A Gendered Analysis of Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: Issues and Concerns
For Human Resource Development
Abstract
Drawing on a sociological analysis considering gender, this paper explores how emotional
intelligence (EI) abilities are socially constructed and valued. It presents a range of societal
trends including ‘the future is female’ to explore how both men and women are perceived and
judged against symbolic representations of masculine and feminine when they perform
gendered conceptions of EI. The paper illuminates how women and men may be encouraged
to take up feminine and masculine interpretations of EI skills but women fare less well. It
then examines the effects of EI’s assessment and therapeutic methods in training and workbased use. It argues that these approaches are damaging to individuals when deployed in work
environments where masculinised management resides as the dominant framework. Finally,
the paper discusses the findings in relation to HRD to reveal important theoretical guidelines
for practice.
Introduction
Emotional intelligence (EI) claims to offer much to businesses of the twenty first century with
benefits including improved performance and productivity (Joseph and Newman, 2010;
O’Boyle et al, 2011). For instance, EI predicts group performance, organisational citizenship
behaviour (Day and Carroll, 2004) and leader emergence (Rubin, Munz and Bommer, 2005).
Its popularity has influenced workplace opinions on effective management styles (Ross-Smith,
Kornberger, Anandakumar and Cheterman, 2007) and according to the flourishing
1
management consultancy industry, EI competencies are taking centre stage in staff selection
(Hatcher, 2008). Calls for EI training can be found in sectors and occupational groups such as
medicine, nursing, pharmacy, the legal profession, leaders, managers, executives and students,
to name but a few (Clarke, 2006, Bharwaney, 2006; Matthew, Zeidner and Roberts, 2007;
Reilly, 2005). In this respect, emotion is no longer viewed as an irrational force but something
which can be controlled and made functional with the correct training (Hatcher, 2003).
In this paper, EI is described as the ability to perceive, use, understand and manage emotions
in one’s self and others (Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Geher and Remstom, 2004, Schutte et al,
1998). As a set of learnable abilities, EI is attractive to Human Resource Development (HRD)
specialists because it provides a framework of skills, previously hidden or immeasurable in
organisational life, but responsible for behaviours considered to help people be successful and
effective at work. Measuring EI in test-like and self-report conditions provides a score which
can form the basis of competency training, team building, learning and development
programmes as well as inform career development planning (McEnrue and Groves, 2006). For
example, EI measures have been used by HRD specialists for executive coaching and
management development (Boyatzis, Stubbs and Taylor, 2002; Peterson, 1996; Slaski and
Cartwright, 2003).
In a review of EI studies McEnrue and Groves (2006: 31-32) state that EI
models and measures have demonstrable application to organisational development, change
management and learning.
Differences in emotional intelligence between men and women have been discussed in
psychological accounts. In psychological studies, women score higher than men on EI (Day
and Carroll, 2004; Joseph and Newman, 2010; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha and Stough, 2005;
van Rooy, Dilchert, Viswesvaran and Ones, 2006). Consistent with this, other studies of
2
emotion and gender using self-report and independent behavioural scorers indicate differences
which ascribe to the notion that women have higher EI than men. Women are better at
decoding non-verbal cues in the face, body and voice, are more attentive and aware of
emotions and have more multifaceted emotional knowledge than men (Ciarrochi, Hynes and
Crittenden, 2005; Feldman Barrett, Lane, Sechrest and Schwartz, 2000; McClure, 2000; Gohm
and Clore, 2000). In measurement terms, self report inventories do have limitations because
people tend to revert to gender stereotyping when filling them in (c.f. Feldman Barrett, Robin,
Peitromonaco and Eyssell, 1998) thus actual behaviour may not be in alignment with self
reported behaviour. However, based on psychological accounts which view gender as a
stable, unitary category, it seems that, overall, women should be encouraged to embrace the
concept of EI as it celebrates all that is symbolically feminine – being aware of emotions,
reading emotions, understanding complex emotional information, talking about feelings and
nurturing constructive social relationships. Women seem to win in the EI stakes because the
concept challenges more masculinised workplaces, dominated by men who have historically
determined what is appropriate emotional (in)expression. This growing valuation of feminine
skills in the workplace is epitomised by representations in the media of ‘the future is female’
(Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011) where ‘feminine’ abilities are said to contribute to effective
team-working, customer service and new authentic and transformational forms of leadership.
Yet, because studies of EI have been dominated by a psychological framing they have missed
a more nuanced sociological analysis that would include recognition of structural factors. To
date, critiques of EI from a sociological perspective have addressed a number of themes but
gender has been under-explored. For instance, accounts have explored the commodification
and instrumentalisation of EI at work, its scope to be used in more manipulative ways, its
elitist position which undermines people’s subjective experiences and valuations of emotions,
3
its cultural insensitivity and incursion into identity formation as a form of self surveillance
(c.f. Bolton, 2005; Clegg and Baumeler, 2010; Fambrough and Hart, 2008; Fineman, 2000;
2004; Hughes, 2005; Illouz, 2009; Lindebaum, 2009; Lindebaum and Cassell, 2012). A
sociological approach, drawing on a gendered analysis of EI, which explores how these skills
are socially constructed and valued, highlights power dynamics and inequalities which are
under-investigated. Though the debate on other forms of ‘emotion work’ from a sociological
approach has dealt with issues of gender such an analysis is conspicuously absent from EI
literature. This paper seeks to address this gap.
In this article, gender refers to ‘the socio-cultural constructions of sex differences and the
beliefs about what is appropriate for, or typical of, one sex more than the other including
feelings, behaviour and interests’ (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011:470).
This article’s
starting point is that, somewhat contradictorily, EI is simultaneously constructed on both male
and female gendered norms: empathy but also efficiency; self control in a market driven
workplace but also emotional perceptiveness and sensitivity; thinking with one’s heart but also
with measured rationality. In this regard, EI appears replete with emotions which are both
gender coded
as masculine (emotional control, rational, quantified use of emotions for
performance) and feminine (identifying and understanding emotion in self and others, talking
about emotion, empathy and care). This argument is based on one general EI where different
emphases are possible (masculine/feminine), rather than arguing for two different gendered
types of EI. Men and women may or may not employ and enact these gender-linked norms
but symbolically they are constantly judged against them. Although these differences are
portrayed as ‘complementary’ or ‘different but equal’, Shields and Warner (2007: 174) note:
4
“If we look at the way that “his” and “hers” types of EI are valued, we begin to see the
inequities that exist. Specifically, one reason why the playing field is not level is that
the types of EI that women are supposedly good at are not valued as much as the types
of EI that men are supposedly good at”.
Drawing on a structural analysis, this paper explores: 1. the impact on men and women when
they perform EI as feminine and masculine skills and 2. the effects of EI’s assessment and
therapeutic methods in training and work-based use where masculine management resides as
the dominant normative framework. The structure of the paper is as follows. The first section
presents a description of emotional intelligence. It then explains a sociological approach to
gender, described as ‘doing’ gender. Following this, the paper draws on a range of social
trends to explore how both men and women are perceived and judged against symbolic
representations of masculine and feminine when they perform gendered conceptions of EI.
The sections illuminates how women and men may be encouraged to take up feminine and
masculine interpretations of EI skills but women fare less well overall. The final section
examines the use of EI assessment tools and EI’s therapeutic training practices, arguing they
are damaging to individuals when deployed in work environments where masculinised
management resides as the dominant framework. Finally, the paper discusses the findings in
relation to HRD to reveal important theoretical guidelines for practice. Overall, by connecting
a gendered analysis of emotional intelligence to HRD, this paper contributes to a growing
body of published work on EI in this journal (e.g. Clarke, 2006; Opengart, 2005; Weinberger,
2002) and explores themes of power, rationality, social structures and feminist theory also
reflected in recent articles in this journal (Bierema, 2009).
5
Emotional Intelligence
As a set of abilities which refer to perceiving, understanding, using and managing emotions,
emotional intelligence is seen as an intelligence that is relatively independent of personality
traits (Mayer and Salovey, 1997) but is somewhat related to measures of traditional
intelligence (Day and Kelloway, 2004).
Perceiving emotions introduces the ability to
accurately identify emotions in oneself and others, using cues from facial expressions, voice
or gestures. Using emotions denotes the ability to generate, use and feel emotion as necessary
to communicate feelings or employ them in other cognitive processes.
Understanding
emotions entails the ability to understand their causes, and consequences and how they change
over time. EI also involves the management of emotions in oneself and others (Brackett and
Salovey, 2004). Tests which measure EI collect data against expert and consensus opinion in
the form of self report, peer report (for team based measures of EI) or behaviourally assessed
measures (e.g. Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel and Hooper 2002; Mayer, Caruso and Salovey,
1999; Schutte et al, 1998).
Viewed as a form of intelligence,
EI develops with age
(Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005) and can be enhanced through training and development in an
integrated fashion (Caruso and Salovey, 2004).
Despite its popularity, a number of concerns have been raised regarding EI’s conceptual and
theoretical properties, how it is measured and its predictive ability. For example, concerns
have been voiced over whether EI as genetically based, learned or both (Bracket and Salovey,
2004). In addition, psychologists note a lack of clarity as to whether EI measures ‘real’
abilities, declarative knowledge of emotions or cultural values and beliefs (Matthews, Emo
and Roberts, 2006). Where EI tests use independent raters of behaviour, there is a lack of
consideration of contextual information in the scenarios given and assumptions that expert
6
scores produce unquestionable right and wrong answers (rather than cultural biases or
different, better ways of thinking) (Matthews et al, 2002; Murphy, 2006:348). More recently,
empirical studies highlight that emotion perception and expression is influenced by situational
(visual scenes, bodies, others’ faces) and cross-cultural factors (e.g. Elfenbein, Beaupré,
Lévesque and Hess, 2007; Feldman Barrett , Mesquita and Gendron, 2011; Karim and Weisz,
2010).
For studies that explore the EI-performance link, commentators note that outcome
variables in EI studies are often difficult to measure and operationalise (van Rooy, Dilchert,
Viswesvaran and Ones, 2006).
In addition, a full causal model of the potential competing
explanations on performance which would ask what EI adds when other variables are already
in the equation (IQ, personality, tacit or procedural knowledge, experience, interests,
education, broader socio-political context) is rarely conducted. Whilst this is a brief review of
the issues in the psychological literature, a gendered, sociological critique of EI endorses
general psychological concerns over EI’s lack of social and cultural contextualisation.
However, this article does not seek to address the psychological concerns with
methodological, conceptual or theoretical recommendations. Instead, through a sociological
framework it explores alternative ways of theorising EI (that is, how it is formed) by focusing
on a socio-cultural perspective. Articulating gender as ‘doing’,
which underlines the
socialisation of EI behaviours and their social construction, enables us to reveal how structural
inequalities are at play.
Gender as ‘doing’
Gender as ‘doing’ denotes gender as a recurring accomplishment to manage behaviour in
light of normative or idealised practices expected for masculinity or femininity. As West and
Zimmerman (1987) explain in their seminal account:
7
“Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and
micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and
feminine ‘natures’ ” (West and Zimmerman, 1987: 126).
Gender linked actions are constituted through interaction where ‘we learn to produce and
recognise masculine and feminine gender displays’ (West and Zimmerman, 1987: 130). As a
consequence gender work appears natural and correct. What is produced is ‘material
embodiment’ of male and female nature in the form of roles and conduct (West and
Zimmerman, 1987: 144). Thus, a gender perspective enables us to explore how we understand
what is historically and culturally ascribed as masculine and feminine appropriate ways of
‘thinking (knowing), feeling, valuing and acting’, and the consequences of that (Alvesson and
Billing, 2009:7). For instance, masculinity is typically described in terms of instrumental
rational control, quantification (money), reductionism, competitiveness and analysis (Hines,
1992; Marshall, 1993). Cultural attributes of femininity are described in terms of nurturance,
sensitivity, empathy and compassion (Grant, 1988). If a woman performs behaviours of
subordination by doing gender and a man of dominance they legitimise and maintain a social
order. In this way, structural arrangements produce or allow some capacities that have been
previously constructed as biological differences (West and Zimmerman, 1987).
In other
words, ‘doing’ gender repositions the concept from an ascribed status (noun) to an achieved
status (verb) (Davies, 1996; West and Zimmerman, 2009).
Framing emotion as a socio-cultural resource in the production and reproduction of gender
serves as a useful lens through which to examine EI. Emotions are used as resources or
gendered norms (specific emotions or emotional engagements) (Lewis and Simpson, 2007).
8
Gendered emotion norms refer to men having greater emotional self control (‘inexpressivity’)
and women being more emotional (‘emotionality’) (Shields, 2002:52-54). Men are believed
to experience more anger and pride and women more happiness and sadness (Brody and Hall,
2008). Men and women may or may not draw on and exhibit these gender-linked images. In
day to day life, being male and female does not necessarily fit either category but symbolically
both sexes are constantly judged against them. Thus, this is not an exhaustive list of responses
and certainly the intention is not to stereotype women and men in particular ways. Nor does it
seek to produce ‘either/or’ scenarios or exclude that both feminine and masculine aspects of
EI can be embraced simultaneously by either sex. It also acknowledges that men and women
may occupy these categories with reservations, misgivings and uncertainties.
As Lewis and Simpson (2007:4) note, whilst not denying gender differences, viewing
gendered norms as cultural resources enables an exploration of meanings associated with
difference and how differences are made sense of, shaped, evaluated, maintained or
contravened. Because doing gender is an accomplishment, it is also optional, and yet, as West
and Zimmerman (1987: 146) note: “If we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals –
not the institutional arrangements – may be called into account (for our character, motives,
and predispositions)”. This highlights the ongoing accountability and assessment made on
men and women’s enactments of normative conceptions of manly and womanly behaviour.
Likewise, as Brody and Hall (2008: 396) note: “Violating stereotypic display rules can lead to
negative social consequences, such as social rejection and discrimination”.
As West and Zimmerman (1987) highlight, failing to ‘do’ gender appropriately tends to result
in individual rather than institutional accountability. Usefully, through a socio-cultural
analysis, light can be shed on
organisational structures and practices that sustain (and
9
challenge) norms of masculine/feminine. Organisational structures refer to power relations,
positions, and hierarchies which are maintained and reinforced through actions, events and
experiences such as managerial decision making and organisational culture.
Whilst
acknowledging that gendered norms vary across occupations, professions and sectors, certain
propensities pervade in organisational structures. Noteworthy is the way men reside in
privileged positions of hierarchical power which subjugate or marginalise lower levels and
minority groups and relatedly, the influence of ‘masculinity’ as a dominant managerial type
(hierarchy and control). If men and women adopt appropriate attitudes and activities for their
sex which sustain work-based patriarchal structures, the social order can be interpreted as a
normal expression of essential differences between men and women.
Thus, gender
achievement is institutional because its language and conduct is a social product of
institutional arrangements where these interactions take place (West and Zimmerman, 2009).
As Davies (1996: 664) notes: “culturally constructed gender relations are called forth, overtly
or otherwise, and in a variety of different ways, to enable the daily business of the
organisation to take place”. As practices and cultural values they become deeply rooted in and
around institutions, reflecting societal values and dominant groups more broadly. In this way,
power structures are grounded in patriarchy and can be highly resistant to initiatives that
attempt to threaten them such as addressing inequality issues (Bierema, 2009).
New social trends in gendered norms
Culturally ascribed values to the male and female are constantly being re-negotiated and
transformed in their day to day production (Davies, 1996: 664; Shields, 2002). In their
comprehensive review of twenty-five years of research on gender and management,
Broadbridge and Simpson (2011) highlight how the feminisation thesis has been widely
10
perpetuated in the media and scholarly research.
Partly influenced by the demand for
‘feminine’ skills in the workplace, it has been driven by a new form of capitalism where
managers must learn to display more warmth, connection, openness and empathy at work;
feminine skills especially required in the service sector (Hatcher, 2003; Swan, 2008). The
notion of compassionate capitalism, post-banking crisis, and the idea that women can reinvent
society and business practices through openness, fairness and social responsibility has also
been a dominant narrative in the media (c.f. Sunderland, 2009). In leadership and management
styles, this approach is embedded in new fields of transformational, authentic and servant
leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and van Engen, 2003).
In
management roles, Francis and Keegan (2006) note the line manager is now increasingly
responsible for absence management, grievance handling, discipline issues and counselling
employees as well as appraisal and selection activities, general motivation and coaching.
These are roles which require EI, particularly in relation to empathy, emotional awareness and
managing emotions. Reinforcing this is the assumption that women’s feminine skills are
enhanced in non-work pursuits where it is currently fashionable to ‘work on’ being a more
emotionally literate partner, parent or friend.
EI becomes a resource which
can be
transferred from intimate relationships to work-based ones (Ilouz, 2009). This new emphasis
on conceptions of femininity helps to explore how women may have a competitive advantage
by embracing those aspects of EI socially ascribed as women’s skills. Equally though, there is
a growing realisation that men are feminising their skills in accordance with societal and
organisational norms and thus can benefit from adopting ‘feminine’ EI attributes, particularly
in white collar, professional occupations. This is referred to as ‘feminised masculinity’
(Furedi, 2004) and is epitomised by the ‘new man’ - an increased acceptance of feminine
masculinity in society and the workplace (e.g. Furedi, 2004; Illouz, 2009; Shields and Warner,
2007; Swan, 2008).
11
In contrast to the feminisation of workplaces thesis, Broadbridge and Simpson (2011) also
point to a body of research which argues that masculinsed or macho management practices
are becoming more prevalent in workplaces. Broadbridge and Simpson (2011:474) chart a
fundamental ascendency of ‘excessive’ and ‘heroic’ masculinity which paves the way for
emphasising the more masculine attributes of EI (instrumental emotional self control). This
dominance is marked by masculine notions of entrepreneurship, strategic management and a
hegemonic masculinity which seeks to subvert femininities. In addition, they refer to critical
management accounts which explore how management processes and practices, previously
coded as feminine, are now being discursively re-formulated as masculine (Broadbridge and
Simpson, 2011:474). This is demonstrable in work activities such as team working,
communication and relationship building where tensions can arise because of increasing
emphasis on performativity, outputs, monitoring and accounting measures (c.f. Marks and
Panzer, 2004). ‘Caring’ professions such as teaching now carry masculine emotion codes
which speak of practices of control, rationality and performance and overrule the feminine
emotion code of caring (c.f. Davies, 1996). Similarly, customer service roles are increasingly
subject to performance standards, targets, discipline and controlled emotional performances.
Drawing on emotional intelligence as feminine skills: ‘feminine’ and ‘feminine
masculinity’
Given one conviction that the ‘future is female’ and gender equality has been achieved
(Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011), women can choose to enact a female interpretation of EI.
This entails the celebration of ‘women’s’ skills found in EI models as understood as those
natural, feminine qualities which are socially ascribed to women. However, this approach
12
appears problematic when a structural analysis is conducted. When women draw on feminised
cultural emotional norms (as found in feminine codes of EI) these tend not to be associated
with positions of authority and power. That is not to say that there is some evidence that the
currently popular ‘transformational’ leadership style, frequently described as an approach
which celebrates women’s skills (emphasising emotional self-awareness, sensitivity towards
others’ feelings and empathy) enables women to more successfully make visible their female
attributes when compared to men (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and van Engen, 2003). In this
regard, women in managerial and leadership positions may be rewarded for adopting feminine
EI behaviours. For instance, research indicates that when female managers act more cooperatively or are more interpersonally oriented, they are appraised more positively in terms
of likability and being influential (e.g. Shackelford, Wood and Worchel, 1996). Unlike men,
when female managers fail to attend to others’ emotions they receive lower satisfaction
ratings from subordinates (Byron, 2008).
Ross-Smith et al’s (2007) study of women executives found that women typically tend to
adopt transformational leadership styles and these leaders were admired and appreciated by
male colleagues. Whilst transformational leadership was appreciated and valued in RossSmith et al’s (2007) study, other accounts note that enhancing feminine qualities typically
does not give women the kind of credit or remuneration men’s key strengths offer. This is
particularly the case in masculine work environments or in non-management positions.
Studies report that these skills are often seen as natural, feminine qualities which are often
unacknowledged, seen as a ‘gift’, ignored and unrewarded (Bolton, 2005; Fletcher, 1999;
Taylor and Tyler, 2000). For example, describing female engineers’ EI acts in a male
dominated engineering firm, Fletcher (1999) accounts for many gestures regularly ‘getting
disappeared’, misunderstood or exploited. The women in her study describe how a firm which
13
values individualism, competition and visible outputs did not consider relational behaviour as
real work, but just helping out.
Related to the ‘female EI advantage’, numerous commentators contend that the new
(emotionally literate) male is on the rise (Furedi, 2004; Illouz, 2009; Shields and Warner,
2007; Swan, 2008). This refers to the suggestion that society is more accepting of male
emotion (Timmers et al, 2003),
termed here as ‘feminine masculinity’ (Furedi, 2004).
Drawing on a therapeutic language and ethos, it is argued that middle class men (in particular)
have just as much access to feminised cultural frames enabling them to think, feel and behave
more in alignment with feminine ideals (Illouz, 2009). If this is the case, men seem to fare
well from this shift in emotion norms. As Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s President, commented
after an incident during which her predecessor President Ricardo Lagos was tearful during a
speech: “The media said ‘It’s his sensitive side coming out’, but when I did it, they said:
‘she’s hysterical’. I’m not whining about it, but come on” (Butler, 2008). Studies corroborate
that controlled emotional expression or ‘weak emotion’ (teary eye) is viewed more positively
in men than women (Shields, Garner, Di Leone and Hadley 2007). Here it is assumed that
emotion is a gentle lapse in otherwise rational behaviour and offers just a glimpse of humanity
but does not express overall weakness.
In their study of beliefs about male and female emotion Timmers, Fischer and Manstead
(2003) found that individuals held stronger stereotypical views of women’s emotions than
men’s. Whereas attitudes were moving away from the ‘unemotional man’, they argue the
‘emotional woman’ stereotype still pervades and is viewed as dysfunctional at work. In
contrast, men are believed to have more emotional sensitivity than women (as well as
displaying more powerful emotional behaviour). As Timmers et al (2003:58) reconcile of
14
men: “This makes them suitable for stereotypically female roles, such as nursing, caring for
children, in addition to stereotypical masculine roles and jobs” (emphasis original). Brackett,
Rivers and Shiffman, (2006) found that through real time observations of performance on a
task-based measure of EI, only men with higher EI scores were evaluated as more socially
competent. One explanation is that when emotion is interpreted in the context of gendered
behaviour, for men it is associated with ability but for women it is still framed within
stereotypes of vulnerability, loss of power and control (Timmers et al, 2003:58) (see also
Shields and Warner, 2007). Swan (2008:99) offers a slightly different explanation:
“it is men’s mobility in relation to gender that provides new workplace capital for them
as men to take up femininities in a way that women cannot take up masculinities. And
it is this flexibility that is the important workplace resource, rather than emotional
subjectivity, per se” (emphasis original).
By ‘softening’ masculinity through male expression and occupation of feminine emotions, the
male advantage is reinstated whilst also serving to distance women from their own
emancipation (Swan, 2008:99). Thus, men can draw on cultural resources in very exclusive
ways, not accessible to women (Swan, 2008). Despite this, the pressure for men to display
more feminine emotion is likely to generate it own stresses and anxieties particularly when
male gendered codes are strongly violated. Adopting feminised masculinity in some
occupations is clearly not valued, as Lindebaum and Fielden (2011) highlight in their study of
EI and construction project management. Equally, male figures in the public eye are still
vulnerable to derision when they express
‘non-maleness’ (Bennett, 2012). However, in
studies of ‘feminine’ professions associations between men, male careerism and managerial
potential lead to positive career opportunities for men (Floge and Merrill, 1986 in Simpson
15
and Lewis, 2007: 46). Findings such as these indicate that even in caring professions,
gendered codes lead to rewards for men.
Drawing on emotional intelligence as masculine skills: ‘manly’ and ‘feminine
masculinity’
A different set of normative values refers to the way the workplace is becoming more macho
and work environment and activities previously viewed as ‘feminine’ are being remasculinised (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011). In accordance with this representation, men
may ascribe to gendered display rules which encourage emotional control and inexpressivity
(Shields, 2002), often articulated as silent, strong, and unemotional. Embracing ‘manly
emotion’ as Shields (2002) describes it, in the form of EI, serves men well as masculine
gendered codes of emotion carry power and influence and attract positive value judgements.
Equally though, women may perform EI abilities in line with male gendered codes of
emotional control, performance and competitiveness. This approach accords with the
argument that the feminine has been colonised by the masculine (Broadbridge and Simpson,
2011). However, when women seek to inhabit socially ascribed ‘masculine’ categories at
work, they are judged more harshly, treated with a lack of credibility or viewed as deficient
(e.g. Kumra and Vinnicombe, 2008; Sheppard, 1989; Rudman, 1998). For example, research
indicates that when women adopt an authoritarian approach they are perceived more
negatively than men and are viewed as domineering (Eagly, Makhijani and Knonsky, 1992).
Numerous accounts note that assertiveness (stereotypically viewed as a male attribute) tends
to be judged positively in men and negatively in women (Grugulis, 2007a) and the display of
initiative is perceived as valuable in male job applicants but viewed as forceful and unwanted
16
in female applicants (Collinson et al, 1990 as cited in Edwards and Wajcman, 2005). As
Grugulis (2007b: 85) notes: “Women who seek to develop and adopt the corporate persona
may be marked down because such behaviour is ‘inappropriate’ for women”.
In the same vein, EI models offer a prescriptive and ‘scientific’ formula to nurturing the social
fabric of work life. This is largely achieved by elevating discourses which promise to ‘crack
the code’ of emotions and highlight EI’s quantifiable nature. For example, Caruso and
Salovey (2004) make the point that emotional intelligence does not threaten reason or logic,
strengthening the case for its rationalisation:
“At first, learning to identify and use the data in feelings might be somewhat awkward
and mechanical. It might seem like following a difficult schematic diagram or a set of
instructions for assembling a complex machine….The good news we offer all
managers is that we have developed a schematic diagram for emotions – a set of
detailed, how-to instructions” (ibid: 24).
Emphasising these explicitly planned steps, they conclude that ‘emotions provide data that
assist us in making rational decisions and behaving in adaptive ways’ (Caruso and Salovey,
2004: 211). Elsewhere, emotional intelligence is marketed as a construct that can be measured
and quantified as ‘a precise metric’ (Goleman, 1998: 5). With these types of messages, the
complex, qualitative and instinctive realm of feelings, care, connection and relationship
management appear translated into a ‘how to’ set of procedural instructions, perhaps with men
in mind. The result is a ‘ “controlled” production of the heart’ (Hatcher, 2008: 161) with
emphasis on performance, quantification and outputs (Lewis and Simpson, 2007: 7). In this
17
way, EI’s agenda clearly has the bottom line in mind with a strong emphasis on a calculative,
emotionally controlled interpretation of the construct.
Drawing on an analysis of socio-cultural resources, this section helps to explain how ‘doing’
or ‘performing’ gender serves to disadvantage women in the workplace when they embody or
transgress male and female conceptions of emotional intelligence. Through articulation of how
gender is being re-negotiated as the ‘female advantage’ and relatedly the ‘emotionally literate
man’, then the ‘re-masculinisation of management’ or ‘macho management’, women seem to
fare less well overall. This is because gendered emotion norms are imposed more forcefully
on women; negative consequences of violating these norms are more salient, particularly in
relation to performance recognition and career development. Given this analysis, women may
be overlooked for promotion or selection for management development, deemed too ‘male’ if
they perform a masculine EI profile. It is also possible they may find it difficult to locate a
mentor with sufficient empathy and insight to understand these tensions. Yet, if they are
excelling as transformational leaders or managers in ‘feminine’ sectors, they may be
concerned that they cannot evade the feminine managerial style without repercussions on
performance evaluations. Equally, they may be out-competed by men who successfully adopt
‘feminine masculinity’ styles. Yet, if they adopt a feminine EI profile in non-management
roles or in masculinised work environments, these skills are likely to be overlooked and
undervalued, as studies indicate.
The masculinisation of management: Implications for EI assessment and therapeutic
training methods
18
This section discusses the effects of EI’s assessment and therapeutic methods in training and
work-based use where masculine management resides as the dominant normative framework.
Compatible with the masculinised paradigm, numerous writers sensitise us to the fact that
employees’ narrow responses to EI are requisite in the way they must control their own
emotions and social behaviour, thus ‘inhibiting personal needs, desires and emotions in
service of organisational needs’ (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002: 472; see also
Fineman, 2004; Hatcher, 2008).
In this way, EI is consistent
with and reinforces
‘masculinity’ as a dominant managerial type (emotional control, rational, quantified use of
emotions for performance). This raises two key concerns. First, when individual assessments
of EI are made during training, how are low EI scores viewed and valued performatively by
the organisation and what is done with this information? Second, what is the individual impact
when EI adopts therapeutic training methods which intrude into sometimes uncomfortable and
complex emotions?
Turning to the first concern, whilst HRD practitioners and consultants are, no doubt, trained to
deal with candidates who come out low on emotional self awareness and self control in a
highly sensitive and non-discriminatory manner, EI assessments makes respondents
vulnerable to organisations which seek to equate low EI scores with masculinised norms of
under-performance, inefficiency and a lack of competitiveness. Just as important, the extent to
which any emotional deficiency
identified in an EI assessment may be caused by the
organisation in the first place is assumedly glossed over and remains unchallenged. If EI
scores are used inappropriately and people are ‘labelled’ in ways which convey
dysfunctionality (irrational, lacking in self control, emotional), it could be seen more as a
device which impedes personal development, has negative effects on well-being, career
advancement and self esteem and undermines constructive social relationships at work. This is
19
not to assume that EI cannot be used as a positive development tool but the recent trend of
practitioner oriented literature which attributes management incompetence not just to skill and
attitude deficiencies but also mental stability and ‘personality disorders’ provokes wellfounded fears and concerns over the power that consultants and managers have over diagnosis
and prognosis of individuals’ EI ‘deficiencies’. Where trends for workplace incompetence are
increasingly described in terms of psychiatric disorders such as narcissism, paranoid, passiveaggressive and sociopathic behaviour (Babiak and Hare, 2007; Cavaiola and Lavender, 2000),
personal apprehension over what happens with an EI classification and the power and
responsibility of those making such assessments becomes a key concern.
The second concern refers to the individual consequences when EI training adopts therapeutic
methods which intrude into sometimes uncomfortable and complex emotions. In practitioner
and critical writings, developing one’s emotional intelligence is frequently paralleled with
psychoanalysis (Kets de Vries, 2006),
cognitive behavioural
therapy or counselling
(Fineman, 2003; Illouz, 2009; McBride and Maitland, 2002; Stein and Book, 2006; Swan,
2010). Whilst Bagshaw (2000) notes that EI is not meant to operate as a counselling
methodology, there is scope for this to happen in practitioner contexts where trainers have free
rein to draw on therapeutic techniques to enhance EI. It is not difficult to see how individuals
may be encouraged to engage in EI’s therapeutic practices to make sense of themselves,
explore past feelings in relation to current thinking and behaviour and how EI may instantiate
a sense of vulnerability and the need for support (Illouz, 2008). A core aspect of EI is
emotional self awareness and understanding. In effect, one cannot control one’s emotions until
those emotions are better understood (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002). To facilitate
this awareness, EI training requests that people talk openly about their emotions, experiences,
attitudes and beliefs in a public arena, whereby the individual becomes the topic.
20
Illustratively, in their comprehensive theory-based approach to EI training, Kornacki and
Caruso (2007) describe self assessment exercises to explore how a person processes,
experiences or stays open to strong emotions. Recommended activities encourage individuals
to reflect on how aware they are of their emotions, the causes of them, ask them to think about
uncomfortable feelings and consequential actions or think about the range and depth of
feelings they experience (Kornacki and Caruso, 2007). This is premised on the basis that EI
training enables people to become more productive and effective at work. However, whilst it
is acknowledged that some employees will be receptive to understanding and discussing
themselves more, others may find this instrumental and threatening, wishing to keep such
private aspects of their emotional lives separate from organisational surveillance (c.f. Martin,
Knopoff and Beckman, 1998). This is most problematic when assessment and training is
mandatory (e.g. ‘in-house’) or culturally normalised rather than a voluntary (internal or
external) endeavour.
Given emotional intelligence training exercises have the potential to release difficult and
complex emotions, there are further issues at stake. Whilst a qualified therapist engages in a
mid or long term contractual counselling commitment to help a client understand and come to
terms with their emotions, a management consultant is contracted in as a fleeting presence for
a one day workshop or week’s development programme. If he or she ‘unlocks’ any personal
issues in a training delegate, there is no obligation or financial incentive to support or counsel
the individual beyond the training period. Perhaps more importantly, EI trainers are more
likely to be management consultants who do not have the requisite counselling or
psychotherapy training to help people delve into and heal their own emotional landscapes,
particularly if this raises deep-seated personal traumas and ‘presenting pasts’. More
conveniently, practitioners encourage participants to talk to their doctor or attend an employee
21
assistance programme (EAP) if the situation warrants a referral. Yet, this practice locates EI
training within a performative model because outsourcing support implies these emotions are
unwanted and surplus to organisational demand.
Attending an EI course could be more
damaging than beneficial to an individual, particularly if difficult emotions generate
discomfort and confusion, are viewed as unmanageable or professional help is unwanted, not
provided or unaffordable.
In addition, by ascribing value to organisationally appropriated emotion (understanding and
labelling emotions in prescribed ways to achieve emotional control), EI undermines the
complexity of emotions. We often do not know what emotions are driving us because we
employ defence mechanisms, displacement and screening strategies that enrich our emotional
lives (Fineman, 2000) as well as complicate our understanding of our feelings. Indeed,
feelings are often mixed or ambiguous, changing, contradictory, subjective, sub-conscious
and thus difficult to know, elucidate, convey or read in oneself and others (e.g. Craib, 1994;
Fineman, 2000; 2004; Höpfl and Linstead, 1997; Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002). EI
training contexts ignore this because assessment measures ascribe to ‘correct’ answers and
‘expert’ scoring which assume complete transparency and uniformity of people’s emotional
terrain. In addition, engaging with this complexity promises no immediate financial gains.
Relatedly, Craib (1994) notes that it can take a long time for people to talk about their feelings
unreservedly in therapy and organisational contexts can be considerably more hostile. In
contrast, EI training courses or workshops prescribe individuals to swiftly and expediently
understand and control their own (and others’ emotions) over a short period of time. Once
emotions have been controlled this then enables an easy adoption of more positive emotional
states to boost optimum levels of performance. As Mayer and Salovey (1997) note EI is
concerned with moderating negative emotions and enhancing positive ones.
22
Such an
emphasis on ‘positivity’ has been widely critiqued as part of a positive organisational
scholarship movement (c.f. Fineman, 2006; Hackhman, 2009; Warren, 2010). Ultimately,
emotional intelligence’s affiliation with the positive psychology movement (e.g. Boniwell,
2008; Salovey, Mayer and Caruso, 2002; Seligman, 2002) promotes an agenda which favours
positivity over negativity for organisational gain.
Not surprisingly, EI has been accused of adopting a positive discourse where ‘the good life
appears locked into a deterministic, totalising picture of the positive person’ (Fineman, 2006:
274). This narrative manifests itself in training speak such as ‘self-talk’, ‘controlling negative
feelings’ and ‘challenging or disputing your internal critic’. The goal is a controlled and
competent emotional performance where ‘what is or is not an emotional competence is
identified by those who have the power to do so’, and emotion is viewed in ‘very narrow
managerially defined terms’ ( Bolton, 2005: 36). Frequently this power lies with consultants
and trainers who ascribe value and meaning to emotions (Fineman, 2004). Ultimately, when
masculinsed normative values preside in the workplace, EI training and assessment processes
generate a number of concerns for HRD practitioners and consultants.
Implications for HRD
Drawing on a structural analysis, this paper explores the impact on men and women when
they perform EI as feminine and masculine skills and the effects of EI’s assessment and
therapeutic methods in training and work-based use where masculine management resides as
the dominant normative framework. This final section asks, in light of the discussion of EI
and women’s disadvantages, how can HRD better serve women? And how can HRD better
support EI training in workplaces where masculinised rationality presides?
23
HRD research appears heavily dominated by performative, measurement, legal and financial
concerns. This performance model of HRD is based on masculinised management practices
consistent with those discussed in this article which tend to favour efficiency, objectivity and
rationality (Bierema, 2009; 2010; Lyotard, 1984). These are evident in productivity enhancing
systems and HRD’s increasingly measurable and competitive outlook. Alternative theoretical
approaches and discussion points inform HRD practice to better contest the nature of power
relations and can promote and support alternative organisational models. As Korte (2012: 22)
notes: “While not discarding the important insights of natural science or individualistic
psychologies, there might be compelling value in studying and practicing HRD from a
predominately social and relational perspective.” For example, using sociological theories
and frameworks we can start to see beyond gender differences in EI described by
psychologists as ‘different but complementary’.
However, in HRD studies topics of gender, equality, patriarchy and power have been poorly
addressed to date (Bierema, 2009). Likewise, a lack of critical address in the training and
development literature means issues of gender and power within organisations have been
overlooked (Devos, 1996). As part of this, HRD theory and research tends to be deficient in
alternative conceptual frameworks which would help to analyse and understand social
structures, power dynamics and structural inequalities (Bierema, 2010; Korte, 2012). Thus,
adopting a sociological perspective offers new perspectives for HRD research engaged with
analysing gender effects for emotional intelligence in the workplace. Adopting the framework
of gender as ‘doing’ informs practices to better serve women through various HRD initiatives.
Recommendations include diversity training and mentoring. Equally, highlighting social
24
trends such as the (re)masculinisation of management practices also facilitates ways for HRD
to better support organisations and individuals undergoing EI training and assessment.
Valuing women and their skills through diversity training and mentoring
Diversity training emphasises the value of difference and a heterogenous workforce and refers
to diversity in relation to gender, age, ethnicity, sexuality and class. It is an area of growing
interest within organizations (McGuire and Patteron, 2012). Taylor, Powell and Wrench
(2001) suggest there are three types of diversity training: providing information, changing
attitudes and changing behaviours. Diversity training for managers includes avoiding
discrimination in recruitment and promotion and general diversity training for all staff focuses
on the theme of inclusion for all groups at work (Dobbin, Kim and Kalev, 2011). McGuire
and Bagher (2010) highlight a detailed set of priorities of diversity training at individual,
group and organisational levels. At the individual level they suggest diversity education,
promoting an understanding of the effects of power and privilege, harnessing positive attitudes
and assisting individuals in overcoming inequality barriers. At the group level they note
priorities such as support for inclusive teamwork practices, nurturing respect and tolerance for
diversity, reviewing group values, improved access and support and evaluating selection,
recruitment and promotion practices. At the organisational level they highlight the role of
mentoring and coaching, diversity champions and workshops, corporate climate and company
policies on diversity.
In the context of this paper, diversity training offers opportunities for attitudinal and
behavioural change towards unfair advantages, sexism, gender stereotypying and patriarchy.
HRD professionals can engage in sustained consciousness-raising to help challenge and
25
alleviate discrimination against women. Gender bias training in assessment, performance
appraisal and career development may be one method. Approaches which reframe gender as
‘doing’ in the context of diversity and equality training is another approach (Kelan and
Nentwich, 2009). Challenging assumptions, policies and informal practices that undermine the
valuation of women (and their skills) is critical to addressing these issues.
Whilst many of the practices highlighted by McGuire and Bagher (2010) would help to
address EI and women’s disadvantages explored in this article, the practice of mentoring for
women is deemed integral to this approach. Mentoring provides opportunities for social
support, advice, learning and development, visibility, exposure and enhanced self-efficacy
(e.g. Kram, 1985) and is seen as a valuable career development tool for women. A thriving
mentoring relationship requires openness, honesty, trust, respect and equality. Mentors should
be chosen who are both self aware (e.g. Clutterbuck, 2004) and politically astute to invisible
hierarchical power structures and gender biases to support their mentees in constructive ways.
Clearly the nature, type and context of a mentoring relationship requires reflective
consideration. Given the focus of this piece, women are best advised to seek mentoring
relationships outwith their organisation if they feel their own institutional culture promotes
masculinised practices of competition which may be endorsed by senior mentors and
negatively influence one’s mentoring relationship.
HRD’s role in EI training
In organisations where a masculine performance bias dominates, it is recommended that EI
training provides opportunities for participants to challenge the masculine performance bias
(Bierema, 2009). As part of this, it is recommended that HRD professionals encourage and
26
support the development of emotional competence through reflective practice and experiential
learning which is more representative of society. Such an approach can be achieved through a
subjective, contextualised exploration of emotion intelligence which is meaningful and
significant to managers and employees and the work they do, in their own terms.
In the case of EI assessments, concerns were raised over how low EI scores are viewed and
valued (i.e. emotional, irrational, no self control) and the impact negative valuations may have
on well-being, career development and promotional opportunities. It is HRD practitioners’
responsibility to work purposefully with management to avoid this type of labelling and sensemaking.
Participants attending EI training should also be able to determine the degree to
which they are happy to engage with EI’s approaches of personal disclosure in work contexts,
given that EI training consultants and professionals may be ill-equipped to support and
validate people’s genuinely complex and uncomfortable emotions. Relatedly, it is advisable
for organisations to vet professional qualifications and credentials of EI trainers to ensure they
are capable of managing difficult emotional situations.
Overall though, many of the recommendations made here require systemic and cultural
changes to shift masculinised norms and values towards those which are more representative
of society. At worst, patriarchal structures remain impervious to change, and at best take time,
energy and skill to challenge and transform. Much of this work must commence through
greater discussion of power structures in scholarly research which can be filtered through to
HRD educational programmes. Currently, inadequate frameworks for analysing and
understanding power and structural inequalities in HRD research (Bierema, 2010) makes it
equally challenging to contest the nature of power relations in HRD practice. Core to this
approach is introducing HRD/HRM students to more critical topics in HRD university
27
programmes. If HRD graduates working as professionals cannot themselves identify and
articulate deeper, invisible issues of power dynamics and patriarchy then it is foolish to
assume they can skilfully develop this type of awareness in the workplace.
Conclusion
In a recent publication, Korte (2012:23) asks the question: “For example, what would a human
resource intervention look like if it started as an attempt to better understand the larger
sociocultural structures of the organization and society rather than the needs of individuals as
resources in the organization?” (Korte, 2012 :23). Using gender as ‘doing’ as an analytical
framework, we can start to see beyond gender differences in EI described by psychologists as
‘different but complementary’. This paper encourages HRD specialists to be mindful of
systemic and cultural changes required to effect changes in masculinised work cultures and
management practices which impact on how women and their skills are valued in the
workplace and how EI is used in assessment and training contexts. This necessitates an
understanding of organisational socio-cultural structures and how they mirror wider societal
values and dominant groups. When we start to view the work of HRD professionals and the
employees they serve ‘as grounded in the social realm’, (Korte, 2012:24), future avenues
open up for new research projects. Based on the analysis in this paper, it is strongly argued
that more empirical research be conducted on EI, gendered skills and the role and impact on
HRD using alternative analytical tools, exploring a variety of organisational and sector
contexts.
References
28
Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y.D. (2009). Understanding gender and organisations. London:
Sage.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in
organizational behaviour are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26
(4), 441-452.
Babaik, P. and Hare, R.D. (2006). Snakes in suits: when psychopaths go to work. New York:
Regan Books.
Bagshaw, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence – training people to be affective so they can be
effective. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(2): 61-65.
Bennett, C. (2012). Its time we ditched this bogus notion of ‘real manhood’. The Observer,
Sunday 23 September.
Bharwaney, G. (2006). Emotionally intelligent living. Carmarthen, Wales: Crown House
Bierema, L. (2009). Critiquing Human Resource Development’s dominant masculine
rationality and evaluating its impact. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 68-96.
Bierema, L. (2010). Resisting HRD's resistance to diversity. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 34(6): 565 – 576.
Bolton, S.C. (2005). Emotion management in the workplace. London: Palgrave.
29
Boniwell, I. (2008). Positive Psychology in a Nutshell. London: PWBC.
Boyatzis, R.E., Stubbs, E.C. and Taylor, S.N. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional
intelligence competencies through graduate management education. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 1(2): 150-162.
Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E. and Shiffman, S. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social
functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4): 780-795.
Brackett, M.A. and Salovey, P. (2004). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MayerSalovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). In G. Geher,
(Ed). Measuring
emotional intelligence: common ground and controversy. Hauppauge, N.Y: Nova Science
Publishing.
Broadbridge, A. and Simpson, R. (2011). 25 years on: Reflecting on the past and looking to
the future in gender and management research. British Journal of Management, 22(3): 470483.
Brody, L.R. and Hall, J.A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. In M. Lewis, J.M.
Haviland-Jones, and L. Feldman Barrett (Eds). The Handbook of Emotions, NY: Guilford
Publications.
Butler, K. (2008). Women judged more harshly. The Independent, Saturday 5 April.
30
Byron, K. (2008). Differential effects of male and female managers’ non-verbal emotional
skills on employees’ ratings. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2): 118-134.
Caruso, D.R and Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager. San Francisco:
JosseyBass.
Cavaiola, A.A. and Lavender, N.J. (2000). Toxic coworkers: how to deal with dysfunctional
people on the job. NY: New Harbinger Publications.
Ciarrochi, J., Hynes, K., & Crittenden, N. (2005). Can men do better if they try harder? Sex
and motivational effects on emotional awareness. Cognition and Emotion, 19 (1), 133–141.
Clarke, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence training: a case of caveat emptor. Human Resource
Development Review, 5(4), 422-441.
Clegg, S. and Baumeleer, C. (2010). Essai: from iron cages to liquid modernity in
organisational analysis. Organisation Studies, 31(12), 1713-1733.
Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Everyone needs a mentor: Fostering talent in your organisation.
London: Chartered Institute of Personnel Development.
Craib, I. (1994). The importance of disappointment. Oxon: Routledge.
31
Davies, C. (1996). The sociology of professions and the profession of gender. Sociology,
30(4): 661-678.
Day, A.L. and Carroll, S.A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence
to predict individual performance, group performance, and group citizenship behaviours.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (6), 1443-1458
Day, A.L. and Kelloway, E.K. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: rhetoric and
reality. In G. Geher (Ed). Measuring emotional intelligence: common ground and controversy.
Hauppauge, N.Y: Nova Science Publishing.
Devos, A. (1996). Gender, work and workplace learning. Studies in Continuing Education,
18, 110-121.
Dobbin, F., Kim, S., and Kalev, A. (2011). You can’t always get what you need:
Organisational determinants of diversity programmes. American Sociological Review, 76(3):
386-411.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M.L. (2003) Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles; a meta analysis comparing women and men.
Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 569-591.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M. and Knonsky, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-22
32
Edwards, P. and Wajcman, J. (2005). The politics of working life. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Elfenbein, H. A., Beaupré, M. G., Lévesque, M. & Hess, U. (2007). Toward a dialect theory:
Cultural differences in the expression and recognition of posed facial expressions. Emotion, 7,
131-146.
Fambrough, M.J. and Hart, R.K. (2008). Emotions in leadership development: a critique of
emotional intelligence. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(5), 740-758.
Feldman Barrett, L., Lane, R.D., Sechrest, L. and Schwartz, G.E. (2000). Sex differences in
emotional awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1027-1035.
Feldman Barrett, L., Mesquita, B, and Gendron, M. (2011). Context in emotion perception.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (5), 286-290.
Feldman Barrett, L., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P.R. and Eyssell, K.M. (1998). Are women the
“more emotional” sex? Evidence from emotional experiences in social context. Cognition and
Emotion, 12(4): 555-578.
Fineman, S. (2000). Commodifying the emotionally intelligent. In Fineman, S. (ed.) Emotions
in organizations. London: Sage.
Fineman, S. (2003). Understanding emotions at work. London: Sage.
33
Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion – and the cautionary tale of emotional
intelligence. Human Relations, 57(6), 719-740.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management
Review, 31 (2), 270-291.
Fletcher, J.K. (1999). Disappearing acts: gender, power and relational practice at work.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Francis, H. and Keegan, A. (2006). The changing face of HRM: in search of balance. Human
Resource Management Journal, 16(3), 231-249.
Furedi, F. (2004). Therapy Culture: Cultivating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age. London:
Routledge
Geher, G. and Renstrom, K.L. (2004). Measurement issues in emotional intelligence research.
In G. Geher (Ed). Measuring emotional intelligence: common ground and controversy.
Hauppauge, N.Y: Nova Science Publishing.
Gohm, C.L. and Clore, G.L. (2000). Individual differences in emotional experience: Mapping
available scales to processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (6) 679-697.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
34
Grant, J. (1988). Women as managers: what can they offer to organisations? Organisational
Dynamics, 1, 56-63.
Grugulis, I. (2007a). The human side of skills and knowledge. In S.C. Bolton and M.
Houlihan, (Eds). Searching for the human in human resource management: theory, practice
and workplace contexts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grugulis, I. (2007b). Skills, training and human resource development: A critical text.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hackman, J.R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 30, 309319.
Hatcher, C. (2003). Refashioning a passionate manager: gender at work. Gender, Work and
Organisation, 10(4), 391-412.
Hatcher, C. (2008). Becoming a successful corporate character and the role of emotion
management. In S. Fineman (ed.). The emotional organisation: passions and powers. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hines, R. (1992). Account: filling the negative space. Accounting, Organisation and Society,
17 (3-4), 314-41.
Höpfl, H. and Linstead, S. (1997). Introduction: Learning to Feel and Feeling to Learn:
Emotion and Learning in Organizations. Management Learning, 28(1), 5-12
35
Hughes, J. (2005). Bringing emotion to work: emotional intelligence, employee resistance and
the reinvention of character. Work, Employment and Society, 19(3), 603-625.
Illouz, E. (2008). Saving the modern soul: therapy, emotions, and the culture of self-help.
London: University of California Press.
Illouz, E. (2009). Emotional capital, therapeutic language, and the habitus of “The new man”.
In
N.C. Karafyllis and G. Ulshőfer
(Eds). Sexualised Brains: Scientific Modelling of
Emotional Intelligence from a Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jordan, P., Ashkanasy, N. and Härtel, C. and Hooper, G. (2002). Workgroup emotional
intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus.
Human Resources Management Review, 12, 195-214.
Joseph, D.L. and Newman, D.A. (2010). Emotional Intelligence: an integrative meta-analysis
and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.
Karim, J., Weisz, R. (2010). Cross-Cultural Research on the Reliability and Validity of the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Cross-Cultural Research, 44
(4), 374-404.
Kelan, E. and Nentwich, J. (2009) The value of seeing gender as a ‘doing’. In M. Özbilgin
(Ed).
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work: A Research Companion. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
36
Kets de Vries, M (2006). The leader on the couch: a clinical approach to changing people
and organisations. Chicester: John Wiley and Sons.
Kornacki, S.A. and Caruso, D.R. (2007). A theory-based, practical approach to emotional
intelligence training: Ten ways to increase emotional skills. In J. Ciarrochi and J.D. Mayer
(Eds). Applying Emotional Intelligence: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Psychology Press.
Korte, R. (2012). Exploring the social foundations of Human Resource Development: A
theoretical framework for research and practice. Human Resource Development Review,
11(1), 6-30.
Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental Relationships in Organisational Life.
Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Kumra, S. and Vinnicombe, S. (2008). A study of the promotion to partner process in a
professional services firm: how women are disadvantaged. British Journal of Management,
19: S65-S74.
Lewis, P. and Simpson, R. (2007). Gender and emotions: introduction. In P. Lewis and R.
Simpson (Eds). Gendering emotions in organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on developing emotional intelligence.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(2), 225-137.
37
Lindebaum, D. and Cassell, C. (2012). A contradiction in terms? Making sense of emotional
intelligence in a construction management environment. British Journal of Management, 23
(1), 65-79.
Lindebaum D, and Fielden S (2011) “It’s good to be angry”: Enacting anger in construction
project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(3), 437–
458.
Lyotard, J.F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of
Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Marks, M. A. and Panzer, F.J. (2004). The influence of team monitoring on team processes
and performance, Human Factors, 17(1), 25-41.
Marshall, J. (1993). Organisational communication from a feminist perspective. In S. Deetz
(Ed) Communication Yearbook, 16. Newbury Park: Sage.
Martin,J., Knopoff, K. and Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality
and emotional labor: bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43 (2), 429-69.
Matthews, G., Emo, A.K. and Roberts, R.D. (2006) What is this thing called emotional
intelligence? In K.R. Murphy (Ed.). A critique of emotional intelligence: what are the
problems and wow can they be fixed? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts. R.D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: science and
myth. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D. (2007). Emotional intelligence: consensus,
controversies and questions. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, and R.D. Roberts (Eds.). The
science of emotional intelligence: knowns and unknowns. New York: OUP.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (1999), Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey and D.
Sluyter (Eds). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications.
New York: Perseus Books Group.
McBride, P. and Maitland, S. (2002). The EI advantage: putting emotional intelligence into
practice. Maidenhead: Mcgraw-Hill.
McClure, E.B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression
processing and their development in infants, children and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin,
126 (3), 424-453.
McEnrue, M.P. and Groves, K. (2006). Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: What
is the evidence? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 9-42.
39
McGuire, D. and Bagher, M. (2010). Diversity training in organisations: an introduction.
Journal of
European Industrial Training, 34 (6), 493 – 505.
McGuire, D. and Patterson, N. (2012) Diversity in organisations. In C. Scott and M. Byrd
(Eds). Handbook of Research on Workforce Diversity in a Global Society: Technologies and
Concepts. Harisburg, PA/US: IGI Global.
Murphy, K.R. (2006). Four conclusions about emotional intelligence. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.).
A critique of emotional intelligence: what are the problems and how can they be fixed? New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
O’Boyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M. and Hawver, T.H. and Story, P.A. (2011). The
relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 32 (5), 788-818.
Opengart, R. (2005) Emotional Intelligence and Emotion Work: Examining Constructs from
an Interdisciplinary Framework. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (49), 49-62.
Palmer. B., Gignac, G., Manocha, R. and Stough. C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test version 2.0, Intelligence, 33, 285-305.
Peterson, D. (1996). Executive coaching at work: the art of one-on-one change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48 (2), 78-86.
40
Reilly, P. (2005). Teaching law students how to feel: using negotiations training to increase
emotional intelligence. Negotiation Journal, 21(2), 301-314.
Ross-Smith, A., Kornberger, M., Anandakumar, A. and Cheterman, C. (2007). Women
executives: managing emotions at the top. In P. Lewis and R. Simpson (Eds.). Gendering
emotions in organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Rubin, R., Munz, D. and Bommer, W. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion
recognition and personality on transformational leadership behaviour. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(5), 845-858.
Rudman, L.A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of
counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74 (3), 629-645.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D. and Caruso, D.
(2002). The positive psychology of emotional
intelligence. In C.R. Synder and S.J.Lopez (Eds). The Handbook of Positive Psychology.
Oxford: OUP
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J and
Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25 (2), 167-177.
Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic Happiness. New York: Free Press.
41
Shackelford, S., Wood, W. and Worchel, S. (1996). Behavioural styles and the influence of
women in mixed-sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59: 284-293.
Sheppard, D. (1989). Organizations, power and sexuality: The image and self-image of
women
managers. In J. Hearn, D. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sherrif & G. Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of
organization. London: Sage.
Shields, S.A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: gender and the social meaning of emotion.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Shields, S.A., Garner, D.N., Di Leone, B. and Hadley, A.M. (2007 ). Gender and emotion. In
J.E> Stes and J.H. Turner (Eds). Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions. Springer: NY.
Shields, S.A. and Warner, L.R. (2007). Gender and the emotion politics of emotional
intelligence. In S. Fineman (Ed.), The Emotional Organization: Critical Voices. London:
Blackwell.
Simpson, R. and Lewis, P. (2007). Voice, Visibility and the Gendering of Organisations.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Slaski, M. and Cartwright, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence training and its implications for
stress, health and performance. Stress and Health, 19 (4), 233-239.
42
Stein, S.J. and Book, H. (2006). The EQ edge: emotional intelligence and your success.
Mississauga, Canada: John Wiley and Sons.
Sunderland, R. (2009). After the crash, Iceland’s women lead the rescue. The Guardian, 22
February.
Swan, E. (2008). ‘You make me feel like a woman’: Therapeutic cultures and the contagion of
feminity. Gender, Work and Organisation, 15(1), 88-107.
Swan, E. (2010). Worked up selves: Personal development workers, self-work and therapeutic
cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Taylor, P., Powell, D. and Wrench, J. (2001). The evaluation of anti-discrimination training
activities in the United Kingdom. International Migration Papers 21, Centre for Research in
Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick.
Taylor, S. and Tyler, M. (2000). Emotional labour and sexual difference in the airline
industry. Work, Employment and Society, 14 (1), 77-95.
Timmers, M., Fischer, A.H. and Manstead, A.S.R. (2003). Ability versus vulnerability:
Beliefs about men’s and women’s emotional behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 17(1), 41-63.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.
43
van Rooy, D. L., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2006).Multiplying
intelligences: Are general, emotional, and practical intelligences equal? In K. R. Murphy (Ed.)
A critique of emotional intelligence . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Warren, S. (2010). What’s wrong with being positive?. In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington and N.
Garcea (eds). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Weinberger, L.A. (2002). Emotional Intelligence: Its Connection to HRD Theory and Practice.
Human Resource Development Review, 1 (2), 215-243
West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2):,125-151.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society,
23(1), 112-122.
44