. (in press). The power of EI: Comparisons across data from Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership and employee surveys (Research Report). Minneapolis, MN: Korn Ferry Institute.

Koman, E. S., & Wolff, S. B. (2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 55-75.

Korn Ferry Hay Group. (2016). Women outperform men in 11 of 12 key emotional intelligence competencies (Research Findings). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Mahon, E. G., Taylor, S.N., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2014). Antecedents of organizational engagement: Exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1322.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Basic Books.

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14.

McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 54, 100-110.

Miao, C., Humphrey, R., & Qian, S. (2014). Employee emotional intelligence, leader emotional intelligence and employee/subordinate job satisfaction: A meta-analysis (Unpublished manuscript). Virginia Commonwealth University.

Miller, S. P. (2015). Developing next-generation leadership talent in family businesses: The family effect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.



Mosteo, L., Batista-Foguet, J. M., McKeever, J. D., & Serlavos, R. (2016). Understanding Cognitive-Emotional processing through a coaching process: The influence of coaching on vision, goal-directed energy, and resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(1), 1-33. doi:10.1177/0021886315600070

Nowacki, A. S., Barss, C., Spencer, S. M., Christensen, T., Fralicx, R., & Stoller, J. K. (2015). Emotional intelligence and physician leadership potential: A longitudinal study supporting a link. Journal of Health Administration Education, 33(1), 23-41.

Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5(3), 343-355.

Pardasani, R. (2016). Resonant leadership and its individual and organizational outcomes: A test of mediation by emotional attractors and resilience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India.

Pittenger, L. M. (2015). Emotional and social competencies and perceptions of the interpersonal environment of an organization as related to the engagement of IT professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 623.

Ramo, L. G., Saris, W. E., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2009). The impact of social and emotional competencies on effectiveness of Spanish executives. Journal of Management Development, 28(9), 771-793.

Raven, J. C. (1962). Advanced Progressive Matrices, Set I. London, England: H. K. Lewis. (Distributed in the United States by The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX).

Raven, J. C. (1982). The 1979 standardisation of the Standard Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale. Research supplement no. 1 to the Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. London, England: H. K. Lewis.

Ryan, G., Emmerling, R. J., & Spencer, L. M. (2009). Distinguishing high-performing European executives. Journal of Management Development, 28(9), 859-875.

Ryan, G., Spencer, L. M., & Bernhard, U. (2012). Development and validation of a customized competency questionnaire: Linking social, emotional and cognitive competencies to business unit profitability. Cross Cultural Management, 19(1), 90-103.

Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Van Oosten, E. B. (2013). The impact of emotional intelligence and executive coaching on leader effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Williams, H. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals: Emotional intelligence, social intelligence and environmental adaptation. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 36-54.



7. Appendix A. ESCI: Behavioral level of Emotional and Social Intelligence

There are multiple streams of research on emotional and social intelligence. Each stream is grounded in different conceptualizations of emotional intelligence and has relied on different measures (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). Stream 1 is based on the model defined by Mayer and Salovey (1997), which defines EI as a facet of intelligence or cognitive ability. Measures aligned with this stream include direct measures of individuals’ cognitive capacity to process and use emotional information. Stream 2 is also based on the Mayer-Salovey model, but includes studies using self-assessments and peer-reports of the intellectual capacity to handle emotional information. Traditionally, all other theoretical approaches to conceptualizing emotional intelligence have been grouped together as “mixed models” (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). More recently, this categorization has been differentiated into trait-based approaches (Stream 3) and behavior-based approaches (Stream 4). ESCI exemplifies Stream 4 assessments of EI, the measurement of behaviors that manifest EI as observed by others (Boyatzis, 2016; Boyatzis et al., 2015).

Boyatzis and colleagues (Boyatzis, 2016; Boyatzis et al., 2015) have proposed a framework that shows how these different approaches to defining and measuring emotional intelligence relate to each other. This framework, illustrated in Figure 7, shows how individuals’ emotional and social intelligence is revealed, developed, and related to their performance.



Figure 7. A multi-level model of Emotional and Social Intelligence (adapted from Boyatzis, 2016; Boyatzis et al., 2015)

Performance

Observed cluster of EI and/or SI competencies

Behavioral Expression of EICompetency 1

Behavioral Expression of EICompetency 2

Behavioral Expression of SICompetency 1

Behavioral Expression of SICompetency 2

Self-perception and self-conceptualization of EI and SI

Value and philosophical foundations of EI and SI

Motivation, trait, and unconscious dispositions or abilities related to EI or SI

Neural circuits and hormonal patterns related to EI or SI

Behavioral level(e.g., ESCI)

Self-perceived level(e.g., EQ-i)

Ability level(e.g., MSCEIT)

As the most researched and robust Stream 4 measure, the ESCI is particularly well suited for development initiatives where the gathering of 360-degree data is possible. By providing behavioral feedback, it can offer rich insights from others that are highly relevant to an individual’s work performance. As behaviors and competencies are more malleable than traits, ESCI feedback is actionable and can help individuals develop.

About Korn FerryKorn Ferry is the preeminent global people and organizational advisory firm. We help leaders, organizations, and societies succeed by releasing the full power and potential of people. Our nearly 7,000 colleagues deliver services through our Executive Search, Hay Group and Futurestep divisions. Visit kornferry.com for more information.

Visit kornferryinstitute.com for more information on thought leadership, intellectual property and research.

ESCI Research guide and technical manual

Emotional and social competency inventory · participants’ self scores and rater scores,...

Documents

Transcript of Emotional and social competency inventory · participants’ self scores and rater scores,...