Emotional intelligence and performance
Running head: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PERFORMANCE AT WORK
Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work
Vanessa Urch Druskat
Whittemore School of Business and Economics
The University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
USA
Ph 603-862-3348
Fax 603-862-3383
Email Vanessa.druskat@unh.edu
Peter J Jordan
Griffith Business School
Griffith University
Australia
Ph 37353717
Fax 37353887
Email Peter.Jordan@griffith.edu.au
Article submitted for inclusion in Cherniss, C. (Ed) American Psychologist Special Edition
on Emotional Intelligence.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Cary Cherniss for his invaluable comments on
drafts, and Josina Fluehr-Lobban for her help with our literature review.
1
Emotional intelligence and performance
2
Abstract
A growing body of research reveals that emotion has a pervasive influence in
organizations. Thus, some scholars have argued that emotional intelligence abilities that
enable one to think intelligently about emotion can support constructive behavior and
decision-making in organizations and enhance the performance of individuals, groups, and
organizations. But, theory and research on emotional intelligence have emerged quickly and
important questions about the concept abound. In this article, we review the current state of
the interdisciplinary literature on the link between emotional intelligence and work
performance. We suggest that theory and research are progressively moving in two directions
(1) one aimed towards recognition of emotional intelligence as a bonafide type of intelligence
that, among other things, supports the development of constructive social relationships and
work performance, (2) the second aimed towards identifying the social and emotional skills
and competencies made possible by emotional intelligence and that supports the development
of social relationships and work performance. We show that, despite using different
measurement techniques, researchers aiming in both directions demonstrate that, in certain
contexts, emotional intelligence predicts work performance over and above measures of
personality and general mental ability. We also suggest directions for theory and research that
can advance knowledge and practice.
Keywords: Emotions, Emotional Intelligence, Work Performance.
Emotional intelligence and performance
3
Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work
These are exciting times for researchers interested in the study of emotions in
organizations. It is no coincidence that the growing fascination over a possible link between
emotional intelligence and work performance has occurred amid the current “affective
revolution” (Barsade, Brief, & Spataro, 2003) in organizational studies. Despite the
inseparable link between emotion and cognition (Damasio, 1994) the “affective revolution” is
a movement of the pendulum away from an earlier dominant focus on the value of cognition
and rational thinking that occurred during the “cognitive revolution” in the 1970’s and 1980’s
(see Barker, Abrams, Tiyaamornwong, et al., 2000). At that time, emotion was relatively
absent from organizational research and exploring emotion in organizational life was “largely
deemphasized, marginalized, or ignored” (Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998, p. 429). The
pendulum has now swung towards recognition that employee emotions are unavoidable and
necessary and that they influence work behavior and outcomes. The notion that emotion
influences processes and performance at work is not new (see Homans, 1950; Rothlisberger
& Dickson, 1939), what is new is the mounting research evidence linking emotion to
performance and other valuable consequences in organizations (Ashkanasy, Zerbe & Hartel,
2005).
It is within this context that research on emotional intelligence in the workplace has
taken-off in the last decade. It started in the early 1990’s with the publication of Mayer and
Salovey’s first theoretical article on the topic (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and Goleman’s
exciting and user-friendly books (Goleman, 1995, 1998). As we will discuss, it shows no
signs of slowing down. There is understandable excitement over the idea of a form of
intelligence that facilitates perceiving, understanding, and managing emotion, and that
enables the use of emotion to improve thought and action.
Emotional intelligence and performance
4
For practicing managers in organizations, emotional intelligence can help explain why
employees with strong academic backgrounds or cognitive skills are not always the best team
members or leaders. Regardless of the need for additional construct clarification and
measurement testing (see Murphy, 2006), its mere existence as a concept has broadened
managers’ ideas about the abilities and skills necessary for success in certain job contexts.
This is significant because although research has shown that failure in managerial-level
positions is usually due to a lack of emotional and interpersonal skills (Lombardo, Ruderman,
& McCauley, 1988) discussions about such topics have been isolated and few. Practicing
managers want frameworks, assessments, and developmental tools that can help them avoid
costly hiring and promotion mistakes, and that can help them develop the capabilities of their
most talented employees. They are therefore particularly enthusiastic about the growing
evidence that emotional intelligence is not fixed and can be developed by those with the
motivation to do so (Boyatzis, Stubbs, & Taylor, 2002; Caruso & Salovey, 2004).
At the same time, some prominent Industrial/Organizational psychologists have
fiercely criticized conceptualizations and research on emotional intelligence (Matthews,
Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002) and notions that it offers researchers and organizations anything
new (Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005). As valuable gate-keepers, their role has been to hold a
mirror to researchers, to ask them to temper enthusiasm until good reliable data is collected
over time, and to outline questions and concerns that must be addressed if research and theory
are to move forward in an effective and sustainable way.
Our purpose in this article is to present and discuss the current state of knowledge on
the link between emotional intelligence and workplace performance—at multiple levels in
organizations. Our review is aimed at identifying promising directions for future theory and
research. We begin by weighing in on the current controversies over the concept of emotional
Emotional intelligence and performance
5
intelligence because of their centrality to understanding the current state of the literature and
their relevance to the new directions we propose.
Background and Controversies
When Daniel Goleman’s first book on emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995)
appeared, a small fraction of it addressed emotional intelligence in the workplace. The face
validity of the concept led practicing managers to quickly pursue more information. Goleman
responded with a second book focused on the value of EI in the workplace (Goleman, 1998).
Goleman is a former student of the late David C. McClelland who arguably spearheaded the
idea of job competency modelling (see McClelland, 1973). Thus, he turned to competency
research to provide answers about the manifestation of emotional intelligence in the
workplace. Goleman defined an “emotional competence” as “a learned capability based on
emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work,” and proposed that
both social and emotional competencies fell under this definition (Goleman, 1998, p. 24).
Goleman’s theory is rooted in data from decades of inductive qualitative competency
research carried out by McClelland and his former students (see Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer &
Spencer, 1993). That research revealed that competencies falling theoretically under the
categories of: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills were
significantly more often demonstrated by the highest performing managers than the
competencies theoretically categorized as “cognitive” (e.g., systems thinking, pattern
recognition). At a later time, Goleman and his colleague Richard Boyatzis developed a selfand other- report survey (i.e., 360 degrees) that assesses perceived demonstration of the
competencies in the model (see Sala, 2002; Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000).
As discussed, research on the role of emotions in organizations was already
burgeoning and this facilitated the speed with which researchers turned their attention to
emotional intelligence. The relative newness of the concept meant that researchers needed to
Emotional intelligence and performance
6
develop their own models and measurement instruments. For example, Reuven Bar-On who
had been studying emotional well-being offered his definition of “emotional-social
intelligence” and his self-report instrument which soon was shown to predict the job
performance of recruiters in the U.S. Air Force, recruits in the Israeli Defense Forces (BarOn, 1997, 2006) and several others. This was followed by emotional intelligence models and
self-report instruments developed by Schutte and colleagues (1998; 2000), Jordan and
colleagues (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, 2002), Wong and Law (2002) and others
(for more examples, see article by Gowing & O’Leary this issue).
At the same time, the originators of the emotional intelligence concept, Mayer and
Salovey, were working with their colleagues toward another end (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, &
Sitarenios, 2001). Their definition and their research and writing present emotional
intelligence as a legitimate parallel to more widely recognized forms of intelligence (e.g.,
verbal or spatial intelligence). Their research program has been aimed at testing whether
emotional intelligence meets traditional standards as a form of intelligence (see Mayer,
Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). Toward that end, they developed, tested, and revised an ability
measure that, unlike the other self-report (or other-report) measures, requires subjects to
reason accurately in the areas of perceiving, assimilating, understanding, and managing
emotions (see Mayer, Panter, Salovey, Sitaraneos, 2005; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002).
Critics of emotional intelligence favor the Mayer and Salovey model and stream of
research and their measurement instrument as a more legitimate test of emotional intelligence
(see Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002; Murphy, 2006). On the
whole, they focus their complaints at the more organizationally focused models of emotional
intelligence. They complain about the of the lack of a consistent definition of emotional
intelligence, the overly broad nature of some definitions (for example, Goleman’s framework
includes twenty competencies and Bar-On’s includes fifteen) (Locke, 2005), the similarity
Emotional intelligence and performance
7
between some definitions of EI and personality characteristics (Matthews et al., 2002), the
lack of reliable and valid measurement instruments, and the lack of rigorous research
demonstrating that emotional intelligence adds predictive validity over and above what
personality measures and cognitive intelligence measures already offer (Landy, 2005). They
also condemn the “opportunistic” behavior of those they perceive to exaggerate the value of
emotional intelligence for their own financial gain (see, Fineman, 2004; Landy, 2005; Locke,
2005; Matthews et al., 2002). Some critics demand to see the numbers supporting the claims
made by advocates like Goleman whose theory is based on research that is primarily
inductive, qualitative, and proprietary because most of it was conducted by students of
McClelland’s while working for his consulting firm, which is now owned by the Hay Group
(for details on their research methods see Boyatzis, 1998) (Landy, 2005, 2006).
Several of these important criticisms point to problems that are predictable during the
early stages of construct development (see Weick, 1989). We address two of them in this
article: (1) the quality of research that supports the link between emotional intelligence and
work performance, and (2) the inconsistencies of models, definitions and measurements of
the construct.
Two Conceptions of Emotional Intelligence
To begin addressing the inconsistencies in models and definitions of emotional
intelligence, we make what seems like a natural proposition -- that two categories of theory
on emotional intelligence exist. Each involves a distinct but valid conception of emotional
intelligence, and research and theory in each category aim toward related but distinct
purposes. Others have also discussed the existence of two categories of theory. For example,
Petrides and his colleagues (Petrides, Furnham, & Frederickson, 2004) discuss one category
as the study of “ability emotional intelligence,” defined as emotion- related cognitive
abilities measured via performance tests. They propose the second category to be “trait
Emotional intelligence and performance
8
emotional intelligence,” defined as emotion-related dispositions or self-perceptions measured
via self-report. Offermann and her colleagues (Offermann, Bailey, Vasilopoulos, Seal, Sass,
2004) also discuss two categories of theory. One category defines emotional intelligence as a
legitimate intelligence or set of cognitive abilities that involve emotion. The second category
defines a “mixed-model” of emotional intelligence that includes skills and personality
characteristics that may be products of emotional intelligence (see also Matthews et al.,
2002).
A recent meta-analysis supports the two category distinction (Van Rooy, Viswesvaran
& Pluta, 2005). It demonstrated that researchers studying “mixed-models” of emotional
intelligence use a variety of self-report measures, yet their measures overlap significantly and
correlate .71 among themselves. They correlate .14 to the more ability-focused measures use
to study emotional intelligence as a type of intelligence (Van Rooy, Viswesvaran & Pluta,
2005). However, as will be discussed in greater depth below, researchers in these distinct
groups have found that their constructs, despite being assessed through very different
measures, both predict work performance over and above personality traits and general
mental ability in certain contexts (e.g., Côté & Miners, 2006; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004;
Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).
Thus, for the purposes of this article, we label the two conceptions of emotional
intelligence as focused upon: (1) emotional intelligence, defined as the capacity to carry out
accurate reasoning about emotions and to use emotions to enhance thought (see Mayer &
Salovey, 1990), and (2) expressed emotional intelligence, defined as the behaviors or actions
resulting from the strength of one’s capacity for emotional intelligence. The label “expressed
emotional intelligence” acknowledges that this conception aims to represent skills and
behaviors --not personality traits as some critics have argued. Personality traits are generally
defined as relatively stable and enduring characteristics of a person (Snyder & Ickes, 1985).
Emotional intelligence and performance
9
But, the skills in expressed emotional intelligence models can change and develop over time
(see Bar-On, Handley, & Fund, 2006; Boyatzis et al., 2002; Ciarrochi & Godsell, 2006). For
example, as a person’s emotional intelligence increases, a person can increase in her capacity
to understand and/or control her emotions (see Bar-On’s dimensions of “emotional selfawareness” and “impulse control,” Goleman’s dimensions of “self-awareness” and “selfcontrol,” or Shutte’s dimensions of “emotional awareness” and emotional control”). We also
preferred the label “expressed emotional intelligence” to one that refers to the construct by
the way it is measured (e.g., self-concept or self-report emotional intelligence), because of the
danger of identifying a construct by the way it is measured (e.g., IQ is that which IQ
measures), which can steer theory and research away from addressing the most fundamental
question at this early stage in the history of this concept-- What exactly is emotional
intelligence (see Oatley, 2004, p. 221)? Hereafter, we separately review research falling
under the two conceptions of emotional intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence and Work Performance in Different Job Contexts
If there is a discernable fact emerging from research on the antecedents of work
performance it is that context matters. The predictors of performance in a job making cars on
an assembly line differ from those in a job processing insurance claims, or leading a
company. Actions and behaviors relevant to performance will also vary by type of
organization. For example, those of an administrative assistant in a university setting may
differ from those of an administrative assistant in a fast-paced high-technology firm. A list of
the ways that context can influence the skills, behaviors, and strategies that predict work
performance could be endless. As there has not been enough research done on emotional
intelligence to examine patterns in highly specific job or organizational contexts, below we
present and discuss the research in three broad contextual categories: (1) individual
Emotional intelligence and performance 10
contributors, (2) leadership roles, and (3) group or team tasks. As discussed above, we
separate our discussion by the category of emotional intelligence studied.
Individual Contributors
Individual contributors in organizations usually do not have leadership or managerial
responsibilities. During the course of their work day, events lead to the experience of a wide
range of emotions, e.g., joy, worry, love, frustration, that can have an effect on one’s work
performance (Ashkanasy, 2003). Because most jobs involve the need to interact with other
people, some of these emotions may occur during interpersonal interactions (Côté & Miners,
2006). Thus, emotional intelligence abilities that enable understanding, managing or using
emotions toward constructive ends may influence the performance of individual contributors.
Emotional intelligence in individual contributor roles. We located four studies
published in peer-reviewed journal articles examining the influence of emotional intelligence
(as intelligence) on work performance (see Table 1). Lam and Kirby (2002) studied the
individual cognitive-based performance of college students under stressful circumstances that
involved difficult problems and very short time allotments. After controlling for general
mental ability, performance was significantly predicted by the EI branches of perceiving
emotions, and regulating emotions, but not the third branch they studied, understanding
emotions. A related study (discussed in our section on team contexts) also found that
individual performance on a cognitive task was predicted by perceiving emotions, but not
other branches of EI (Day and Carroll, 2004). It appears that cognitive tasks are enhanced by
the ability to monitor and be aware of one’s own emotion. When one is under great pressure
while completing a cognitive task, the ability to regulate or manage one’s emotions also
becomes of significant importance.
------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
Emotional intelligence and performance 11
---------------------------------Lopes and his colleagues (Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey, 2006) conducted a
field study examining the influence of emotional intelligence on the work performance of
individual contributors whose tasks were cognitive, but also involved an interpersonal
component. They studied analysts and clerical and administrative staff from the finance
department of a U.S. insurance company. In this job context, the EI branch of perceiving
emotion was not related to performance. However, the three other EI branches they studied
were related to performance. Using emotions to facilitate thought and action (e.g., drawing on
emotions in the service of achieving goals) was related to company rank. The EI branches of
understanding emotion and managing emotion were found to be significantly related to both
company rank and percent merit pay increase. These two EI branches that are more strategic
in nature and are related to managing oneself around others in the organization (see Mayer,
Salovey & Caruso, 2004) make a difference to employee rank and merit pay, despite the fact
that these are individual contributor roles. This supports the notion that individual contributor
roles requiring interpersonal interaction benefit from emotional intelligence.
So far, we have only seen the relevance of the perceiving emotions branch of EI in
highly cognitive tasks. In the next study, Elfenbein and Ambady (2002) took a closer look at
the perceiving emotion branch in a field study of employees whose jobs were largely
dependent on interpersonal interaction. Using an interesting theoretical twist, they looked
specifically at a subset of the perceiving emotion ability they labelled “eavesdropping on
feelings.” Eavesdropping skill was defined as the ability to extract non-verbal emotions from
vocal tones better than from facial expressions. Study participants were recent college
graduates doing a year of community service work that included organizing after school
programs, serving as school teaching assistants, and working in teams on community-related
tasks. Results showed that in a task involving a great deal of interpersonal interactions
Emotional intelligence and performance 12
employee effectiveness was related to skill at eavesdropping on positive feelings, e.g.,
happiness, but not to skill at eavesdropping on negative feelings, e.g., anger, fear, or sadness,
which had a negative effect on ratings of employee effectiveness. In this highly interpersonal
context, it may be that eavesdropping on negative feelings distracts from the task by
producing an unconstructive amount of empathy, or it may be that it provides access to
feelings that make others uncomfortable and would better go unnoticed (Elfenbein &
Ambady, 2002). Recognizing a co-worker or clients’ emotions (i.e., perceiving emotions)
might be most useful if the perceiver is also skilled in managing emotions (e.g., skill at
turning anger into constructive behavior), unfortunately that EI branch was not assessed
(Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002).
Côté and Miners (2006) studied primarily individual contributors working in various
jobs at a large public university. Jobs included building and grounds (1% of sample), business
and finance (7%), computer and mathematical (16%), education and library (28%),
maintenance (1%), legal (1%), personal care (1%), protective service (2%), administrative
support (23%) and managers (21%). This study assessed the influence of total EI and did not
examine the four branches of EI discussed by Mayer and Salovey (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso,
2002). Findings revealed what the authors labelled a compensatory model: Total EI became a
stronger predictor of performance as cognitive intelligence decreased. It is interesting to
compare this finding to that of a study conducted with non-managerial employees in Hong
Kong. Here it was found that total EI was significantly correlated with employee
performance, however, the amount of emotional labor required in the job (i.e., how often
employees must manage or act out certain emotions in a job) moderated the EI – performance
link such that EI became more important the more often the employees job required
emotional labor (Wong and Law, 2002). Together these studies show that in certain
situations, which can be internal (less cognitive ability) or external (emotionally challenging
Emotional intelligence and performance 13
job) to the person, emotional intelligence becomes increasingly important for individual
performers. Future theory and research should continue to examine moderators between the
EI –performance relationship.
It is worth noting that three of the studies in this category found relationships between
EI and performance while controlling for the effects of personality traits, cognitive
intelligence or both on performance. This provides a valuable response to criticisms that EI
does not demonstrate predictive validity over and above what personality measures and
cognitive intelligence measures already offer (see Landy, 2005).
Expressed emotional intelligence in individual contributor roles. We located seven
studies examining the role of expressed emotional intelligence on the work performance of
individual contributors (see Table 1). Five different self-report measures were use to study
Expressed EI in these studies; one study also used peer-ratings of EI. The jobs studied
included a miscellaneous group of study participants who had attended courses, workshops,
and seminars (Petrides & Furnham, 2006) ballet dancers (Petrides, Niven & Mouskounti,
2006), salespeople (Rozell, Pettijohn & Parker, 2006), accounting majors interviewing for
jobs at the Big 5 certified public accounting firms (Chia, 2005), workers in a cigarette factory
in China (Law et al., 2004), mental health professionals (Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002) and
debt collectors (Bachman, Stein, Campbell, Sitarenios, 2000). Again, it can be argued that all
of these individual contributor roles required interacting with others, whether in a ballet
performance where one seeks to connect emotionally with the audience and other dancers on
stage, or in a sales role, job interview, or mental health facility where interpersonal
interactions are the primary focus of the work, or among debt collects speaking on the phone
and engaging in what we can assume are challenging conversations.
Six of the studies examined the correlation between performance and total expressed
EI (i.e., all EI dimensions aggregated), and all of these found a significant positive
Emotional intelligence and performance 14
correlation. However, Petrides and Furnham (2006) found the significant link only for their
female study participants. This finding was consistent with their earlier study showing that
men are more likely to estimate themselves as having higher IQ and lower EI and women are
more likely to estimate themselves as higher in EI and lower in IQ (Petrides, Furnham, &
Martin, 2004). Similarly, another study found that females rate themselves as demonstrating
more EI than do males (Van Rooy, Alonso, & Viswesvaran, 2005). It is clear that additional
research should examine sex differences in self-ratings of expressed emotional intelligence.
Another pattern evident in these studies of expressed EI in individual contributors was
the effect of EI on job stress and job commitment. Two studies showed a relationship
between lowered levels of work stress. Nikolaou and Tsaousis (2002) found that EI was
linked to lowered stress among mental health workers – an important finding considering the
high levels of stress in an occupation that requires constant care-taking. Petrides and Furnham
(2006) found the same link in their diverse participant sample; they also found that EI was
linked to significantly less stress in men as well as women. Three studies also found a link
between EI and commitment or dedication to the work (Petrides & Furhnam, 2006; Law et
al., 2004; Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002). Petrides and Furnham (2006) also found that for both
men and women, total expressed EI was significantly related to perceived job control (p <
.01), and job satisfaction (p < .01). Unfortunately none of these studies carefully assessed
which EI sub-scales accounted for the most variance in these outcomes. Stress would likely
be reduced by competence in understanding one’s emotions and their effects (i.e.,
understanding emotion) coupled with the ability to manage those emotions within the context
of one’s goals (i.e., managing emotion). Commitment, perceived job control and job
satisfaction might also be influenced by the EI dimension of using emotions, which enables
one to activate emotions on the service of one’s goals. Of course, research is necessary to test
those hypotheses.
Emotional intelligence and performance 15
It should be noted that one of these studies controlled for the influence of the Big
Five personality traits. After controlling for personality, total EI was shown to account for
more than 10% of the variance for both job-performance and contextual performance (i.e.,
interpersonal facilitation while carrying out the role and job dedication) (Law et al., 2004).
Summary of research on individual contributors. The thirteen studies we reviewed so
far reveal that emotional intelligence –measured as a form of intelligence and as skills that
grow out of that intelligence -- is significantly associated with job performance in a number
of job contexts. Studies that examine the specific branches or dimensions of EI are most
helpful for improving understanding of exactly why EI matters to the performance of
individual contributors. Based on this review, it seems reasonable to assume that when an
individual contributor is working alone on a purely cognitive task, the ability to perceive
emotions, or recognize their presence, aids performance. If the individual task is carried out
under stressful circumstances, the ability to manage emotions or effectively control them then
also becomes essential to performance. Most of the other individual tasks studied included an
interpersonal component to the job, whether it was working to interpersonally facilitate the
performance of others in a cigarette factory, dancing on stage, interacting with clients who
haven’t paid their bills, or assigning patients in a mental health institution, the ability to use,
understand, and manage emotions supported effective performance. .
Leadership Roles
In this section, we review studies examining the influence of emotional intelligence
on the performance of leaders and managers. The studies include team leaders, first-line
managers, government leaders, and executives (see Table 2). There is not yet enough research
on each specific role to examine them separately, thus we grouped them together and
henceforth use the terms leader and manager interchangeably. When authors provide details
Emotional intelligence and performance 16
about the specific responsibilities managed by their study participants, we present it to aid
interpretation of their study results.
------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------------In general, a leader’s role involves some or all of the following responsibilities:
interpreting events for followers, choosing objectives for the group or organization,
organizing and planning work activities to accomplish the objectives, motivating followers to
achieve the objectives, maintaining cooperative relationships and teamwork, and enlisting
support and cooperation from people outside the group or organization (Yukl, 1997). A study
of newly hired or promoted leaders showed that the greatest challenge is in adjusting to
having one’s own performance dependent on the motivation of others (Hill, 1992).
It is likely that emotional intelligence would help a leader meet these responsibilities.
To begin with, emotion is integral to motivation; it influences and directs the persistence of
effort required to obtain objectives (Lord & Kanfer, 2002). Therefore, the ability to
recognize, use, understand and manage emotion might enable a leader to effectively motivate
others. For example, research reveals that the way a leader manages his own emotions
influences the emotions of employees. Leader behavior during interpersonal interactions with
employees has been found to have a significant influence on employee positive and negative
emotions; moreover, employees are more likely to hold onto and remember the negative
emotions than the positive emotions that result from these interactions (Dasborough, 2006).
Other research has demonstrated that leaders’ moods are particularly contagious in the
workplace and significantly influence the moods of their employees (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Sy,
Côté, & Saavedra, 2005). This is relevant because moods and the valence of emotions
influence employee cognition and performance; positive affect increases an employee’s
Emotional intelligence and performance 17
cognitive flexibility and creative problem solving ability (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, &
Staw, 2005; Isen, 1993). Negative affect such as fear or anxiety can hurt an employee’s
ability to effectively process information (Holmer, 1994).
Emotional intelligence in managerial and leadership roles. We located two studies
examining the influence of emotional intelligence (as intelligence) on leader work
performance and one that examined whether EI influenced leadership emergence in teams.
Rosete and Ciarrochi (2007, 2005) conducted two studies with senior executives in
Australian public service companies. In the first study, they examined the relationship
between EI and leadership effectiveness defined as (1) the achievement of last year’s goals
and (2) ratings of “how” leaders achieved business goals, i.e., did they build effective
working relationships along the way? They found that total EI scores were significantly
related to “how” goals were achieved, but not to the achievement of those goals. Closer
examination revealed that two branches of EI were significantly correlated with “how” goals
were achieved: perceiving emotions and understanding emotions. Regression analyses
showed that perceiving emotions accounted for the most variance (18%) in “how” goals were
achieved and remained a significant predictor after controlling for personality and cognitive
intelligence. It is interesting to note that in this environment the strongest predictor of goal
achievement was the personality trait “dominance.”
To look more closely at how EI affects leadership behavior in this organization, the
study authors also examined the link between EI and ratings of the leader on the list of “core
leadership capabilities” in the Australian Public Service Commission Leadership Capability
Framework. The core capabilities were assessed using a 360-rating process in which the
leaders, their managers, and a minimum of three of their employees rated the frequency with
which they were demonstrated by a leader. Total EI was significantly correlated with
“cultivates productive working relationships” and “exemplifies personal drive and integrity.”
Emotional intelligence and performance 18
The EI branch of understanding emotions was the one most frequently correlated to leader
capabilities and was significantly related to: “shapes strategic thinking”, “communicates with
influence” and “cultivates productive working relationships”
In a second study, Rosete and Ciarrochi (2007) examined another 122 senior
executives at an Australian public service company. Similar to the first study, leadership
performance was defined as (1) “achieving business outcomes” and (2) “effective
interpersonal behavior.” This time total EI was significantly correlated with both performance
outcomes. Moreover, similar to the last study, after controlling for personality and cognitive
intelligence the two EI branches of perceiving emotions and managing emotions significantly
predicted “effective interpersonal behavior.” However, this time, both branches also
significantly predicted “achieving business outcomes.”
A third study examined whether Total EI predicted leader emergence in
undergraduate work teams who performed a ten-week consulting project for a course
requirement (Côté, Lopes & Salovey, 2006). Results showed that after controlling for
personality, total EI predicted a student’s emergence as a leader. Interestingly, the higher
team members’ scored on the personality trait of emotional instability, the more strongly total
EI predicted leadership emergence. This suggests that a leaders’ EI ability may be even more
relevant in challenging interpersonal contexts (Côté et al., 2006).
Overall, these studies show that EI supports effective leader performance. The most
consistent predictor of performance in the first two studies was perceiving emotion (i.e.,
awareness of emotions and the ability to differentiate emotions in oneself and others), which
significantly predicted the building of effective relationships in both studies and also
significantly predicted the achievement of business outcomes in the second study. In the
second study, managing emotions also significantly predicted the achievement of business
Emotional intelligence and performance 19
outcomes. In both studies, these branches of EI predicted the performance outcomes over and
above measures of personality traits and cognitive intelligence.
So for it appears, that for leaders, emotional intelligence is linked to two seemingly
distinct aspects of the role. These are evident in the leadership capabilities with which total EI
correlated in the first study: “cultivates productive working relationships” and “exemplifies
personal drive and integrity.” Through abilities like perceiving and managing emotions,
which played a large role in these studies, leaders are able to understand others and manage
themselves well enough to build relationships and focus their drive toward achieving goals.
Additional theory and research is needed to determine more precisely how this happens.
Expressed emotional intelligence in leadership roles. We located eight peer-reviewed
studies examining the influence of expressed EI on leader effectiveness (two are published in
one article -- see Table 2). Overall, these studies revealed clear and consistent evidence of
significant links between expressed EI and leader performance, job satisfaction and health
and well-being. Five of the studies found that leaders’ total expressed EI score significantly
correlated with leader performance (Carmeli, 2003; Dulewicz, Higgs, & Slaski, 2003;
Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002; Sy, Tram, O’Hara, et al., 2006).
Five studies found a significant correlation between leader total expressed EI and the leader’s
job satisfaction or morale (Carmeli, 2003; Dulewicz, et al, 2003; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002;
Sy et al., 2006). Two studies found a significant correlation between leader total expressed EI
and lower stress (Dulewicz, et al, 2003; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002). Finally, two studies
found a significant correlation between leader total expressed EI and work-life balance
(Carmeli, 2003; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002). It appears that expressed EI is not only good for
leader performance, but also for leader health and well-being.
Three of the studies in this category examined correlations between manager’s EI and
employee performance and satisfaction (Sy et al., 2006; Wong & Law, 2002). One of these
Emotional intelligence and performance 20
studies conduced with food service workers and their managers showed a significant
correlation between manager’s total expressed EI and employee performance and job
satisfaction (Sy et al., 2006). Similarly, the second study conducted with middle and upperlevel managers in Hong Kong also found a significant correlation between managers’ total
expressed EI and employee performance and job satisfaction (Wong & Law, 2002). The third
study, again conducted by Wong and Law (2002) with middle-level administrators working
in the Hong Kong government, found that manager’s total EI was significantly correlated
with employee job satisfaction, but not performance. It is interesting to speculate about what
it was in the job or job context in the third study that negated the EI-performance link, but not
the EI-job satisfaction link seen in the other two.
Two of these studies, found evidence that leader expressed EI became more useful
when employees were faced with challenging interpersonal circumstances. The study of food
service workers found that the lower employees’ scored on a measure of expressed EI the
more strongly manager expressed EI was correlated with the employees’ job satisfaction (p <
.05) and performance (p < .07) (Sy et al., 2006). The study conducted with middle- and
upper-level managers in Hong-Kong found that leader expressed EI was more significantly
associated with employee performance the more the employee’s job required emotional labor.
As discussed earlier, emotional labor is work that necessitates managing or acting out certain
emotions in a job, for example, emotional labor involves providing customer service with a
smile regardless of one’s true feelings (see Hochschild, 1983).
The findings in these studies are consistent with the earlier study demonstrating that
the link between EI and leader emergence in a team increased as average team member
emotional instability increased (Côté et al., 2006). Together they suggest that leader EI or
expressed EI is particularly beneficial when employees face interpersonally challenging
situations – either for reasons that are internal to the employee (i.e., lack of EI) or external to
Emotional intelligence and performance 21
the employee (i.e., co-workers are emotionally unstable or the work involves emotional
labor). It is also important to point out the similarity between these findings and that of the
study conducted by Côté and Miners (2006) revealing that the lower an individual’s cognitive
intelligence, the more relevant emotional intelligence becomes to employee performance.
There is a clear and consistent patterns suggesting that emotional intelligence can aid
employees facing internal and external challenges at work.
In contrast to the studies demonstrating the important link between leader expressed
EI and employee needs, two studies in this category found the interpersonal or relationship
oriented dimensions of EI less necessary for strong leader performance. These studies set out
to determine the dimensions of expressed EI that were most strongly associated with the
performance of middle-level managers in large retail organizations. Despite using different
measures, both found that the EI dimensions focused on recognizing and managing one’s
own emotions were linked to performance, but that those expressed EI dimensions focused on
interpersonal sensitivity or interpersonal relationships were not. Dulewicz and colleagues
(2003) found that manger performance was significantly correlated with the expressed EI
self-awareness, emotional resilience and motivation – but not interpersonal sensitivity. Slaski
and Cartwright (2002) found that manager performance was significantly correlated with
expressed intrapersonal EI, adaptability, stress management, and general mood -- but not
interpersonal EI. It may be that middle-level managers in the retail industry have less direct
contact with employees and less need to develop relationships, or it may be that the way these
manager’s regulate themselves and their moods matters most to achieving objectives in this
environment. These are questions for future theory and research.
Similar results occurred in a study by Semadar and colleagues (Semadar et al., 2006)
who examined the influence of several social effectiveness constructs on the performance of
leaders in the Australian division of a global motor manufacturing company, including
Emotional intelligence and performance 22
expressed EI and political skill. Leaders participating in the study worked in a number of
areas including manufacturing (11%), stamping (7%), casing (8%), marking/sales (16%),
human resources (13%), product development (23%,) and others such as IT, finance, etc.,
(21%). Both expressed EI and political skill were found to be significantly correlated with
leader performance. However, regression analyses revealed that only political skill provided
significant unique contribution to job performance. The dimensions of behavior that define
political skill include: network building, interpersonal influence, social astuteness and
apparent sincerity. Similar to the two studies discussed above, these omit the empathy and
interpersonal skill branches of EI included in the measure of expressed EI used in this study
(Semadar et al., 2006).
Summary of research on leaders and managers. Overall, the eleven studies testing the
influence of EI (as intelligence) and expressed EI shows a clear pattern of results, which
doesn’t differ much between the two categories of EI theory. The pattern suggests that EI
affects leader performance in two ways – through relationships with employees that increase
an employee’s ability to manage herself and her situation well – in essence bringing out the
best in employees. Also, through enabling the leader to perceive and manage his own
emotions in the service of influencing others and achieving goals.
Transformational leadership theory may help clarify how EI enables a leader to bring
out the best in employees (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). Brown and
Msohavi (2005) have proposed that EI may be the “X-factor” that advances and reinvigorates
a more complete understanding of leader social influence and may be the key antecedent to
transformational leadership (p.869), which involves inspiring employees to grow and achieve
more than they thought was possible. Transformational leaders achieve this by engaging
followers in four ways: idealized influence (i.e., they exhibit charisma that induces
identification with the leader and her vision), inspirational motivation (i.e., inspiring the
Emotional intelligence and performance 23
highest levels of motivation), intellectual stimulation (i.e., recognizing how to challenge
individuals in order to stretch and develop their capabilities), and individualized
consideration (i.e., understanding the unique qualities of each individual) – all of which have
consistently been linked positively to leader performance (Lowe, Kroek, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Several researchers have tested these hypotheses. One study, using the Bar-On
measure found that expressed EI accounted for 34% of the variance in transformational
leadership in construction executives (Butler & Chinowsky, 2006). The dimensions of
expressed EI that best predicted transformational leadership were interpersonal skills and
empathy. Similar results were found in a second study examining expressed EI and
transformational leadership with 80 elected public officials in the U. S. (Barbuto & Burbach,
2004). This study found that the expressed EI dimensions of empathic response and
interpersonal skills were significantly correlated to staff member ratings of their leaders’
demonstration of transformational leadership behaviors. Finally, a third study examined
expressed EI and transformational leadership with 63 managers of a large U. S. -based
information services and technology firm (Sosik & Mergerian, 1999). Here it was found that
when leaders scored high on self-awareness, their expressed EI (especially the dimensions of
interpersonal control and personal efficacy) were significantly related to all four dimensions
of transformational leadership behavior. These authors proposed that self-awareness increases
a leader’s ability to translate EI abilities into transformational leadership. Overall, these three
studies support the idea that the interpersonal dimensions of EI may link to leadership
performance because they help develop and transform employees and bring out their highest
levels of motivation and skills.
Work Team Contexts
Emotional intelligence and performance 24
The studies in our two previous categories of individual contributors and managers
and leaders consistently showed that EI predicts performance, thus we expect similar results
from research conducted in team contexts. In this section, the work conducted in teams
requires team members to interact to complete their work. The length of time these team
members must interact varies from one hour to indefinitely. In any team situation, team
member interaction can be smooth and easy as seen in cohesive groups or it can be strained
and conflict ridden as often seen during particular stages or phases in a group’s development
(Gersick, 1988; Tuckman, 1965). It takes emotion to bind a group together and it takes
emotion to allow minority dissent to occur (Nemeth, 1994). Indeed, in teams (as elsewhere)
every interaction produces emotion (Kemper, 2000) and when team members are stuck
together working under tight-deadlines, teams can be hotbeds for emotion (Barsade &
Gibson, 1998). It is important to note that positive emotion in teams is not always beneficial
for performance outcomes (Janis, 1982) and negative emotions are not always harmful to
performance (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Due to the preponderance and complexity of emotion in
team contexts, it makes sense that research on the influence of emotional intelligence could
advance group theory.
Emotional intelligence at the team level has been conceptualized and studied several
ways (see Elfenbein, 2006). The most common method for studying team-level emotional
intelligence is to average team member responses on emotional intelligence measures. This
produces a team average that is than compared to team performance or other outcomes such
as team process effectiveness.
Jordan and his colleagues (Jordan et al., 2002) employed a slightly different method
for studying team-level emotional intelligence. They developed an expressed emotional
intelligence measure customized specifically for the team context. Their measure, the
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP), is based on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997)
Emotional intelligence and performance 25
theory of emotional intelligence. However, team-level emotional intelligence is assessed
using items worded for the team context, e.g., When I am frustrated with fellow team
members I can overcome my frustration.
A third way of conceptualizing team-level emotional intelligence grows out of the
idea that teams are greater than the sum of their parts and that team emotional intelligence is
better measured by the patterns of interactions among team members than by the skills of
individual members (Elfbenbein, 2006). This method is seen in the work of Druskat and
Wolff (2001) who propose and measure of a model of emotionally intelligent group norms.
They have argued that emotionally intelligent norms sanction and make predictable behaviors
that are emotionally intelligent within a team context because they lead to the development of
group trust, group identity, group efficacy, and networks with relevant groups and individuals
outside of the team. They also argue that emotionally intelligent norms bring about
emotionally intelligent behavior without relying on the individual emotional intelligence of
every team member (Druskat & Wolff, 2001).
As can be seen in Table 3, the fourteen studies we review in this section use all three
conceptualizations of team-level emotional intelligence. We have categorized them as either
examining emotional intelligence or expressed emotional intelligence in teams.
------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
---------------------------------Emotional intelligence in team contexts. We located three research articles that
examined team emotional intelligence as a form of intelligence. The first study examined
team member ability at the emotional intelligence branch of Perceiving Emotions in
teammates (Elfenbein, Polzer, Ambady, 2006). Team members in each team worked together
for one week prior to data collection on community service projects such as disaster relief,
Emotional intelligence and performance 26
assisting local charities, and after-school programs. The purpose of the study was to
determine whether some teams, as a whole, were better at perceiving each others’ non-verbal
emotions than other teams. The researchers used a measure they developed and labelled
Team Emotion Recognition Accuracy (TERA) that involved video-taping team members
displaying specific emotions. Later teammates were asked to describe the non-verbal emotion
being exhibit. The study results demonstrated that teams were significantly better at rating the
emotions of their teammates than non-teammates. Moreover, some teams, as a whole, were
significantly better at rating the accuracy of teammates’ emotions than other teams. The
teams did not differ significantly in demographics or on the Big Five personality traits
(Elfenbein et al., 2006).
The findings in this study are relevant for two reasons. First, they demonstrate that the
EI branch of perceiving emotion can manifest itself as a team-level variable. That is, it is a
team property in the sense that it does not reside only in the individual members. The
individuals in the teams that scored higher on perceiving non-verbal emotions were no better
at perceiving emotions than members in teams who scored lower at perceiving non-verbal
emotions. Instead, members in the higher scoring teams were better at perceiving the nonverbal emotions of the members within their team—suggesting that there was something
these teams did that enabled members to perceive each others non-verbal emotions better
than other teams. Second, previous research has demonstrated that team’s with higher scores
on perceiving non-verbal emotions rate their teams as having less conflict, making decisions
more collaboratively, accomplishing more work, and have a more psychologically safe
environment than teams with lower scores on perceiving non-verbal emotions (see Elfenbein,
2006).
The second study in this category examined teams of undergraduate students who
worked together for a short while to complete a cognitive decision-making task that was first
Emotional intelligence and performance 27
conducted individually and then as a team (Day & Carroll, 2004). In this study, the EI branch
of perceiving emotions at the individual-level was significantly related to individual
performance. None of the EI branches when aggregated to the team-level were significantly
related to performance. However, all EI branches when aggregated to the team-level were
significantly correlated with team sportsmanship behavior and all except team-level
perceiving emotions were related team civic virtue. In sum, this study reveals that in shortterm teams completing a cognitive task, team-level EI influences the way team members treat
and help one another – but it does not affect team performance (Day & Carroll, 2004).
The final study in this category examined teams in a financial services division of a
large insurance company (Feyerhem & Rice, 2002). Employees were responsible for
processing paperwork and customer service. They worked in large teams of about fifteen
members. The team-level EI branches of managing emotions in self and managing emotions
in others were both significantly related to team performance. Assessments of the influence
of team-leader EI also produced interesting results. Team leader EI was not significantly
related to team performance. However, team leader score on the EI branch of understanding
emotions was significantly and positively related to team customer service, but significantly
negatively related to team ratings of accuracy, productivity and commitment to continuous
improvement. In other words, the stronger the team leader’s ability to understand emotions
and their outcomes, the better teams were at customer service but the worse they were at their
more cognitive responsibilities.
Due to the relevance of EI managing emotions to performance, the team’s work
clearly required members to manage their emotions. This may have been particularly
necessary when employees were interacting with customers. Thus, team leaders who
understood the difficulty of the situation may have helped customers work more effectively
with their customers. Recall that in previous studies team leader EI has been beneficial to
Emotional intelligence and performance 28
team members in challenging interpersonal contexts (Côté et al., 2006; Sy et al., 2006). We
can assume that at least some of the customers calling their insurance company were
experiencing difficult circumstances. However, when it was time for team members to focus
on their more cognitive tasks that required accuracy and continuous improvement, team
leader understanding appears to have detracted from performance. Future research should
examine more closely the influence of EI in work roles that involve switching back and forth
between intense cognitive decision making tasks and difficult customer interactions.
In this section, we have reviewed three very different studies on the role of emotional
intelligence in work team contexts. So far, it is clear that emotional intelligence is relevant to
team functioning; however, no clear patterns emerge among the data perhaps because of the
very different work tasks and work contexts studied.
Expressed emotional intelligence in team contexts. We identified eight studies
examining expressed emotional intelligence in team contexts (see Table 3; one article
contains two studies). Seven of the eight studies demonstrate that expressed emotional
intelligence at the team-level is significantly correlated with team performance (Druskat,
Wolff, Messer & Stubbs, 2007; Foo, Elfenbein, Tan, & Aik, 2005; Frye, Bennett, &
Caldwell, 2006; Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, 2002; Jordan & Troth, 2004; and
Offermann, et al., 2004). Two of these studies demonstrated these results while controlling
for Big Five personality traits and cognitive intelligence (Foo et al., 2005; Offermann et al.,
2004).
The first two studies in this category by Druskat and colleagues (Druskat et al., 2007),
examines expressed emotional intelligence as a set of team-level norms. The first study
examined these norms in graduate student teams working together for a full year. The second
examined the same team-level emotional intelligence norms in teams working in six
companies that included engineering teams, bank-teller teams, financial service teams, and
Emotional intelligence and performance 29
manufacturing teams. In both studies, results showed significant correlations between team
performance and norms of: Interpersonal understanding, proactive problem solving,
organizational understanding and building external relationships.
The second study in this category was conducted with self-managing work teams in a
distributor of promotional products (Frye et al., 2006). Here it was found that team taskorientation was significantly correlated with the expressed team-level dimensions of
interpersonal EI and adaptability EI. Team maintenance orientation, that is the team’s
willingness to take care of member and relationship needs, was significantly correlated with
the expressed team-level dimension of general mood EI (Frye et al., 2006).
The third study examined team-level emotional intelligence in dyads working on a
negotiation task (Foo et al, 2005). Here it was found that higher total emotional intelligence
in a dyad produced a better joint negotiation outcome. Also, the dyad member with the
highest EI score rated herself as having the most positive experience in the negotiation
exercise. However, despite the fact that dyads with higher joint EI produced better outcomes,
the member with the highest level of EI in the dyad significantly more often did not benefit
from the outcome because he allowed his counterpart to benefit from it. This finding suggests
two opposing hypotheses. Either the member with the highest level of EI demonstrated too
much empathy, or that member was investing in a long-term relationship, which can be an
effective strategy in negotiations.
In the fourth study, Jordan and Troth (2004) studied individual and team performance.
They found that emotional intelligence was not predictive of individual performance in a
cognitive decision making task. When the same task was completed by teams, not only were
the teams with higher expressed team-level emotional intelligence more successful, but their
performance on the task was predicted by their team-level emotional intelligence score. This
finding raises an interesting point about the nature of task performance in teams that is
Emotional intelligence and performance 30
relevant for all the studies we have reviewed that have been conducted in team contexts.
Although a task may be cognitive in nature, when it is completed in a team, emotion emerges
as a factor determining performance. In other words the group member’s emotions need to be
understood and managed to enable maximum group performance. The result of effective
emotion management is seen in the team’s scoring higher on team-level emotion intelligence
in this study – they were significantly more likely to use collaboration as a conflict
management style, which is well known to be an effective conflict management style in
teams (Jordan & Troth, 2004).
Offermann and her colleagues (Offermann et al., 2004) found a similar outcome in
their study of expressed emotional intelligence and individual and team performance. Their
study showed that cognitive ability predicted individual performance while team-level
expressed emotional intelligence predicted team performance and positive team attitudes.
They also examined leader emergence and found that the expressed emotional intelligence
dimensions of self-awareness and relationship management were most strongly correlated
with both team leader emergence and effectiveness.
Jordan and colleagues (Jordan et al., 2002), examined the links between expressed
team-level emotional intelligence and team performance in a longitudinal study.
Performance in this study was measured by independent raters’ scores on two variables:
(1) team process effectiveness and (2) team goal focus during team meetings. Jordan and his
colleagues found a performance difference in the first 3 weeks of their study with high
average emotional intelligence teams outperforming teams with low average emotional
intelligence. In an interesting twist, after the first three weeks the performance difference
eroded to the point where there was no performance difference between the two groups after
10 weeks. Jordan et al. (2002) speculate that teams compensated for lower emotional
intelligence through team development processes.
Emotional intelligence and performance 31
Finally, Rapisarda (2002) examined learning teams in an executive-level management
program that worked together for the full two years of their program. She found that teamlevel expressed EI was more strongly related to team cohesiveness than to team performance.
The dimensions of expressed team-level EI that were most strongly and consistently (with
team member and faculty raters) correlated with positive team outcomes cohesiveness
included empathy and achievement orientation.
Summary of research on teams, dyads, and their members. The studies in this section
reveal several interesting patterns. First, three of the studies found that dimensions of
expressed team-level emotional intelligence associated with good team member relationships
were significantly correlated with performance (Druskat, et al., 2007, Frye et al, 2006;
Rapisarda, 2002). The Offermann study (Offermann et al., 2004) also, once again,
demonstrated the relevance of team leader’s relationship management EI and self-awareness
EI being supportive of team performance. Another pattern in this set of studies is the
consistent finding that team’s and team members with higher levels of expressed EI have
better attitudes (Offermann et al., 2004), better maintenance of their teams needs (Frye et al,
2006) and more fun (Foo et al., 2005) in these intensely interpersonal situations. Finally, it
should be noted that a three of two of these studies found positive relationships between
team-level emotional intelligence and performance while controlling for Big Five personality
traits and cognitive intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence at the Organizational-Level
Research has revealed that emotional intelligence and expressed emotional
intelligence exists at both the individual- and team-levels. However, there is some evidence
that it can also exist at the organizational level (see Ashkanasy 2003, Huy, 1999; Martin et
al., 1998), that is in an organization’s culture. Huy (1999) labels organizational emotional
intelligence “emotional capability,” defined as an organization’s ability to acknowledge,
Emotional intelligence and performance 32
recognize, monitor, discriminate, and attend to its members’ emotions. Like team-level
emotional intelligence, it is manifested in an organization’s norms, routines, and emotional
display rules. Indeed, Ashkanasy and his colleagues are finding emerging evidence that a
similar construct they label “emotional climate” affects organizational performance
(Ashkanasy, 2003; Ashkanasy & Nicholson, 2003).
A form of emotional intelligence manifested at the organizational level requires a
departure from traditional masculine organizational cultures that discourage expression or
discussions of emotions. (see Martin et al., 1998). Indeed, it may be that organizational
cultures that encourage employees to think intelligently about emotion may have a positive
influence how employees deal with everything from day to day stresses of customers
complaints to more substantial organizational change (see Huy, 1999) and finally to crises
that arise in organizations such as major recalls of defective equipment or industrial sabotage
and international terrorist events. Further theory and research is clearly required in this area.
Ideas for Future Research and Theory on Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace
We noted at the beginning of this article that we would conclude by providing
concrete suggestions about the kind of research that can advance theory and the practical use
of emotional intelligence concepts in the workplace. It is important to recognize that research
and theory emotional intelligence and work performance is in relative infancy when
compared to the more established research streams in personality and cognitive intelligence.
Yet as discussed throughout this article, there are some broad questions that when answered
can provide a broader foundation for understanding the influence of emotional intelligence on
work performance.
Multilevel Research
There is a significant amount of research that needs to be done to examine the
existence and manifestation of emotional intelligence to and the five levels of analysis
Emotional intelligence and performance 33
suggested by8 Ashkanasy (2003). We have already noted some research linking emotional
intelligence to between person level (individual) and group level behavior, however, there is
still more research to be done regarding the within person level and at the organizational
level. Ashkanasy’s (2003) multi-level model of emotions in organizations provides an insight
into the pervasive nature of emotions in organizations. If emotions are pervasive in
organizations, then emotional intelligence may have an impact on how these emotions
emerge in the workplace at all levels. Emotional intelligence research needs to be expanded
to examine its impact at varying levels of organizations.
Curvilinear Relationships and Interactions
At this stage, particularly in business, there is an assumption that emotional
intelligence is a linear construct and that more is better. A question arises, however, as to
whether too much emotional intelligence can be detrimental to performance. For instance, as
discussed earlier, Foo, Elfenbein, Tan, & Aik (2005) found that individuals with high
emotional intelligence actually ended up with lower performance in a negotiation simulation
because they were more likely to concede ground to achieve an integrative solution. Clearly,
there are cases where emotional intelligence may lead to performance losses, however as
discussed by the authors, sometimes losses due to actions taken to build solid relationships
can turn into performance gains in the long-run.
If we look at the major abilities of emotional intelligence the question becomes when
might “too much” be a detriment. If we have too much emotional control then we border on
alexithymia and this clearly will have detrimental effects on our ability to work with and
relate to other people (Lane, Sechrest, Reidel, Weldon, Kaszniak, & Schwartz, 1996). The
other end of this continuum, however, may be equally debilitating. If we have too much
emotional awareness we might adopt an oversensitive approach to life and work and become
distressed over minor issues that dominate our lives and influence our relationships. Ideally,
Emotional intelligence and performance 34
emotional intelligence enables us to think intelligently about emotion and act in ways that
marshal emotions in the service of goals. Finding the best balance between awareness and
control for each of our individual lives may take a life-time. It also is interesting to speculate
which measure of EI would best determine whether a person balances the branches of
emotional intelligence well – a test of EI as intelligence, or a test of expressed EI rated by self
or others.
Theorists and researchers could examine the concept of too much or too little
emotional intelligence in a number of ways. The first would be to acknowledge that
individual emotional intelligence abilities may have a curvilinear relationship with
performance, rather than the linear relationships that have been proposed and tested. The
other, as discussed above, is to consider the individual factors of emotional intelligence to be
interrelated. It may be that high levels of emotional awareness or sensitivity are beneficial as
long as they are combined with high levels of emotional regulation. The best leaders may be
highly attuned to their employees’ emotions, but still resist the impulse to intervene when an
employee encounters a challenge because it might not produce the best long-term outcome or
the intellectual stimulation so vital to successful transformational leadership (see Bass &
Avolio, 1994). In sum, future research should test for curvilinear relationships and
interactions between the branches of emotional intelligence.
Total Emotional Intelligence Versus Branches of Emotional Intelligence
A current problem with research on emotional intelligence is the propensity for
researchers to treating emotional intelligence as one-dimensional construct (i.e., Total EI)
when all theorists describe emotional intelligence as a multidimensional construct. When
examining personality, it makes little sense to give an overall single digit personality score
combining extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and
agreeableness. This diminishes the explanatory power of the construct. The explanatory
Emotional intelligence and performance 35
power of emotional intelligence is also diminished by not examining the different branches of
emotional intelligence. As our review has demonstrated, we know have enough evidence to
acknowledge that total scores of emotional intelligence and expressed emotional intelligence
predict emotional intelligence in some contexts. The emotional intelligence construct has now
reached what Weick (1989) refers to as a more advanced stage of construct development. At
this stage, relative comprehensive and believable relationships have been developed. Future
theory and research must now focus on deeper explanations of those relationships that can be
best obtained by examining emotional intelligence as a multi-dimensional construct.
The Importance of Context
Two often theory and research in organizational studies ignores the role of
context (Avolio, 2007). In fact, different types of jobs and different industries require
different skills and have different makers for job success. Some jobs require skills at the
individual level and some at the group level, while others such as leadership may require a
range of skills from the within person to the organizational level. To draw out these
relationships, emotional intelligence research in business needs to focus on the use of
multifaceted measures of emotional intelligence, at different levels of analysis, to increase
our understanding of this construct.
Conclusion
We opened this article by outlining the vigorous debate around which emotional
intelligence has persisted since Daniel Goleman first highlighted its potential for business
(Goleman, 1995). We proposed that researchers have, perhaps inadvertently, created two
streams of research – one focused on examining emotional intelligence as a legitimate form
of intelligence. The second focused on defining the behaviors and skills that grow out of
power of that intelligence. The latter group has more actively studied the influence of
emotional intelligence on workplace performance. However, despite using very different
Emotional intelligence and performance 36
measures for the two constructs, both categories of researcher have clearly and consistently
demonstrated a strong positive association between emotional intelligence and work
performance in some contexts. New theory is needed to take this research to the next level of
determining in exactly which job contexts the different branches of emotional intelligence
matter most, how much emotional intelligence is enough (see Boyatzis, 2006), and exactly
how do the branches of emotional intelligence work together to provide performance
advantages. We look forward to the next wave of emotional intelligence theory and research.
Emotional intelligence and performance 37
References
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and
creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F.
Dansereau and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, vol. 2: Multi-level
issues in organizational behavior and strategy (pp. 9-54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Climate of fear in organizational
settings: Construct definition, measurement, and a test of theory. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 55, 24-29.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of
emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.),
Emotions in the workplace (pp. 221-235). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W.J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (Eds.). (2005). Research on
emotion in organizations, Volume 1: Affect and its effects in organizational settings. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier Science.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theorybuilding. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.
Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K., & Sitarenios, G. (2000). Emotional intelligence
in the collection of debt. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(3), 176-182.
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of
transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,
146(1), 51-64.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: A measure of Emotional
Intelligence. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Emotional intelligence and performance 38
Bar-On, R., Handley, R., & Fund, S. (2006). The impact of emotional intelligence on
performance. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence
and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 3-19).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barker, V. E., Abrams, J. R., Tiyaamornwong, V., Seibold, D. R., Duggan, A., Park,
H. S., et al. (2000). New contexts for relational communication in groups. Small Group
Research, 31(4), 470-503.
Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in
organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In G. Greenberg (Ed.), OB: The state
of the science (2nd. ed., pp. 3-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom.
In D. Gruenfeld (Ed.), Composition (Vol. 1, pp. 81-102). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness: Through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bono, J. E. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership
Quarterly, 17(4), 317-334.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and
code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. S. (2000). Clustering competencies in
emotional intelligence. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional
intelligence (pp. 343-362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R. E., Stubbs, E., & Taylor, S. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional
intelligence competencies through graduate management education. Academy of
Management Journal on Learning and Education, 1, 150-162.
Emotional intelligence and performance 39
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 867-871.
Butler, C. J., & Chinowsky, P. S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership
behavior in construction executives. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22(3), 119-125.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work
attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 18, 788-813.
Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2004). The Emotionally Intelligent Manager: How to
Develop and Use the Four Key Emotional Skills of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Chia, Y. M. (2005). Job offers of multi-national accounting firms: The effects of
emotional intelligence, extra-curricular activities, and academic performance. Accounting
Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 75-93.
Ciarrochi, J., & Godsell, C. (2006). Mindfulness-based emotional intelligence:
Research and training. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional
intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups
(pp. 21-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Emotional intelligence predicts
leadership emergence in emotionally challenging groups, Annual Conference for the Society
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Dallas, TX.
Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence,
and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1-28.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New
York: Avon.
Emotional intelligence and performance 40
Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to
leadership behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 163-178.
Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability based model of
emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
453-466.
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional
intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group citizenship
behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(6), 1443-1458.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Group emotional competence and its influence
on group effectiveness. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), Emotional competence in
organizations (pp. 132-155). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Druskat, V. U., Wolff, S. B., Messer, T. E., & Stubbs, E. (2007). Emotionally
competent group norms and group effectiveness. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence:
Construct and criterion-related validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(5), 405-420.
Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). Predicting workplace outcomes from the
ability to eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 963-971.
Elfenbein, H. A., Polzer, J. T., & Ambady, N. (2006). Can teams have emotional
skills? The case of emotion recognition. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2006). Team emotional intelligence: What it can mean and how it
can affect performance. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional
intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups,
(pp. 165-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ekman, P. (1992). Facial expressions of emotion: New findings, new questions.
Psychological Science, 33, 4-38.
Emotional intelligence and performance 41
Feyerhem, A. E., & Rice, C. L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and team performance:
The good, the bad and the ugly. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4),
343-362.
Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion -- and the cautionary tale of
emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 57(6), 719-740.
Foo, M. D., Elfenbein, H., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2005). Emotional intelligence
and negotiation: The tension between creating and claiming value. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 15(4), 411 – 429.
Frye, C. M., Bennett, R., & Caldwell, S. (2006). Team emotional intelligence and
team interpersonal process effectiveness. Mid-American Journal of Business, 21(1), 49-56.
Gersick, C. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of
group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New
York: Bantam.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: How new managers master the challenges
of leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Holmer, L. L. (1994). Developing emotional capacity and organizational health. In R.
H. Kilmann, I. Kilmann & Associates (Eds.), Managing ego energy: The transformation of
personal meaning into organizational success (pp. 49-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Emotional intelligence and performance 42
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 13: 493-504
Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change.
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.
Gersick, C. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of
group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup
emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and
goal focus. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 195-214.
Jordan, P.J., & Troth, A.C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving:
Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195-218.
Kemper, T. D. (2000). Social models in the explanation of emotions. In M. Lewis & J.
M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 45-58). New York: Guildford
Press.
Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on
emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.
Lam, L.T. & Kirby, S.L. (2002). Is emotional intelligence an advantage? An
exploration of the impact of emotional and general intelligence on individual performance.
Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 133-43.
Lane, R.D., Sechrest, L., Reidel, R., Weldon, V., Kaszniak, A., & Schwartz G.E.
(1996). Impaired verbal and nonverbal emotion recognition in alexithymia. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 58: 203-210.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of
emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 483-496.
Emotional intelligence and performance 43
Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of
success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 2(3), 199-216.
Lopes, P. N., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that
emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work.
Psicothema, 18, 132-138.
Lord, R. G., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions and organizational behavior. In R. G.
Lord, R. J. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace (pp. 5-19). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lowe, K. B., Kroek, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Transformational
leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic
impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at the body shop. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science
and myth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D, & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey &
D. Sluyter (Eds.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for
educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional
intelligence test (MSCEIT) user's manual. Toronto, Canada: MHS Publishers.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory,
findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215.
Emotional intelligence and performance 44
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for "intelligence".
American Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14.
Murphy, K. R. (Ed.) (2006). A Critique of emotional intelligence: What are the
problems and how can they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nemeth, C. J. (1994). The value of minority dissent. In A. Mucchi-Faina, A. Maass &
S. Moscovici (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 3-31). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace:
Exploring its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment. The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 327-342.
Oatley, K. (2004). Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emotion.
Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 216-238.
Offermann, L. R., Bailey, J. R., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Seal, C., & Sass, M. (2004). The
relative contribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to individual and team
performance. Human Performance, 17(2), 219-243.
Palmer, B., & Stough, C. (2001). Workplace SUEIT: Interim technical manual.
Melbourne, Australia: Swinburne University of Technology.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2004). Technical manual of the trait emotional
intellience questionnaire (TEIQue). London: University of London, Institute of Education.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait emotional intelligence in a
gender-specific model of organizational variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
36(2), 552-569.
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Martin, N. G. (2004). Estimates of emotional and
psychometric intelligence: Evidence for gender-based stereotypes. Journal of Social
Psychology, 144, 149-162.
Emotional intelligence and performance 45
Petrides, K. V., Niven, L., & Mouskounti, T. (2006). The trait emotional intelligence
of ballet dancers and musicians. Psicothema, 18, 101-107.
Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team
cohesiveness and performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4),
363-379.
Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2007). A critical evaluation of the role of ability based
emotional intelligence in leadership effectiveness. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to
workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 26(5), 388-399.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and
dispositional affectivity as predictors of performance in salespeople. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 14(2), 113-124.
Sala, F. (2002). Emotional competence inventory: Technical manual. Boston: The
Hay Group.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggarty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C.
J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence. Personality & Individual Differences, 25(2), 167-177.
Schutte, N.S., Schuettpelz, E. & Malouff, J.M. (2000). Emotional intelligence and
task performance. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 20, 347-354.
Emotional intelligence and performance 46
Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple
social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 443-461.
Sivanathan, N., & Fekken, G. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and
transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3/4), 198205.
Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance and emotional intelligence:
An exploratory study of retail managers. Stress and Health, 18, 63-68.
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. II, pp. 883-947). New
York: Random House.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence
and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership
perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 24(3), 376-390.
Sy, T., Tram, S., & O'Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager
emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68, 461-473.
Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's
mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developing sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,
63, 384-399.
Van Rooy, D. L., Alsonso, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Group differences in
emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Personality &
Individual Differences, 38(3), 689-700.
Emotional intelligence and performance 47
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65(1), 71-95.
Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct
validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Performance, 18(4), 445462.
Weick, K. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 516-531.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The Effect of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13,
243-274.
Yukl, G. A. (1997). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Emotional intelligence and performance 48
Emotional intelligence and performance
49
Table 1
Peer Reviewed Journal Studies Examining Emotional Intelligence and Expressed Emotional Intelligence in Individual Roles
Emotional Intelligence in Individual Roles
Author(s)
Sample
EI Measure
Dependent Variables & Controls
Key Results
1
Côté &
Miners, 2006
175 full-time
employees of a
large public
university
MSCEIT V2.0
(Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2002)
Dependent variable: (1) Supervisor
performance ratings, (2)
organizational citizenship behavior at
organizational (OCBO) and
individual (OCBI)
Controls: (1) Cognitive intelligence
using the Culture Fair Intelligence
Test, (2) Big Five Personality (3)
LMX (relationship with supervisor),
(4) education level, (5) hours worked
per week, (6) and occupation.
High Total EI compensates for low cognitive
intelligence (in other words EI becomes a stronger
predictor of task performance the lower one’s
cognitive intelligence)
High Total EI compensates for low OCBO
No evidence that Total EI and cognitive intelligence
predict job performance differently in jobs with
different emotional demands.
2
Lopes, Grewal,
Kadis, Gall, &
Salovey, 2006
44 analysts and
clerical employees
from the finance
department of a
Fortune 400
insurance company
MSCEIT V2.0
(Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2002)
Dependent variables: (1) Work
performance measures: (a) salary, (b)
percent merit increase, (c) company
rank, (2) Interpersonal facilitation
(rated by peers and supervisors), (3)
Interpersonal sensitivity and
sociability (rated by peers and
supervisors), (4) Contribution to a
positive work environment (rated by
peers and supervisors), (5) Affect and
attitudes at work measured using
scales of job, mood, stress tolerance
(rated by peers and supervisors)
Controls: (1) Verbal ability (2) Big
Five personality (3) trait affect using
Positive and negative affect scales,
(4) level of education
Total EI: related to company rank (p < .01) and % merit
increase (p < .05), but not salary.
EI--Perceiving Emotion not sig. related to performance.
EI--Using Emotion: related to company rank (p < .05).
EI--Understanding Emotion: related to company rank
(p < .05) and % merit increase (p < .05).
EI--Managing Emotion: related to company rank (p <
.01), and marginally to % merit increase (p < .10)
Total EI remained sig. related to % merit increase after
controlling personality traits
Total EI remained sig. related to company rank after
controlling for level of education and trait-positive
affect (which were both sig. correlated with rank).
Total EI sig. related to peer-rated interpersonal
facilitation and peer-rated sociability. (after
controlling for level of education
Total EI remained sig. related to supervisor rated sociability, -trait negative affect, -liking, contribution to a positive work environment, -trait
negative affect, and -stress-tolerance)
Emotional intelligence and performance
Author(s)
Sample
50
EI Measure
Dependent Variables & Controls
Key Results
3
Elfenbein &
Ambady, 2002
69 full-time
employees in a
year-long public
service program.
The Diagnostic
Analysis of
Nonverbal Accuracy
(DANVA) test
(Nowicki, 2000)
Dependent variables: (1) Senior staff
rating of employee effectiveness
(success and perceived fit with the
organization), (2) peer ratings of
effectiveness (success and perceived
fit with the organization).
Controls: Gender, age, ethic group
membership
Accuracy in recognizing emotions through non-verbal
means predicted ratings of effectiveness (for staff
ratings more than peer ratings).
Accuracy in eavesdropping on emotions (scored as
extent to which employees could extract nonverbal
information more accurately through vocal tones than
facial expressions) predicted effectiveness for
employees who were better at recognizing positive
emotions and was a negative predictor of
performance for employees who were better at
recognizing negative emotions.
4
Lam & Kirby,
2002
304 students at a
university in the
Western U.S.
MEIS (Mayer,
Salovey & Caruso,
1997)
Dependent variable: Cognitive
performance on eight problems
selected from the Burney (1974)
logical reasoning test taken under
stressful circumstances.
Controls: General intelligence using
the Shipley Institute of Living IQ
Scale
All findings occur after controlling for general
intelligence.
Regressions showed Total EI contributed to individual
cognitive-based performance (F = 11.37, p < .001),
Perceiving Emotions contributed to individual
cognitive-based performance (F = 23.24; p < .001),
Regulating Emotions contributed to individual
cognitive-based performance (F = 7.59; p < .01)
Understanding Emotions did not contribute to
individual cognitive-based performance over and
above general intelligence.
Dependent variables: (1)
Occupational Achievement (based on
salary and level in organizational
hierarchy), (2) Job Control, (3) Job
Stress, (4) Overall Job Satisfaction,
and (5) Organizational Commitment
All results reported separately for men and women.
For men: Total EI sig. correlated with job control (p <
.05), job stress (p < .05), and job satisfaction (p <
.01).
For women: Total EI sig. correlated with occupational
achievement (p < .01), job control (p < .01), job
satisfaction (p < .05), and job commitment (p < .01).
Total EI was related to lower levels of stress and higher
levels of perceived control, satisfaction, and
commitment.
Expressed Emotional Intelligence in Individual Roles
1
Petrides &
167 working adults Trait Emotional
Furnham, 2006
Intelligence
Questionnaire-Short
Form (TEIQue-SF);
(Petrides & Furnham,
2004)
Emotional intelligence and performance
51
Author(s)
Petrides, Niven
& Mouskounti,
2006
Sample
34 ballet students
at the English
National Ballet
School.
EI Measure
Trait Emotional
Intelligence
Questionnaire(TEIQue) (Petrides &
Furnham, 2004)
Dependent Variables & Controls
Dependent variables: Dancing
Quality rated by 5 teachers using
Ballet Dancing Ability Rating
Scale.
Controls: Big Five Personality Traits
Key Results
Quality sig. correlated with Total EI (p < .05) and EI
dimensions of Self Motivation (p < .01), Emotional
Expression (p < .05), Adaptability (p < .05), and
Happiness (p < .05).
Quality sig. correlated with Big Five Agreeableness (p
< .01), and Openness to Experience (p < .05).
3
Rozell,
Pettijohn &
Parker, 2006
103 salespeople
employed by a U.S.
nationwide medical
devices company
Schutte emotional
intelligence scale
(Schutte et al., 1998)
Dependent variables: (1) Selfreported sales performance based on
objectives met and comparisons to
peers.(2) positive and negative affect
via PANAS scale
Highest performers scored sig. higher on Total EI than
lowest performers (p < .05).
Performance levels were also sig. related to EI
dimensions of Emotional Awareness (p < .05) and
Emotional Self/Other control (p < .02), but not
External Emotional Control.
Performance was not sig. related to PANAS
4
Chia, 2005
91 Ethnic Chinese
Accounting Majors
at a university in
the Asia-Pacific
Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ-i)
(Bar-On, 1997)
Dependent variable: Number of job
offers in “Big 5 Certified Public
Accounting Firms”
Controls: (1) Academic Performance
i.e., grades, (2) Extra-curricular
activities, (3) Number of initial job
interviews, and (4) Number of 2nd
round job interviews.
Academic performance and extra curricular activities
were most predictive of obtaining initial interviews.
EI had no relationship to initial interviews.
Total EI was most predictive of obtaining job offers,
(t=6.61, p < .001), followed by 2 nd round job
interviews (t=4.46, p < .001), and initial job
interviews (t=2.54, p < .01).
EI was more strongly correlated to final job offers (r =
.57, p <.01), than academic performance (r = .32, p
<.01), and extra-curricular activities (r = .43, p <.01).
5
Law, Wong, &
Song, 2004
165 cigarette
factory workers in
the Anhui province
of China
Wong and Law
Emotional
Intelligence Scale
(WLEIS) rated by
self and by peers
Dependent variables: (1) Task
performance: supervisory
assessment, and (2) contextual
performance: interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication
Controls: (1) Big Five Personality
Inventory, (2) demographics, (3)
measures of loyalty to supervisor, (4)
and trust in supervisor.
Peer rating of EI predicted task performance (p < .01),
interpersonal facilitation (p < .01), and job dedication
(p < .01) after controlling for demographics, loyalty
to and trust in supervisor, and Big Five.
Self-rating of EI predicted task performance (p < .05)
interpersonal facilitation (p < .01), and job dedication
(p < .01) after including the same controls as above.
After controlling for relevant variables and the Big Five
personality dimensions, peer-rated EI still accounted
for more than 10% of the variance in in-role and
extra-role performance.
2
Emotional intelligence and performance
5
6
Author(s)
Nikolaou &
Tsaousis, 2002
Bachman,
Stein,
Campbell &
Sitarenios,
2000
Sample
212 mental health
professionals:
medical &
psychological,
paraprofessionals,
and administrative
staff.
36 Account
Officers at a debt
collection agency.
52
EI Measure
Emotional
intelligence
Questionnaire (EIQ)
(developed by 2nd
author).
Dependent Variables & Controls
Dependent variables: (1)
Organizational stress and (2)
organizational commitment
Key Results
Total EI was sig. correlated with lower stress (p < .01)
and higher organizational commitment (p < .01).
All EI dimensions were also sig. correlated to lower
stress and all but one (Perception & Appraisal of
Emotion) were sig. correlated to organizational
commitment
Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ-i)
(Bar-On, 1997)
Dependent variables: Performance
broken into two groups (a)
“consistently high producers.” High
performing group (n = 24), and (b)
“consistently low producers” (n =
12).
“Consistently high producers” scored higher than the
lower producers on: Total EI ( p < .05), and EI
dimensions of Intrapersonal (p < .01), Adaptability
(p < .05), and General Mood (p < .01)
Emotional intelligence and performance
53
Table 2
Peer Reviewed Journal Studies Examining Emotional Intelligence and Expressed Emotional Intelligence in Managerial and Leadership Roles
Emotional Intelligence in Managerial and Leadership Roles
1
2
Author(s)
Rosete &
Ciarrochi,
2007
Sample
122 executives
from a large
Australian public
service company
EI Measure
MSCEIT V2.0
(Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2002) and
The Swinburne
University Emotional
Intelligence Test
(SUEIT; Palmer &
Stough, 2001)
Dependent Variables & Controls
Dependent variables: Manager
performance ratings on: (a) business
outcomes achieved, (b) effective
interpersonal behavior
Controls: (1) Sixteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire, (2) Reasoning
ability measure, and (3) Cognitive
intelligence, WASI.
Key Results
Total EI correlated with “achieved business outcomes
(p < .01), effective interpersonal behavior (p <.01).
SUEIT EI not sig. correlated with either performance
outcome but sig. correlated with Total EI (p <.01).
Total EI predicted “business outcomes” after
controlling for reasoning ability and personality
Total EI predicted “effective interpersonal behavior”
after controlling for reasoning ability and personality.
EI branches of Perceiving Emotion and Managing
Emotion predicted “business outcomes” after
controlling for “reasoning” and personality scales.
All four branches of EI predict “effective int. behavior”
after controlling for reasoning ability and personality.
Rosete &
Ciarrochi,
2005
41 senior
executives in a
large Australian
public services
organization
MSCEIT V2.0
(Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2002)
Dependent variables: (1)
Performance rated by supervisor for
(a) achievement of last year’s goals,
(b) how goals were achieved --did
they build effective relationships, and
(2) 360 degree assessment of 40 core
leadership capabilities (rated by
manager and at least 3 employees)
Controls: (1) Sixteen Personality
Factor, (2) Cognitive ability (WASI).
Total EI correlated with rating of effectiveness in
“How” goals were achieved (p < .05)
Total EI not sig. related to achievement of goals
EI Perceiving Emotion is strongest predictor in rating
effectiveness of “How” goals were achieved (p < .01;
18% of variance) followed by personality
characteristic of “privateness” (p < .05; 10%)
Perceiving Emotions sig. predicated “How” goals were
achieved over and above personality characteristics
and cognitive intelligence.
Total EI correlated sig. with leadership capabilities
“Cultivates Productive Working Relationships” (p <
.05) and “Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity”
(p < .05).
EI branch that correlated with the most leadership
capabilities was Understanding Emotion, which
correlated with “Shapes Strategic Thinking” (p <
.05), “Cultivates Productive Working Rel.” (p < .05),
and “Communicates with Influence” (p < .05).
Emotional intelligence and performance
3
Author(s)
Côté, Lopes, &
Salovey, 2006
Sample
138 (40 teams)
undergraduate
students in an
organizational
behavior course
EI Measure
MSCEIT V2.0
(Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2002)
Expressed Emotional Intelligence in Managerial and Leadership Roles
4
Semadar,
136 leaders in the
The Swinburne
Robins, &
Australian division University Emotional
Ferris, 2006
of a global motorIntelligence Test
manufacturing
(SUEIT; Palmer &
company
Stough, 2001)
54
Dependent Variables & Controls
Dependent variable: Leadership
Emergence
Controls: Big Five personality traits
Key Results
Total EI predicted leadership emergence after
controlling for Big Five.
The positive association between EI and leadership
emergence gets stronger the lower group members
score on emotional stability – the more unstable the
group, the more EI predicts leader emergence
Dependent variable: Job performance
via annual performance appraisals by
senior managers.
Controls: (1) self-monitoring, (2)
leadership self-efficacy, (3) political
skill, (4) gender, (5) seniority.
Job performance correlated to EI (p< .01), political skill
(p< .01), and leadership self-efficacy (p< .05).
Regression analysis showed only political skill
provided significant unique contribution to job
performance.
EI and political skill were correlated r = .71, p< .01.
5
Sy, Tram, &
O’Hara, 2006
187 food service
workers and 62
food-service
managers
Wong & Law
Emotional
Intelligence Survey
(WLEIS) (Wong &
Law, 2002)
Dependent variables: (1) Job
performance assessed by managers
and (2) job satisfaction.
Controls: Big Five Personality
Factors (John, Donahue, and Kentle,
1991).
Managers Total EI correlated with employee job
performance (p< .01) and job satisfaction (p< .01).
After controlling for Big Five --Manager’s Total EI
correlated more positively with job satisfaction for
employees with low EI than for employees with high
EI (p < .05), and more positively with job
performance for employees with low EI than for
employees with high EI at a marginal level of
significance (p < .07).
Employees with higher Total EI have higher job
performance (p< .05) after controlling for Big Five.
Employees with higher Total EI have higher job
satisfaction (p< .001) after controlling for Big Five.
6
Carmeli, 2003
98 senior level
managers in local
Israeli government
Schutte Trait
Emotional
Intelligence Test
(Schutte et al. 1998)
Dependent variables: (1) Job
performance – self-rated, (2) job
sat., (3) affective commitment to the
org., (4) org. citizenship behavior, (5)
work-life balance, and (6) job
involvement, (7) intent to leave.
Controls: org. size, tenure, income.
Regressions showed Total EI sig. predicts job
performance (p < .01), job satisfaction (p < .01),
affective commitment to the organization (p < .05),
organizational commitment (p < .001), and work-life
balance (p < .05).
Emotional intelligence and performance
Author(s)
Sample
EI Measure
55
Dependent Variables & Controls
Key Results
7
Dulewicz,
Higgs, &
Slaski, 2003
59 middlemanagers from a
large retail
organization
Emotional
Intelligence
Questionnaire (EIQ)
developed by the
authors
Dependent variables: (1)
performance ratings by manager on
16 critical success factors determined
by the organization, e.g., setting
objectives, planning, organizing,
teamwork, etc., (2) morale, and (3)
stress.
Total EI was correlated with performance (p < .001),
morale (p < .001) and lower stress (p < .001).
Performance was also sig. correlated with dimensions
of Self-Awareness (p < .001), Emotional Resilience,
(p < .001), and Motivation (p < .001). But not with
dimensions of Interpersonal Sensitivity, Influence,
Intuitiveness, or Conscientiousness.
8
Slaski &
Cartwright,
2002
224 middle
managers in a
major retail
organization in the
United Kingdom
Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ-i).
(Bar-On, 1997)
Dependent variables: (1)
management performance rated by
immediate managers on 16 critical
success factors, e.g., setting
objectives, planning, organizing,
teamwork, etc., (2) general health
and well-being, (3) morale, (4) stress,
and (5) quality of work life.
Total EI was correlated with performance (p< .01),
better health and well-being (p< .01), morale (p<
.01), lower stress (p< .01), and better quality of work
life (p< .01).
Performance was sig. correlated with EI dimensions of
Intrapersonal EI (p < .05), Adaptability EI (p < .05),
Stress Management EI (p < .05), and General Mood
EI (p < .05), but not Interpersonal EI
9
Wong & Law
(2002)
Study 1: 60 middle
and upper-level
managers and their
subordinates in
Hong Kong.
Study 2: 146
middle level
administrators in
Hong Kong
Government
Wong & Law
Emotional
Intelligence Survey
(WLEIS) rated by
managers (developed
by authors)
Dependent variables for study 1: (1)
Job performance (manager ratings),
(2) emotional labor, (3) job
satisfaction, (4) organizational
commitment, and (5) turnover
intention
Dependent variables for study 2: (1)
job performance, (2) job satisfaction,
(3) organization citizenship
behaviors
Study 1: Total EI of subordinates is correlated with job
performance (p < .01), job satisfaction (p < .01).
EI Regulation of Emotion (p < .01) and Others’
Emotion Appraisal (p < .01) were only EI dimensions
sig. correlated with performance.
Emotional labor of the job moderates subordinate’s EI
– job performance relationship, such that EI is more
relevant to job performance if the job requires
emotional labor.
Study 2: Manager’s EI is correlated with subordinates
job satisfaction (p < .01) and organization citizenship
behavior (p < .05), but not performance.
10
Dulewicz &
Higgs (2000)
100 general
managers taking a
management
course
EI competencies
measured via selfreport (e.g.,
listening, sensitivity,
motivating others,
achievement motive,
emotional resilience)
Dependent variable: managerial
advancement – assessed 10 years
after competency assessment.
Comparisons: Cognitive
competencies (e.g., judgment,
planning), and managerial
competencies (e.g., supervising)
EI competencies accounted for 36% of variance in
advancement, cognitive competencies accounted for
27% of variance in advancement, and managerial
competencies accounted for 16% of variance in
advancement.
Emotional intelligence and performance
56
Table 3
Peer Reviewed Journal Studies Examining Emotional Intelligence and Expressed Emotional Intelligence in Team Contexts
Author(s)
Sample
EI Measure
Dependent Variables & Controls
Key Results
Emotional Intelligence in Team Contexts
1
Elfenbein,
Polzer, &
Ambady, 2007
68 employees of a
community service
non-profit
organization
randomly assigned
to 14 teams working
together for one
week before data
collection.
Emotion recognition:
Team emotion
recognition accuracy
(TERA) test
developed by the
authors.
Dependent variable: Accuracy at
perceiving emotions
Controls: (1) NEO-PPI five-factor
personality scale (Costa & McCrae,
1992), and (2) Demographics
Teams varied sig. in their members’ average level of
accuracy at Perceiving teammate’s expressions of
anger and embarrassment. By contrast, teams did not
differ in their accuracy at perceiving the emotions of
random others (non teammates). This reveals that
perceiving team members emotions is a team-level
skill that some teams exhibit sig. better than others.
No sig. differences found among high and low
Perceiving teams in Big Five or demographics.
2
Day &
Carroll, 2004
246 Canadian
students in 47 teams
working together
for one short task
MSCEIT V1.1
(Mayer et al., 2000)
(Team-level EI is
measured as the
average of team
member EI scores).
Dependent Variables: (1)
Performance based on (a) individual
and (b) team score on a cognitive
decision-making task (selecting
whom to downsize), (2) Organization
citizenship behaviors at the (a)
individual level and (b) team-level.
EI branch of Perceiving Emotion was sig. correlated
with individual-level performance (p < .01).
Team-level EI was not sig. correlated with team
performance.
All team- level EI branches were sig. correlated with
team-organization citizenship branch of
sportsmanship (p < .05).
Team-level EI branches (all except Perceiving
Emotion) were sig. correlated with organization
citizenship branch of civic virtue.
3
Feyerhem &
Rice, 2002
164 employees in
11 teams in a
regional processing
office of a financial
services division of
large insurance
company in the
mid-western U.S.
The Multifactor
Emotional
Intelligence Scale
(MEIS) (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso,
1997) (Team-level EI
is measured as the
average of team
member EI scores).
Dependent variables: (1) 2 managers
ranked all teams on performance and
(2) ratings of team performance by
team members, team leaders and
managers.
Team-level EI branches of Managing Emotions in
Others sig. correlated with performance rankings (p <
.05) and performance ratings (p < .05).
Team-level EI branches of Managing Emotions in Self
sig. correlated with performance rankings (p < .05)
and performance ratings (p < .05).
Team leader EI was not correlated with performance.
Team leader Understanding Emotions was sig.
positively correlated with ratings of team customer
service (p < .05), but sig. negatively correlated with
team accuracy (p < .01), productivity (p < .01), and
commitment to continuous improvement (p < .01).
Emotional intelligence and performance
Author(s)
Sample
EI Measure
Dependent Variables & Controls
Key Results
Dependent variables in study 1:
faculty ratings of team effectiveness
at 1 month and 6 months post norm
assessments.
Dependent variables in study 2: team
effectiveness rated by managers at
least 2 months post norm assessment.
Study 1: Team performance was sig. correlated with
Team-level EI dimensions of Interpersonal
Understanding (p < .01), Team Self-Evaluation (p <
.05), Proactive Problem Solving (p < .01),
Organizational Understanding (p < .01), and Building
External Relationships (p < .05).
Study 2: Team performance was sig. correlated with
Team-level EI dimensions of Interpersonal
Understanding (p < .01), Proactive Problem Solving
(p < .01), and Building External Relationships (p <
.05) and marginally sig. correlated with
Organizational Understanding (p < .10).
Bar-On, 1997 –
Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ-i).
(Team-level EI is
measured as the
average of team
member EI scores).
Dependent variables: Team process
effectiveness: (a) Team task
orientation and (b) team maintenance
function
Team-level Total EI did not predict team task
orientation or team maintenance function
Team task orientation was sig. correlated with 2 EI
dimensions: Team-level Interpersonal EI (p < .05),
and Team-level Adaptability EI (p < .05).
Team maintenance function was sig. related to teamlevel General Mood EI (p < .05).
Wong, Law, &
Wong, 2004 – forced
choice measure
Dependent variables: (1) subjective
experience in a dyad negotiation and
(2) Objective performance scores in
dyad negotiation.
Controls: (1) Big Five personality
inventory (NEO-IPIP --omitting
agreeableness), (2) Grade point
average (GPA)
All findings occur after controlling for Big Five and
GPA
In dyad negotiations, higher Dyad-level EI produced
sig. better joint negotiation outcomes.
Partner with higher EI had a sig. more positive
experience than counterpart.
The individual in the partnership with the highest EI
earned a sig. lower objective score for him/herself,
suggesting that higher EI allows you to create value –
but your negotiating partner benefits from that value.
Expressed Emotional Intelligence in Team Contexts
4
Druskat, Wolff,
Study 1: 382
Group emotional
Messer, &
MBA students in
competence norms
Stubbs, 2007
48 teams together (GEC Norms)
in all courses for
(survey measures
a year. Study 2:
team-level norms;
905 employees
developed by
(109 teams) in six authors)
diverse
companies
5
Frye, Bennett &
Caldwell, 2006
6
Foo, Elfenbein,
Tan, & Aik,
2005
130 employees in
33 self-managing
teams at the
headquarters of a
distributor of
promotional
products in the
Mid-Western U.S.
164 Business
undergraduates in
Asia (82 dyads)
57
Emotional intelligence and performance
Author(s)
Sample
EI Measure
58
Dependent Variables & Controls
Key Results
7
Offermann,
Bailey,
Vasilopoulos,
Seal, & Sass,
2004
425 business
administration
students in 89
teams in the MidAtlantic U.S.
Emotional
Competence
Inventory (ECI) –
self-assessment
version (Boyatzis &
Goleman, 2002).
(Team-level EI is
measured as the
average of team
member EI scores).
Dependent variables: (1) Individual
performance (exam grades), (2) team
score in a cognitive problem-solving
task (blizzard” survival), (3) team
project grade, (4) team attitudes
survey, and (5) leadership emergence
and effectiveness (both measured by
peer ratings).
Controls: (1) Cognitive ability –
(SAT score), and (2) Big Five
personality traits
Team-level EI was sig. correlated with team project
grade (p < .05) and team attitudes (p < .05; with the
relationship management cluster accounting for most
of the variance), but not team problem-solving score.
EI was sig. correlated with leader emergence (p < .01)
and leader effectiveness (p < .01), with dimensions of
Self-Awareness (p < .01) and Relationship
Management (p < .01) the most strongly correlated
with both.
Regressions showed that when included along with the
Big Five, the EI dimensions still added significant
incremental validity in the prediction of leadership
emergence (R² = .047, p = .002) and marginally
significant incremental validity in predicting
leadership effectiveness (R² = .023, p = .076).
EI was not sig. correlated with individual performance.
Team-level (averages) Big Five traits were not sig.
correlated with team project grades and team-level
(average) cognitive ability was not sig. correlated
with team performance measures or team attitudes.
8
Jordan & Troth,
2004
350 Australian
students in 108
teams in an
introductory
management
course
Workgroup
Emotional
Intelligence Profile,
Version 6 (WEIP-6)
–– self-report
measure developed
by the authors to
measure EI in teams.
(Team-level EI is
measured as the
average of team
member EI scores.)
Dependent variables: (1)
Performance based on (a) individual
and (b) team score on a problemsolving task: (survival exercise), (2)
Interpersonal conflict handling styles
Teams with higher team-level WEIP scores, score
higher on team-level performance (p < .05).
Team’s average scores on ability to Manage their Own
Emotions was sig. correlated to higher team
performance. Ability to Manage Other’s Emotions
was not linked to team performance.
Regression analysis with subscales of the WEIP
revealed that team performance was best predicted by
Management of One’s Own Emotions (p < .01) and
Discussion of Own Emotions (p < .05), which was
negatively associated with performance. Awareness
of Own Emotions was not a significant predictor.
Teams with higher team-level WEIP scores used
collaboration as their preferred style of conflict
resolution.
Emotional intelligence and performance
Author(s)
Sample
EI Measure
Dependent Variables & Controls
59
Key Results
9
Jordan,
Ashkanasy,
Hartel, &
Hooper, 2002
448 Australian
undergraduates in
44 teams in a
managerial skills
course for nine
weeks
Workgroup
Emotional
Intelligence Profile,
Version 3 (WEIP-3)
– self-report measure
developed by the
authors to measure EI
in teams. (Team-level
EI is measured as the
average of team
member EI scores).
Dependent variables: Team
performance ratings based on “log
sheets” submitted weekly for 9
weeks by teams and coded for (a)
team process effectiveness and (b)
team goal focus
Teams with high team-level WEIP scores performed
well on process effectiveness and goal focus right
from the start of the semester.
Teams with low team-level WEIP scores initially
performed poorly on process effectiveness and goal
focus, but improved over time so that by the end of
nine weeks there were no sig. differences between
groups.
10
Rapisarda, 2002
91 executive
MBA students
working in 18
study groups for a
period of two
years
Emotional
Competence
Inventory (ECI) -360 degree version
(Boyatzis &
Goleman, 2002).
Dependent variables: (1) Team
performance ratings by team
members and faculty, and (2) team
cohesiveness ratings by team
members and faculty.
Dimensions of ECI sig. correlated with student ratings
of cohesiveness included: Achievement Orientation,
Empathy, Influence, Communication, Leadership,
Conflict Management, Self-control Adaptability and
Building Bonds.
Dimensions of ECI sig. correlated with faculty ratings
of cohesiveness were Empathy (p < .05), and
marginally sig. were Achievement Orientation and
Influence (p < .10)
Two dimensions of ECI were marginally sig correlated
with student ratings of performance: Achievement
Orientation and Empathy (p < .10).
One dimensions of ECI was sig. correlated with faculty
ratings of performance: Empathy (p < .05).