Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated

Abstract

In the first of two articles presenting the case for emotional intelligence in a pointcounterpoint exchange, we present a brief summary of research in the field, and rebut arguments against the construct presented in this issue. We identify three streams of research: (1) a four-branch abilities test based on the model of emotional intelligence defined in Mayer and Salovey (1997); (2) self-report instruments based on the MayerSalovey model; and (3) commercially available tests that go beyond the Mayer-Salovey definition. In response to the criticisms of the construct, we argue that the protagonists have not distinguished adequately between the streams, and have inappropriately characterized emotional intelligence as a variant of social intelligence. More significantly, two of the critical authors assert incorrectly that emotional intelligence research is driven by a utopian political agenda, rather than scientific interest. We argue, on the contrary, that emotional intelligence research is grounded in recent scientific advances in the study of emotion; specifically regarding the role emotion plays in organizational behavior. We conclude that emotional intelligence is attracting deserved continuing research interest as an individual difference variable in organizational behavior related to the way members perceive, understand, and manage their emotions.The case for emotional intelligence, Paper 1 Page 3 Rumors of the Death of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Behavior are Vastly ExaggeratedThe case for emotional intelligence is presented in two articles. In this, the first of these, we deal specifically with the points raised by Landy, Locke, and Conte in the preceding three articles critical of the conceptualization and measurement of emotional intelligence. Indeed, if one were to read the three critical articles, especially Landy's and Locke's, one could be excused for concluding that emotional intelligence is not viable as a scientific construct, and that organizational researchers ought to stop wasting their time in researching the construct. In other words, emotional intelligence is dead. We argue in this article that, far from being moribund, emotional intelligence is an exciting and developing area of research in organizational behavior, and a key component of the current burgeoning interest in emotions in organizational settings , Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Daus, 2002. At the same time, we also warn that emotional intelligence researchers need to be careful that they fully understand the construct, and also show appropriate levels of circumspection in their research endeavors. In the second of the two articles in defense of emotional intelligence (Daus & Ashkanasy, this issue), we take our arguments a step further, and provide an up-to-date and cogent summary of current research in work settings based on the four-branch model of emotional intelligence (as defined in Salovey & Mayer, 1997). Our hope is that this article will serve to guide future research in a blossoming new field in organizational...

The relationship between personality preferences, self-esteem and emotional competence

“…The term emotional intelligence was originally coined by Salovey and Mayer (1990) to complement the traditional view of general intelligence by emphasising behaviour that requires emotional and behavioural control in social situations (Kanfer & Kantrowitz, 2002). Although the construct is still in a stage of active development, four findings are emerging that provide an early picture of emotional intelligence: (1) emotional intelligence is distinct from, but positively related to, other intelligences, more specifically, it is the intelligence (the ability to grasp abstractions) applied to the life domain of emotions; (2) emotional intelligence is an individual difference, in the sense that some people are more endowed and others are less so; (3) emotional intelligence develops over a person's life span and can be enhanced through training; and (4) emotional intelligence involves particular abilities to reason intelligently about emotions including identifying and perceiving emotion (in oneself and others), as well as the skills to understand and to manage those emotions successfully in social situations (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005;Locke, 2005).…”

“…Although emotional intelligence develops over a person's life span and individuals' ability to demonstrate emotionally competent behaviour can be enhanced through training (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005;Locke, 2005) it is however, important to note that individuals are not always aware of why they are doing something, or what they are doing, because of the variety of defensive, displacement and screening processes that are related to aspects of their self-esteem. From this perspective many of people's emotions def y conscious control and regulation (Fineman, 2000).…”

Effects of Practicing Meditation in the East and the West: Leaders in the West Benefit More

“…There are three common models for measuring EI, which are developed based on the theoretical framework and empirical scientific study (Berrocal & Extremera, 2006;Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). These are (1) the EI ability-based model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997); (2) the Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (Bar-On, 1997); and (3) the Goleman competency model that focuses on the workplace (Goleman, 1998;Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000).…”

Is project management the new management 2.0?

“…These early contributions focused on human needs, but have tended to be eclipsed by 'process' theories, which have a greater concern with the mental processes associated with motivated behaviour. Process theories include Expectancy theories (Vroom 1964;Porter & Lawler 1968), Equity theory (Adams 1965), Goal theory (Locke 1968), and Attribution theory (Heider 1958;Kelley 1973).…”