1

Emotional Intelligence: Construct Validity Findings from the

Global Personality Inventory

Douglas A. Johnson

University of North Texas and Personnel Decisions International

Jana Miller

Rutgers University and Personnel Decisions International

ABSTRACT

Using Golemans model, an emotional intelligence measure was developed from the

Global Personality Inventory, and validated in two studies of managers and executives (N

= 250 each). The measure demonstrated reasonable discriminant and convergent validity,

modest criterion-related validity, but better criterion-related validity than established tests

of g and personality.

Note: This paper has been submitted for presentation at the 2003 annual conference of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

2

Emotional Intelligence: Construct Validity Findings from the

Global Personality Inventory

Work on emotional intelligence has roots in the competency work of David

McClelland (1973) and his colleagues. He advanced the notion that intelligence quotient

(IQ) has a limited ability to predict job success. Since he advanced this idea, an

increasing number of studies have shown that traditional academic aptitude and

knowledge content tests are not the sole predictors of job performance or success in life

(Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). The competency movement has advanced

the way in which psychologists approach their traditional task of getting the right person

into the right job (McClelland, 1973). McClelland (1998) subsequently reviewed the data

from thirty organizations for executive positions across industries and found that a wide

range of emotional intelligence competencies distinguished top performers from average

performers.

Different models of emotional intelligence (EI) have been proposed and revised over

the past fifteen years. Salovey and Mayer (1990) and Mayer and Salovey (1997) framed

emotional intelligence in the context of traditional IQ, and Goleman (1998a, 1998b)

framed emotional intelligence in terms of both a theory of personality and a theory of

performance. Bar-On (2000) has revised his model to define emotional intelligence in

terms of an array of emotional and social knowledge and abilities that shape our ability to

cope with environmental demands. Salovey and Mayer (1990) identified emotional

intelligence as the ability to monitor ones own feelings and emotions, to discriminate

3

among them, and to use this information to guide ones thinking and action." (p. 189),

and created the first EI model, which focused on cognition and feeling capabilities. Those

individuals possessing higher levels of emotional intelligence are thought to be more

capable of experiencing their emotions with greater clarity. Because they understand

what drives their behavior, they can engage in self-management strategies and tend to

rebound from such experiences as failures more quickly and capably.

Of these competing models of EI, the one that has received the most public attention

is that of Goleman. His 1998 book, Working with Emotional Intelligence, has been

widely read by the general public. The EI model he presents there consists of five main

factors, each with several subdimensions. These are presented in Table 1. The model

points to the capacity for recognizing ones own emotions and those of others, to

differentiate between them, and to apply this information to guide personal thoughts and

behaviors. Goleman believes that in order to gain entry into a high level position in an

organization, one needs to demonstrate a threshold of intellectual capability that helps

also to establish initial credibility, but must ultimately demonstrate higher levels of

emotional intelligence to contribute to ongoing success and leader effectiveness. He

proposes that those leaders who have the ability to understand and effectively handle the

emotional aspects of work may be better equipped to unify efforts to achieve

organizational results. In Working with Emotional Intelligence, Goleman makes a

number of very persuasive claims about the value of EI for organizations. Many of these

claims are supported by research studies that are cited extensively throughout the book,

leaving the casual reader to conclude that EI is a powerful new concept that will be

beneficial to organizations for both employee selection and development.

4

On closer inspection, however, there are problems with Goleman's work. Barrett

(2001) has strongly criticized EI proponents, and Goleman in particular, for taking a

"Madison Avenue" approach to EI by selling it to the public before the construct had

been properly validated. In a review of the research studies cited in Goleman's writings,

Barrett (2001) found that many of Goleman's claims were based on misinterpretations or

overly pro-EI interpretations of the data in those studies. To begin to resolve the question

of whether or not EI is a viable construct, construct validation studies need to be

conducted by those outside of the "EI community" (i.e., those who have developed and

promoted the concept). Such studies are now starting to appear.

The two studies presented in this paper were developed to add large-sample

validation findings to the EI literature. In the last few years, Personnel Decisions

International has collected extensive test and behavioral data from large numbers of mid-

level mangers and executives as part of its developmental assessment work. One of the

tests used, the Global Personality Inventory (GPI), while not specifically designed to

assess EI, does measure most of the sub-dimensions in Goleman's (1998a) EI model. It

therefore became possible to assemble EI factor scales from the GPI, and correlate them

with other tests and job performance ratings for purposes of accumulating construct

validation evidence. While the two studies presented below cannot provide definitive

answers to the construct validity of EI (that will take many studies), they represent a step

in that direction.

5

Method

Study 1

The first study was based on data collected from 250 mid-level managers and

technical professionals during the course of individual assessments conducted for the

purpose of employee development.

Sample. The sample consisted of 161 males and 89 females with an average age

of 40.4 years. Eighty-four percent of the sample was white, and most had bachelor's

degrees or higher (84%). They averaged 8.4 years of tenure with their current employer.

Measures. This study focused on the relationship of five measures used in the

assessment process, four predictors and one criterion. The primary predictor of interest,

and the one used to create the EI measure was the Global Personality Inventory (GPI).

The GPI was designed to be a cross-cultural measure of work-oriented personality facets.

Using both classical test theory and item response theory, the GPI items were created to

be translatable into multiple languages without a loss of meaning. The theoretical

foundation of the GPI is the "Big Five" personality theory. The GPI consists of 37

individual facet scales factored into nine standard work performance dimensions:

Thinking, Planning, and Execution, Facilitation, Leadership, Derailing Leadership,

Interpersonal, Motivation, Self-Management, Individual Work Orientation, and

Collective Work Orientation. In two studies, facet scale alpha averages were .73 and .77.

A test-retest reliability study (two-week interval) resulted in a .78 coefficient (GPI

6

Technical Manual, 2001). A complete description of the development and validation of

the GPI can be found in Schmit, Kihm, and Robie (2000).

The EI model by Goleman (1998a) was used to create the EI measures from the

GPI facet scales. Goleman 's model contains five dimensions: Social Skills, Self-

Awareness, Self-Management, Motivation/Achievement Orientation, and Empathy/Social

Awareness. The EI measures for this study were created by mapping GPI facets onto the

Goleman model. The "map" is presented in Table 2. In addition, a total EI score was

created by summing the five EI dimensions.

The other predictor measures are ones that have been extensively used in

developmental assessments: the Wesman Personnel Classification Test Verbal Scale, The

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI). The first two are measures of general mental ability ("g"), and the latter is a

measure of Jungian personality type. Reliabilities for these measures are quite

satisfactory, ranging from the upper .70s to the mid -.90s.

The criterion measure was the Profilor, a 360-degree feedback instrument created

by PDI for use in developmental assessments for managers. The Profilor is used to gather

performance ratings from subordinates, peers, and superiors of the person being assessed.

Individual item ratings are grouped into eleven performance dimensions: Thinking,

Administrative Leadership, Interpersonal, Communication, Motivation, Self-

Management, Organizational Knowledge, Empowerment, Career Issues (political

astuteness), and Overall Performance. The median Cronbach's alpha for the Profilor

scales is .88 (Hezlett, Ronnkvist, Holt, and Hazucha, 1997).

7

Procedure. Data were collected for each subject during a relatively short time

frame. Once the subjects had been selected by their organization for assessment, they

were then asked to identify subordinates, peers, and a superior who could best evaluate

their performance. They were thoroughly briefed on the purpose of the assessment and

signed informed consent forms. Profilor rating forms and instructions were sent to the

nominated raters. Prior to the assessment date, "prework" was sent to the subjects to be

completed in advance. This included a personal history form as well as the GPI and

MBTI. The Wesman and Watson-Glaser tests were completed at the assessment site

under the supervision of a trained psychometrist.

Study 2

The second study was based on data collected from 250 executive-level managers

and technical professionals during the course of individual developmental assessments.

Sample. The sample consisted of 199 males and 51 females with an average age

of 42.2 years. Seventy-nine percent of the sample was white, and 81% had bachelor's

degrees or higher. They averaged 10.7 years of tenure with their current employer.

Measures. The predictor measures were identical to those for Study 1. The

criterion measure was the Executive Success Profile (ESP), a 360-degree feedback

instrument designed specifically for executive level positions. The performance

dimensions measured by the ESP are: Thinking, Strategic Management, Leadership,

Interpersonal, Communication, Motivation, Self-Management, Breadth and Depth, and

Continuous Improvement. Reliabilities of the ESP dimensions are similar to those of the

Profilor.

Procedure. The procedure for Study 2 is the same as that for Study 1.

8

Results

Study 1

The descriptive statistics for Study 1 variables are presented in Table 3. Two sets

of Profilor data are presented. The "Average Other" data represents the mean

performance ratings by all subordinates, peers, and superiors. "Boss" data represents the

more traditional criterion of superior-only ratings.

In Table 4, the correlation between the GPI-EI measures and the other predictors

are presented. The EI scales showed good discriminant validity, as they correlated very

weakly with the Wesman and Watson-Glaser tests. The EI scales were also uncorrelated

with most of the MBTI scales, with the major exception of the Introversion-Extraversion

dimension.

In Table 5, the criterion-related validity coefficients between the EI, Wesman, and

Watson-Glaser predictor scales and both sets of Profilor criteria are presented. (The

MBTI-Profilor correlations were omitted because only 14 of the 176 coefficients were

significant.) Of the 132 correlations between EI scales and Profilor ratings, 60 (45%)

were statistically significant, but only 17 of those were above .20. The EI scales were best

at predicting Profilor Leadership, Motivation, and Empowerment ratings, and worst at

predicting Thinking and Organizational Knowledge. The EI Motivation scale seemed to

be the best at predicting both sets of ratings. Table 5 also shows that 13 of the 22

Wesman correlations were significant, but all were negative, and only three exceeded .20.

9

Only two of 22 Watson-Glaser correlations were significant, and they were negative as

well.

Study 2

The descriptive statistics for Study 2 variables are presented in Table 6. In Table

7, the correlations between the GPI-EI measures and the other predictors are shown. As

in Study 1, the EI scales were essentially uncorrelated with the Wesman and Watson-

Glaser tests. The correlations observed between the EI scales and the MBTI Introversion-

Extraversion scales were somewhat lower than they were in Study 1, and the correlations

with the other MBTI scales remained low as well.

Table 8 shows the predictor-criterion relationships. Again, the MBTI data are not

shown, as only 14 of the 144 coefficients were significant. The findings for the EI scales

were generally weaker than those found in Study 1, with only 31 of 108 coefficients

(28%) achieving statistical significance. The correlations with the Average Other ratings

were particularly low, with none as high as .20. Communication appeared to be the best-

predicted of the criterion dimensions, and Self-Management was the most effective of the

EI predictors. The Wesman and Watson-Glaser tests both demonstrated a complete lack

of criterion-related validity for this sample.

Discussion

There were some consistent findings across these two studies. First, the EI scales

demonstrated discriminant validity with established measures of general mental ability.

A personality-based measure of EI would not be expected to correlate with measures of

"g", and the GPI-EI did not. Second, a moderate degree of convergent validity was

10

demonstrated by the EI scales' correlations with the Introversion-Extraversion scales of

the MBTI. The EI Social Skills scale in particular, correlated strongly with the

Introversion-Extraversion scales in both studies. It is not surprising that those who are

high in EI would also score high on Extraversion and low on Introversion. Emotional

intelligence requires proactive social behaviors, which are difficult to exhibit if one is

introverted. These findings are somewhat at variance with those of Higgs (2000), who

found that the MBTI Intuition scale had the strongest relationship with EI. Our studies

found that Intuition was essentially unrelated to EI. This discrepancy may be a function

of the differences in how EI was measured in the Higgs study versus ours.

The criterion-related validity results for the EI scales were modest at best. Only

90 of 240 validity coefficients (38%) were statistically significant, and only 26 of these

were above .20. The highest coefficient was .30. For the mid-level managers, (Study 1)

the EI factor of Motivation was the best predictor, while for the executives (Study 2), the

EI factor of Self-Management had the strongest correlations with the performance

ratings. These findings suggest that employees may differ in what they consider to be

desirable attributes in managers versus executives. Mid-level managers may need to

demonstrate initiative, optimism, and a strong sense of achievement orientation to receive

high performance ratings. On the other hand, the role modeling behaviors of executives

such as demonstrating responsibility, dutifulness, emotional control, and adaptability

appear to be most important to their colleagues.

While these findings are mildly encouraging, they do not show the EI construct in

as positive a light as the work of Goleman (1998a) would have one expect. On the other

hand, these findings do not show EI in as negative a light as the review by Barrett (2001)

11

would have one expect. Although the criterion-related validities were modest, the EI

scales were nevertheless superior to the Wesman, Watson-Glaser, and MBTI scales in

that regard. Those measures demonstrated essentially no criterion-related validity. Most

unusual was the failure of the two measures of general mental ability to predict

performance ratings. In light of the considerable existing literature supporting the

efficacy of measures of "g" in predicting job performance, these results are surprising.

Where statistically significant correlations did exist between the Wesman or Watson-

Glaser tests and the criteria, they were uniformly negative. Given that these findings held

across two large samples of managers, it may be that non-cognitive factors may be of

greater importance for performance at these levels, or that these two tests do not measure

the types of cognitive skills that are important. Range restriction may have also played a

role. However, the standard deviations for the measures were not unusually small.

The major limitation of our studies is that the data were collected for

developmental purposes, not selection. The subjects were pre-selected to be assessed, so

randomization was not possible. These factors probably contributed to the

homogenization of the samples, as there was little racial or gender diversity.

Despite these limitations, the EI measure created for this study performed

reasonably well. It showed good discriminant and convergent validity, but only modest

criterion-related validity (although it outperformed the other predictors). Further studies

will be needed to determine the ultimate usefulness of the GPI-EI, and EI in general as a

construct. Additional criterion-related validity studies under personnel selection

conditions would be desirable, as would a large-scale construct validation study involving

the GPI-EI, Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso's EI test, the MSCEIT, Bar-On's EI test, the EQ-

12

I, and Boyatzis, Goleman and Rhee's 360 degree feedback measure, the ECI. Construct

validation is a long-term ongoing process, and the studies presented in this paper will

hopefully encourage further contributions to that process.

References

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: insights from the

emotional quotient inventory. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of

emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home,

school and in the workplace (pp. 368-388). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Barrett, G. V. (2001). Emotional intelligence: The Madison Avenue approach to

professional practice. Paper presented at the16th annual conference of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective

Performance, John Wiley and Sons: New York.

Global Personality Inventory Technical Manual (2001). Minneapolis: ePredix

Goleman, D. (1998a). Working with Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books: New

York.

Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, Nov-

December, 92-102.

Hezlett, S. A., Ronnkvist, A. M., Holt, K. E., & Hazucha, J. F. (1997). Profilor

Technical Summary. Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions International.

Higgs, M. (2001). Is there a relationship between the Myers-Briggs type indicator

and emotional intelligence? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 509-533.

13

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P.

Salovey & D. Sluyter, (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence. (pp. 3-

34). New York: Basic Books.

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence.

American Psychologist, 28, 1-14.

McClelland, D. C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event

interviews. Psychological Science, 9(5), 331-339.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,

Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Schmit, M. J., Kihm, J. A., & Robie, C. (2000). Development of a global measure

of personality. Personnel Psychology, 53, 153-193.

Spencer, L. & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at Work. Wiley & Sons, NY.

14

15

Table 1.

Goleman's Emotional Intelligence Factors and Sub-Dimensions

1) Social Skills Influence Communication Conflict Management Leadership Change catalyst Building bonds Collaboration and cooperation Team capabilities 2) Self-Awareness Emotional awareness Accurate self-assessment Self-confidence 3) Self-Management Self-Control Trustworthiness Conscientiousness Adaptability Innovation 4) Motivation Achievement drive Commitment Initiative Optimism 5) Empathy Understanding others Developing others Service orientation

Leveraging diversity Political awareness

16

Table 2. Construction of the GPI-EI Scales: GPI Facet Scales Mapped to Goleman's EI Factors 1) GPI-EI Social Skills Social Astuteness Sociability Influence Consideration Interdependence Taking Charge 2) GPI-EI Self-Awareness Self-Awareness/Self-Insight Self-Confidence 3) GPI-EI Self-Management Responsibility

Dutifulness Innovativeness/Creativity Emotional Control Adaptability

4) GPI-EI Motivation Desire for Achievement Initiative Optimism 5) GPI-EI Empathy Empathy Openness Ego-Centered (subtracted)

17

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Study 1 sample.

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

WESMAN 239 29 9 38 25.22 6.32MBTI -E 225 42 2 44 15.62 6.56MBTI -S 225 34 0 34 13.17 8.22MBTI -T 225 32 0 32 18.31 7.24MBTI - J 225 26 1 27 17.42 6.11MBTI - I 225 24 0 24 10.52 6.36

MBTI - N 225 32 0 32 12.11 6.42MBTI - F 225 20 0 20 4.73 4.39MBTI - P 225 28 0 28 10.19 6.43

GPI-EI SS 250 34.75 16.25 51.00 37.3230 4.6582GPI-EI SA 250 11.75 4.25 16.00 12.2670 1.4110GPI-EI SM 250 24.50 12.50 37.00 27.8120 3.0599GPI-EI MO 250 17.00 9.00 26.00 19.1080 2.5521GPI-EI EM 250 12.00 1.00 13.00 6.5450 1.6790GPI-EI TO 250 95.00 43.00 138.00 103.0550 11.0567

Profilor-AO THINK

250 4.05 5.52 9.57 7.7488 .6624

Profilor-AO ADMN

249 3.87 5.47 9.34 7.4649 .7053

Profilor-AO LEAD

250 14.49 18.59 33.08 26.0906 2.5701

Profilor-AO INTRP

250 6.69 6.95 13.64 11.1822 1.2318

Profilor-AO COMM

250 5.30 8.40 13.70 11.5018 1.0124

Profilor-AO MOT

250 3.93 5.82 9.75 8.2131 .7205

Profilor-AO SELF

250 5.64 8.10 13.74 11.3512 1.0474

Profilor-AO ORG

250 3.96 5.48 9.44 7.8064 .6860

Profilor-AO EMP

250 2.05 2.61 4.66 3.7440 .3757

Profilor-AO CAR

250 1.98 2.60 4.58 3.8165 .3718

Profilor-AO OVRL

250 2.26 2.53 4.79 4.0206 .4281

Profilor-BS THINK

234 4.95 4.85 9.80 7.6461 .9291

Profilor-BS ADMN

233 5.18 4.71 9.89 7.3694 .9688

Profilor-BS LEAD

232 16.69 17.94 34.63 25.9416 3.0860

Profilor-BS INTRP

236 8.39 6.61 15.00 10.9778 1.5265

Profilor- 236 6.75 8.00 14.75 11.3212 1.3420

18

BS COMMProfilor-

BS MOT236 5.50 4.50 10.00 8.2469 1.0692

Profilor-BS SELF

235 7.83 6.97 14.80 11.4029 1.3152

Profilor-BS ORG

236 5.10 4.45 9.55 7.5394 .9896

Profilor-BS EMP

235 2.80 2.20 5.00 3.7388 .4587

Profilor-BS CAR

236 2.60 2.35 4.95 3.7882 .4574

Profilor-BS OVRL

236 2.80 2.20 5.00 4.0083 .5947

WATSON-GLASER

242 39 39 78 64.64 7.78

Note: MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, E = Extraversion, S = Sensing, T = Thinking, J = Judging, I = Introversion, N = Intuition, F = Feeling, P = Perceiving; GPI EI = Global Personality Inventory Emotional Intelligence Scale, SS = Social Skills, SA = Self Awareness, SM = Self Management, MO = Motivation, EM = Empathy, TO = Emotional Intelligence Total Score; Profilor = 360 degree feedback measure, AO = Average of All Others' Ratings, BS = Boss Ratings, THINK = Thinking, ADMN = Administrative Ability, LEAD = Leadership, INTPR = Interpersonal Skills, COMM = Communication, MOT = Motivation, SELF = Self Management, ORG = Organizational Knowledge, EMP = Empowerment, CAR = Career Issues, OVRL = Overall Performance

19

Table 4. Correlations between GPI Emotional Intelligence Scales and Other Predictors in Study 1 GPI Emotional Intelligence Scales Other Tests

Social Skills

Self-Awareness

Self-Management

Motivation Empathy Total EI Score

Wesman -.15* -.07 -.04 -.14 -.12 -.13* W-G -.17* -.05 -.01 -.13* -.12 -.13* MBTI-E .50** .19** .06 .32** .24** .36** MBTI-S .03 .05 -.13* -.05 -.04 -.04 MBTI-T -.03 .00 .09 .09 -.16* .01 MBTI-J .05 .06 .03 .03 -.04 .04 MBTI-I -.56** -.24** -.15* -.38** -.28** -.43** MBTI-N -.05 -.08 -.06 .00 .06 -.01 MBTI-F .02 -.04 -.18* -.12 .15* -.05 MBTI-P -.05 -.05 -.06 -.01 .02 -.04 Note: N = 225. W-G = Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, E = Extraversion, S = Sensing, T = Thinking, J = Judging, I = Introversion, N = Intuition, F = Feeling, P = Perceiving *p

20

Table 5. Summary of Study 1 Predictor-Criterion Correlations

Predictor Variables Profilor Criterion Variables SS SA SM MOT EMP TOT WES W-G AO Thinking .02 .10 .10 .09 .06 .08 -.03 .04 AO Admin. .09 .14* .15* .16* .13* .15* -.18** -.08 AO Leadership .22** .17** .17** .23** .22** .25** -.19** -.08 AO Interpers. .17** .11 .15* .09 .27** .19** -.13* -.06 AO Commun. .20** .12 .12 .16* .23** .20** -.11 -.07 AO Motivation .17** .19** .16* .30** .07 .22** -.24** -.16* AO Self-Mgt. .12 .13* .17** .15* .21** .18** -.14* -.05 AO Org Knowl. .01 .08 .10 .10 .02 .07 -.04 -.03 AO Empower. .19** .17** .18** .19** .27** .24** -.20** -.11 AO Career Issue .12 .13* .16* .10 .21** .17** -.16* -.06 AO Overall Prf. .07 .16* .16* .15* .07 .14* -.19* -.11 BS Thinking -.08 .08 .02 .05 -.05 -.01 -.01 .03 BS Admin. -.02 .12 .07 .13* .03 .06 -.16* .01 BS Leadership .10 .16 .10 .20** .11 .16* -.17* -.05 BS Interpers. .08 .10 .07 .04 .16* .10 -.13 -.04 BS Commun. .06 .07 .01 .09 .06 .07 -.13 -.03 BS Motivation .13* .23** .13* .28** .02 .19** -.20** -.10 BS Self-Mgt. .01 .14* .11 .12 .09 .09 -.08 -.01 BS Org Knowl. -.07 .08 .07 .12 -.05 .02 -.03 .00 BS Empower. .09 .18* .12 .16* .14* .16* -.18** -.03 BS Career Issue .00 .11 .07 .04 .09 .06 -.17* -.04 BS Overall Prf. .01 .16* .12 .14* .00 .10 -.20** -.06 Note: For Predictors, SS = EI Social Skills, SA = EI Self Awareness, SM = EI Self Management, MOT = EI Motivation, EMP = EI Empathy, TOT = EI Total Score, WES = Wesman Personnel Classification Test, W-G = Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal For Criteria, AO = Average of All Others' Ratings, BS = Boss Ratings Ns = 210-250. *p

21

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for the Study 2 Sample

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

WESMAN 234 25 14 39 27.23 5.80WATSON-

GLASER 249 37 41 78 67.00 6.61

MBTI - E 240 26 0 26 14.98 6.17MBTI - S 240 32 0 32 12.24 7.39MBTI - T 240 30 1 31 18.12 6.72MBTI - J 240 28 0 28 17.21 6.28MBTI - I 240 26 0 26 11.16 6.42

MBTI - N 240 23 2 25 12.59 5.55MBTI - F 240 18 0 18 4.66 3.90MBTI - P 240 29 1 30 10.56 6.31

GPI-EI SS 250 32.50 15.75 48.25 37.2450 4.0797GPI-EI SA 250 10.50 5.00 15.50 12.2990 1.5138GPI-EI SM 250 22.50 12.75 35.25 27.8270 2.9751GPI-EI MO 250 16.00 8.50 24.50 18.8190 2.3117GPI-EI EM 250 10.50 .75 11.25 6.3980 1.5507GPI-EI TO 250 83.00 43.00 126.00 102.5880 10.2807

ESP AO THINK

250 6.72 11.25 17.97 14.8092 1.4120

ESP AO STR MGT

250 4.01 5.19 9.20 7.3610 .7042

ESP AO LEAD

250 7.43 11.14 18.57 14.7762 1.4050

ESP AO INTRP

250 4.17 5.16 9.33 7.8305 .7477

ESP AO COMM

250 3.95 5.25 9.20 7.4076 .7723

ESP AO MOT

250 3.64 5.54 9.18 7.4842 .6664

ESP AO SELF

250 4.95 8.71 13.66 11.3049 .9414

ESP AO BRD & DP

250 6.39 7.25 13.64 10.8220 1.1615

ESP AO CONT IMP

250 1.87 2.78 4.65 3.7134 .3441

ESP BS THINK

214 11.21 8.67 19.88 14.5244 2.2028

ESP BS STR MGT

229 6.12 3.88 10.00 7.3419 1.1090

ESP BS LEAD

225 9.58 9.85 19.43 14.7133 2.0337

ESP BS INTRP

229 5.63 4.20 9.83 7.9182 1.0740

ESP BS COMM

230 5.60 4.40 10.00 7.3797 1.1550

ESP BS MOT

219 4.90 4.96 9.86 7.5692 1.0077

22

ESP BS SELF

228 7.04 7.63 14.67 11.2991 1.3765

ESP BS BRD & DP

224 8.98 5.88 14.86 10.4884 1.7774

ESP BS CONT IMP

230 2.61 2.31 4.92 3.7128 .5204

Note: MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, E = Extraversion, S = Sensing, T = Thinking, J = Judging, I = Introversion, N = Intuition, F = Feeling, P = Perceiving; GPI EI = Global Personality Inventory Emotional Intelligence Scale, SS = Social Skills, SA = Self Awareness, SM = Self Management, MO = Motivation, EM = Empathy, TO = Emotional Intelligence Total Score; ESP = Executive Success Profile 360 degree feedback measure, AO = Average of All Others' Ratings, BS = Boss Ratings, THINK = Thinking, STR MGT = Strategic Management, LEAD = Leadership, INTRP = Interpersonal Skills, COMM = Communication, MOT = Motivation, SELF = Self Management, BRD & DP = Breadth and Depth, CONT IMP = Continuous Improvement

23

Table 7. Correlations between GPI Emotional Intelligence Scales and Other Predictors in Study 2 GPI Emotional Intelligence Scales Other Tests

Social Skills

Self-Awareness

Self-Management

Motivation Empathy Total EI Score

Wesman -.15* -.10 -.09 -.19** -.01 -.15* W-G -.02 .07 .08 -.03 .06 .03 MBTI-E .40** .09 .04 .25** .11 .25** MBTI-S -.06 .01 -.16* -.12 -.02 -.10 MBTI-T -.07 .09 .04 .09 -.26** -.02 MBTI-J .03 .07 -.08 .08 -.02 .01 MBTI-I -.41** -.08 -.07 -.27** -.11 -.27** MBTI-N .01 -.06 .12 .07 .00 .05 MBTI-F .06 -.05 -.01 -.04 .23** .04 MBTI-P -.02 -.06 .09 -.04 .01 .00 Note: N = 240. W-G = Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, E = Extraversion, S = Sensing, T = Thinking, J = Judging, I = Introversion, N = Intuition, F = Feeling, P = Perceiving *p

24

Table 8. Summary of Study 2 Predictor-Criterion Correlations

Predictor Variables ESP Criterion Variables SS SA SM MOT EMP TOT WES W-G AO Thinking -.01 -.01 .13* .01 -.04 .03 .00 .02 AO Strat. Mgt. -.01 -.01 .11 .07 -.04 .04 -.07 -.05 AO Leadership .05 .01 .12 .07 .08 .09 -.07 -.10 AO Interpers. .06 .04 .19** .05 .17** .12 -.02 -.06 AO Commun. .11 .07 .16* .09 .13* .14* -.03 -.04 AO Motivation .04 .01 .17** .09 .05 .09 -.02 -.03 AO Self Mgt. .03 .05 .18** .05 .07 .10 -.02 -.04 AO Brdth/Dpth .00 -.02 .10 .01 -.01 .02 -.06 -.06 AO Cont. Impr. .04 .02 .16* .12 .03 .10 -.05 -.06 BS Thinking .10 .12 .27** .15* .01 .17 -.01 .06 BS Strat. Mgt. .02 .04 .20** .12 -.06 .09 -.03 .02 BS Leadership .07 .04 .24** .15* .05 .15* -.03 -.02 BS Interpers. .01 .04 .21** .06 .13* .10 -.04 -.01 BS Commun. .12 .14* .23** .16* .09 .18** -.04 .00 BS Motivation .06 .05 .27** .14* .02 .15* .04 .05 BS Self Mgt. .05 .07 .24** .12 .04 .13* -.03 .00 BS Brdth/Dpth .03 .04 .21** .08 -.02 .09 -.04 .01 BS Cont. Impr. .05 .05 .23** .17** .00 .13* -.02 .01 Note: For Predictors, SS = EI Social Skills, SA = EI Self Awareness, SM = EI Self Management, MOT = EI Motivation, EMP = EI Empathy, TOT = EI Total Score, WES = Wesman Personnel Classification Test, W-G = Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal For Criteria, ESP = Executive Success Profile 360 degree feedback measure, AO = Average of All Others' Ratings, BS = Boss Ratings, Strat. Mgt = Strategic Management, Brdth/Dpth = Breadth and Depth, Cont. Impr. = Continuous Improvement Ns = 204-250. *p