Emotional intelligence is an increasingly popular consulting tool. According to popular opinion and work-place testimonials, emotional intelligence increases performance and productivity; however, there has been a general lack of independent, systematic analysis substantiating that claim. The authors investigated whether emotional intelligence would account for increases in individual cognitive-based performance over and above the level attributable to traditional general intelligence. The authors measured emotional intelligence with the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, & D. R. Caruso, 1997). As measured by the MEIS, overall emotional intelligence is a composite of the 3 distinct emotional reasoning abilities: perceiving, understanding, and regulating emotions (J. D. Mayer & P. Salovey, 1997). Although further psychometric analysis of the MEIS is warranted, the authors found that overall emotional intelligence, emotional perception, and emotional regulation uniquely explained individual cognitive-based performance over and beyond the level attributable to general intelligence.

Diversity research assumes that social interaction is influenced by a social categorization that arises from visible and readily detectable differences. How does this process work when the differences are not readily detectable? We explore the legal protections that shape the employment environment for people with invisible identities and how invisibility influences the common social dimensions of stigma these individuals experience. These social dimensions are resistant to change and therefore change occurs slowly: stigma cannot simply be legislated away. On the basis of our comparisons of social identity groups with invisible characteristics we discuss four dimensions that are especially relevant for understanding the social dynamics of invisible diversities.

Recent studies have consistently demonstrated the significant positive impact that proactive thinking has on job performance, while assuming proactivity to be a relatively stable, dispositional trait (cf. Ashford & Black, 1996; Crant, 1995; Morrison, 1993; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). This study, on the other hand, seeks to determine if proactivity can be increased in participants through training. This study uses a 4‐month long longitudinal pretest/posttest design to assess the relationship between proactive thinking and performance in the classroom. In the study, 177 subjects were split into 2 treatment groups. One group received training in proactive thinking skills, while the other did not. The results of the study confirm that proactive thinking does have a significant impact on student performance over and above other personality and performance variables. Most importantly, this study also demonstrates that proactivity is not stable over time, but can be increased through training.