does emotional intelligence play an important role in
Post on 26-Apr-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
University of Wollongong Thesis Collections
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection
University of Wollongong Year
Does emotional intelligence play an
important role in leadership effectiveness?
David RoseteUniversity of Wollongong
Rosete, David, Does emotional intelligence play an important role in leadership ef-fectiveness? PhD thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, 2007.http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/636
This paper is posted at Research Online.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/636
DOES EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN
LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS?
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for award of the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
From
THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
By
DAVID ROSETE
MPsych (Organisational) University of New South Wales
BA (Hons) University of Wollongong
Organisational Psychology
February 2007
ii
Certification
I, David Rosete, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Department of
Psychology, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless
otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been
submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution.
David Rosete
February 2007
iii
Dedication
Esta disertación está dedicada a mi madre, María del Carmen Ramírez
Rodríguez, la persona que me inculcó la fortaleza y el ánimo para tener éxito
en mis estudios y en mi vida.
iv
Table of Contents
Certificate ...........................................................................................................ii
Dedication.......................................................................................................... iii
List of tables.......................................................................................................vi
List of figures ................................................................................................... viii
List of abbreviations............................................................................................ix
List of appendixes............................................................................................... x
Abstract .............................................................................................................xi
Acknowledgments............................................................................................. xiii
Peer review publications arising from this thesis ...................................................xv
International conference proceedings arising from this thesis ............................... xvi
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose and Arrangement of Chapters ............... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
What do we know about the characteristics of an effective leader? ......................... 2
Purpose ............................................................................................................. 6
Arrangement of chapters ..................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2 – Review of the Literature............................................................. 9
Defining and measuring leadership....................................................................... 9
Cognitive intelligence and personality as predictors of leadership .......................... 17
Emergence of the emotional intelligences concept ............................................... 30
Ability based theory of emotional intelligence ...................................................... 35
Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT™............................................ 38
Mixed models of emotional intelligence............................................................... 43
Measuring emotional intelligence with the SUEIT................................................. 50
Leadership effectiveness and emotional intelligence............................................. 52
Chapter 3 – Study I....................................................................................... 59
Statement of the problem and research hypotheses............................................. 59
Ability based measure of emotional intelligence – relationship with personality
and intelligence ................................................................................................ 60
Method ............................................................................................................ 62
Results............................................................................................................. 65
v
Discussion........................................................................................................ 74
Chapter 4 – Study II ..................................................................................... 78
Statement of the problem and research hypotheses............................................. 78
Method ............................................................................................................ 85
Results............................................................................................................. 96
Discussion.......................................................................................................130
Chapter 5 – General Discussion...................................................................135
Ability based emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness .........................135
Mixed models of emotional intelligence..............................................................147
Emotional intelligences with verbal, performance and reasoning ability.................151
Applying emotional intelligence to the workplace................................................153
Chapter 6 – Contributions of the Research, Limitations and Future
Research.......................................................................................................159
Contributions of the research............................................................................159
Limitations and Future research directions .........................................................161
References....................................................................................................165
List of Tables
Table 1 Comparison of the leading Five Factor Models of personality .................23
Table 2 Findings of recent research on leader traits or skills associated with
effective leadership............................................................................29
Table 3 Overview of the four-branch model of emotional intelligence.................39
Table 4 Structure of the MSCEIT™..................................................................40
Table 5 Comparison of mixed models of emotional intelligence .........................45
Table 6 Correlations coefficients between the EI, personality and cognitive
intelligence with performance management ratings ..............................67
Table 7 Correlations coefficients between the MSCEIT™ total and branch
scores with multi-rater leadership feedback ratings ..............................69
Table 8 Correlations coefficients between the 16PF primary and global
factors and MSCEIT™ ........................................................................71
Table 9 Correlations coefficients between EI and cognitive ability ......................72
Table 10 Stepwise regression fit – Achieves business outcomes ratings ...............73
Table 11 Stepwise regression fit – Effective interpersonal behaviours ratings .......74
Table 12 Descriptive statistics for the MSCEIT™.................................................98
Table 13 Pearson correlations among the MSCEIT™...........................................99
Table 14 Descriptive statistics for the SUEIT factors ...........................................102
Table 15 Pearson correlations among the SUEIT factors .....................................103
Table 16 Descriptive statistics for the 16PF primary factors.................................105
Table 17 Pearson correlations among the 16PF primary factors...........................106
Table 18 Correlation coefficients between the MSCEIT™, SUEIT, personality,
reasoning ability and performance management rating .........................109
Table 19 Correlation coefficients between 16PF global factors and SUEIT ............112
Table 20 Correlation coefficients between 16PF primary factors and SUEIT ..........113
Table 21 Correlation coefficients between 16PF global factors and MSCEIT™ .......114
Table 22 Correlation coefficients between 16PF primary factors and MSCEIT™.....115
Table 23 Correlation coefficients between reasoning ability and MSCEIT™ ...........117
Table 24 Correlation coefficients between reasoning ability and SUEIT ................117
Table 25 Correlation coefficients between EI measures (Ability versus Self-
Report) .............................................................................................118
vii
Table 26 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global
personality factors and ability-based EI with achieves business
outcomes performance measure .........................................................120
Table 27 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global
personality factors and self-report EI with achieves business
outcomes performance measure .........................................................122
Table 28 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global
personality factors and ability-based EI with effective interpersonal
behaviours performance measure .......................................................124
Table 29 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global
personality factors and self-report EI with effective interpersonal
behaviours performance measure .......................................................126
Table 30 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global
personality factors, self-report EI and ability-based EI with effective
interpersonal behaviours performance measure ...................................128
Table 31 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global
personality factors, self-report EI and ability-based EI with effective
interpersonal behaviours performance measure ...................................129
Table 32 Emotional Intelligence processes and leadership capability
framework ........................................................................................145
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1 A four-branch model of the skills involved in EI ................................ 36
Figure 2 Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) leadership capability
framework .................................................................................... 91
Figure 3 Illustration of the performance management cycle ........................... 94
ix
List of Abbreviations
ABO Achieves Business Outcomes
APS Australian Public Service
APSC Australian Public Service Commission
AR Achieves Results
CI Communicates with Influence
CPWR Cultivates Productive Working Relationships
ECI Emotional Competency Inventory
EI Emotional Intelligence
EIB Effective Interpersonal Behaviours
EIS Emotional Intelligence Scale
EPDI Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity
EQi Emotional Quotient Inventory
GMA General Mental Ability
IQ Intelligent Quotient
MAC Management Advisory Committee
MEIS Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale
MSCEIT Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
PDA Performance Development Agreement
PELC Perspectives on Executive Leadership Capabilities
SELCF Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework
SST Shapes Strategic Thinking
SUEIT Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test
TAS-20 Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II
TMMS Trait Meta Mood Scale
WASI Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
16PF Sixteen Personality Factor
x
List of Appendixes
Appendix A Consent form .............................................................................. 184
Appendix B Demographic form....................................................................... 185
Appendix C Example of a participants feedback report ..................................... 187
Appendix D Applying utility analysis to an ability-based measure of EI for the
purpose of selection..................................................................... 208
xi
Abstract
Does Emotional Intelligence (EI) make someone a better leader? I utilised a
cross-sectional study to examine the relationships between leadership
effectiveness and tests of EI, cognitive intelligence, and personality. The study
consisted of two parts.
In the first study, I examined the relationship between an ability
measure of emotional intelligence, the Big Five personality factors, and
cognitive intelligence with leadership effectiveness. In the study, 41 executives
from a large Australian Public Service organisation completed a battery of
psychological tests, which included the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™), the Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF)
questionnaire, and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI).
Leadership effectiveness was assessed using performance management ratings
(i.e., participants were scored on their ability to achieve business outcomes and
display effective interpersonal behaviours), and a multi-rater leadership
measure scored by each leader’s subordinates and their direct manager (N =
149). Correlational analyses revealed that higher emotional intelligence was
associated with higher leadership effectiveness.
Study II explored the link between an ability measure of EI and
leadership effectiveness in more detail. This study extended that of study I by
introducing a self-report EI measure and by examining the links between
primary personality factors and EI. One hundred and twenty two executives
from a large Australian Public Service organisation participated in the study.
Executives completed a battery of measures similar to those in study one, with
xii
the addition of the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT).
Participants also submitted their performance management results. The
findings indicated that the executives who achieved superior business outcomes
scored higher on the EI ability test. Importantly, the ability measure of EI (the
MSCEIT™) predicted effective leadership over and above well-established
workplace measures such as reasoning ability and personality. In contrast, self-
reported measures of EI (the SUEIT) had little to offer over and above these
measures of personality and reasoning.
In both studies, an analysis of the individual ability EI subscales revealed
that the most important subscale was Perceiving Emotions. A leader who is
skilled in perceiving emotion is described as someone who knows what people
feel, reads people accurately, is good at recognising their own feelings and can
express their feelings appropriately. These skills may be important because
they allow a leader to accurately capture important social data around them. In
particular, it offers the ability to “read between the lines” when dealing with
people. These results have important implications on how we should select and
develop executives.
xiii
Acknowledgement
When I undertook to complete a PhD, I had set myself three goals. These
included the publication of at least one research paper in a journal, the
presentation of my work at an international conference, and the completion of
my actual thesis. This dissertation marks the completion of my third goal, the
other two been successfully achieved over the past few years. In many ways, I
have exceeded my original goals by publishing several papers and presenting
my work at a number of international conferences. I include these
accomplishments to emphasise my deep gratitude to the one person who made
this all possible, my supervisor Dr Joseph Ciarrochi. His advice and assistance
throughout my journey has been instrumental to me accomplishing my goals.
Thank you for being a constant source of advice, encouragement, and
friendship throughout my studies.
I would also like to thank all those participants from the Australian Public
Service who took time to complete the battery of psychological tests. I would
also like to thank my workplace managers, Bruce and Robyn, who, over the
course of my PhD, not only gave me the time and space to complete my
studies, but were also the champions of my ideas and research within the
workplace. Thank you for believing in my work.
I would also like to thank Dr David R Caruso for providing me with a
copy of a MSCEIT™ report template that enabled me to give quality feedback
back to my participants. Professor Con Stough and Mr. Luke Downey from the
Swinburne Centre for Neuropsychology for permission to use the SUEIT and
xiv
assistance in scoring the SUEIT. Dr Steven J. Stein from Multi-Health Systems
Inc. for granting research access to use the MSCEIT™.
The journey to completing a PhD part-time is long, and one that needs
to be juggled with other life commitments. The person who has been the
greatest supporter of my work over the life of my studies was my wife
Christina. Thank you for your patience, understanding, and emotional support
to completing this dissertation.
Finally, I would like to thank my two princesses, Melanie and Jasmine,
who were both born during the time of my dissertation. They have taught me
so much, and in their own way, have provided me with a real open window on
what it means to be emotionally intelligent.
xv
Peer Reviewed Publications Arising From This Thesis
Rosete, D., and Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship
to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26(5), pp. 388-399.
Rosete, D., and Ciarrochi, J. (2007). A Critical Evaluation of the Role of
Emotional Intelligence in Leadership Effectiveness. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
xvi
International Conference Proceedings Arising From This Thesis
Rosete, D. (2004) A leader’s profile – what attributes make an effective leader?
4th International Test Users’ Conference, Melbourne, July 19-20, ACER,
pp 50-55.
Rosete, D. (2005) A leaders edge – what attributes make an effective leader?
5th Annual Emotional Intelligence Conference, Netherlands, June 12-14.
Rosete, D. (2006) Does emotional intelligence make someone a better leader?
26th International Congress of Applied Psychology Conference, Athens,
July 16-21.
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction, Purpose and Arrangements of Chapters
Introduction
What makes a good leader? This has been a prominent question in the
management literature for the past seven decades (Aditya & House, 2002;
Bass, 1985). While there is a large volume of cumulative knowledge on
leadership, there are still many questions that are yet to be answered with
regard to the practice of leadership within an organisational setting.
Nevertheless, this does not stop leadership consulting firms from offering
approaches (in some cases poorly thought through approaches) to leadership
development. This is perhaps distressing if one considers that leadership
training is a $US45 billion business within the United States alone (Fulmer,
1997). Increasingly, organisations are becoming aware that they should rely on
research to understand how best to select and develop leaders (Benson &
Morrigan, 2000).
There is also growing evidence that today’s executives are derailing from
their career paths at record-high rates of up to 50 percent. This suggests that
organisations need to focus more efforts on accurately identifying and selecting
people with leadership potential (Blohowiak, 2003; Corporate Leadership
Council, 2003).
The development or the selection of leaders that will fulfil the promise of
effectively executing organisational business outcomes is no small feat. While
2
there appears to be an overabundance of leadership research, there is still
much we do not know about why some people are effective leaders (Higgs,
2003; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Hogan, Curphy and Hogan 1994; Kets de
Vries, 1993).
What do we know about the characteristics of an effective leader?
The research suggests that testing for cognitive ability in potential leaders is
essential, as leaders need to be able to gather, integrate, and analyse
information in order to develop solutions and solve complex problems
(Corporate Leadership Council, 2003). Leaders are also expected to be able to
adapt to changing business conditions and respond accordingly (Kirkpatrick &
Locke, 1991). Even though the link between leadership and cognitive
intelligence is well established, its relationship is not without its share of
problems. Riggio (2002) suggests that there have been prominent leaders with
average (and perhaps below average) intelligence. Many of our greatest minds
are in sciences, research, and education, and they neither obtain nor pursue
positions of leadership. Sternberg (2002) also notes that the predictive value of
intelligence for leadership may vary across situations and in many cases is not
very high. Most organisations can recount stories of highly intelligent
executives who often perform poorly in the workplace indicating that general
intelligence by itself is not the only predictor of leadership performance and
that other psychological constructs like personality may play a role (Sternberg,
2002).
3
In regards to personality, research has shown that leaders in certain
environments who display low anxiety are more likely to behave calmly,
consistently, and predictably (see for example Barrick & Mount, 1991). This
means that on-the-job performance is likely to be higher for leaders with lower
anxiety, as these leaders are more likely to have stable interpersonal
relationships and be efficient in crisis management (Corporate Leadership
Council, 2003). Previous personality research has also shown that those
executives demonstrating high emotional stability (i.e. they were mature, faced
reality, or were calm) and low vigilance (i.e. they were trusting, accepting of
conditions, and easy to get on with) were people who generally exhibited
leadership potential (Dee-Burnett, Johns, Russell & Mead 1997). Research
suggests that optimism may also influence performance across a variety of
organisational settings (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). Another
personality variable, conscientiousness, appears to relate to performance
outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Stogdill, 1974).
In essence, intelligence and personality traits have had some limited
success in being able to predict effective leadership, with no single variable or
even cluster of variables shown to be related to leadership across a variety of
situations (Chemers, 2000; Higgs, 2003). While cognitive ability and
personality traits appear to play a role in accounting for why some leaders are
more effective than others, we should note that cognitive intelligence predicts,
at best, up to 20%, and personality traits only predict about 10% of what
makes an effective leader. This leaves a considerable amount of variance
unexplained.
4
Perhaps the emerging construct of emotional intelligence (EI) offers us
an additional insight into why some leaders excel while others fall short. Some
of the top business people who work in the realm of organisational psychology
assert extraordinary claims that EI is perhaps the most important predictor of
leadership performance, accounting for up to 80% of the previously
unaccounted variance in effective leadership (Goleman, 1998; McKee, 2005).
Such claims have assisted to popularise the concept of EI in organisational
settings, as business people and researchers alike look to explain differential
attainment of occupational successes which cannot be adequately explained by
either cognitive intelligence or personality traits (Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts,
2004)
After more than 15 years of research, the concept of EI is still generating
extraordinary interest in both the media and academic research. For example,
a web search on the term “emotional intelligence” resulted in over 11 million
URLs. In addition, a title search of various scientific databases resulted in over
800 books and journal articles1. A brief look at the EI literature suggests that
there is still much controversy regarding how best to define and measure EI.
However, it does appear that the concept of EI is worthy of research that
shows every indication that it can be predictive of performance (Rooy &
Viswesvaran, 2004).
Despite the popular idea that EI is essential to leadership, there has
been little empirical research to support this link. This is perhaps surprising as
1 A search using Google and of the ABI, Emerald and PsychInfo databases reveals 11,500,000 and 818 entries respectively for the period up to January 2006.
5
one would expect a leader’s ability to understand and manage emotions would
contribute to their effectiveness as leaders. Leaders are often required to
develop a collective sense of goals and objectives, and develop strategies on
how to go about achieving them. Theoretically, leaders can use their emotions
to enhance their information processing of the strengths, opportunities,
weaknesses, and threats that face their organisations. Similarly, leaders can
use their awareness of emotions to facilitate an understanding of how their
subordinates are feeling, and thus use this information to influence their
subordinates’ emotions, so they are more receptive and supportive of the
organisation’s goals (George, 2000). They may also use emotion management
skills to deal effectively with difficult emotions such as frustration and anger.
For example, they may be better able to prevent such states from adversely
influencing how they treat their employees, or better manage difficult
timeframes or deadlines.
In summary, there has been considerable speculation regarding the
relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. Important empirical
questions remain. For example, does EI play an important role in leadership
effectiveness? Is high EI a trait of effective leaders? Can EI predict
performance beyond established measures like intelligence and personalty?
This dissertation explores some of these empirical questions.
6
Purpose
The intent of the dissertation was to investigate whether EI plays an important
role in leadership effectiveness. The available EI leadership research supports
the hypothesis that self-reported EI is correlated to self-reported leadership
style. While research based on self-reported leadership style is important, it
does not establish whether EI is related to objective (or non-self-report)
measures of leadership effectiveness, such as manager ratings or measures of
actual business unit performance.
In exploring the relationship between EI and objective measures of
leadership effectiveness, a number of other questions were also examined,
including (but not limited to):
Is EI a significant characteristic of successful leadership?
How much do EI measures overlap with pre-existing measures? For
example, does it correlate highly with the well-established “Big Five”
personality dimensions: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness? Does it correlate with
cognitive ability measures?
Are there any differences in the utility of ability-based EI measures
and self-report EI measures? That is, which of these measure types
predict the most variance in leadership effectiveness? In addition,
which of these measure types predict the unique variance, after
controlling for other individual difference variables?
7
The ability-based EI measure, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) and the self-report EI measure, the Swinburne
University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT) are two particular tools that
seem to show real promise in an applied setting. This study also examines the
reliability and validity of these two EI measures.
Arrangement of Chapters
Chapter 2 presents a brief examination of the advancement of leadership
research, cognitive intelligence, and personality. There is a further focus on the
concept of EI with particular emphasis given to both the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) and the Swinburne Emotional
Intelligence Test (SUEIT). The chapter concludes with a review of EI and
leadership research.
Chapter 3 presents the findings of the first study of this dissertation.
This study investigated the relationship between EI, personality, cognitive
intelligence, and leadership effectiveness in senior executives (N = 41) who
completed an ability measure of EI, a measure of personality and a measure of
cognitive ability. By using performance management ratings, and a 360-degree
assessment involving each leader’s subordinates and their direct manager (N =
149) I was able to measure Leadership effectiveness.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of study II, which sought to replicate
and extend the previous study in a larger sample. It examined the link
between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of leadership effectiveness -
8
namely, attainment of business outcomes and the display of leadership
behaviours. This study also administered a measure of personality, reasoning
ability and self-report EI in order to examine the incremental value of ability-EI
over these measures. The sample for study II consisted of 122 senior
executives.
Chapter 5 provides a general discussion of the implications of the
findings, and Chapter 6 provides some conclusions, limitations, and directions
for further research.
9
CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature
Does EI make someone a better leader? This question has preoccupied many
writers and scientists for the past fifteen years (Higgs, 2003). Many
psychological factors have already been identified in research over the past
century or more as being important to leadership effectiveness, such as
cognitive ability (Sternberg & Vroom, 2002) and conscientiousness (Barrick &
Mount, 1991). With little evidence, people have also proposed that EI is an
important predictor of leadership performance, perhaps the most important
predictor (Goleman, 1998; McKee, 2005). The purpose of this dissertation is to
begin to critically evaluate this claim.
The literature review will first focus on the various definitions and
methods used to measure leadership, with some attention given to the
concepts of cognitive ability and personality as predictors of effective
leadership. Central to this review will be an exploration of the concept of EI,
with particular emphasis given to understanding the relationship between
effective leadership and the prominent EI models.
Defining and Measuring Leadership
While there appears to be an overabundance of leadership research, Chemers
(2000) claims that much of this research is fractured and nothing more than a
confusing set of contradictory findings. We are still no closer to understanding
10
what is required to be an effective leader across various situations or contexts
(Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Hogan et al., 1994; Kets de Vries, 1993). This
conclusion, however, has not discouraged empirical research over the past few
decades that seek to identify the characteristics required to be an effective
leader (Higgs, 2003). This interest is, in part, due to the importance placed on
leadership. Why are leaders so important?
Leadership is about coping with change (Kotter, 2001). Leaders, in
many ways, facilitate change. That is, they understand the need for change,
and are able to identify what has to be accomplish to ensure an organisation
and its people, are motivated to deal successfully with the change. This has
never been more evident than it is now. In recent years, the business world
has become more competitive and more volatile. Changes in computer
technology, diminishing union power, changes in industrial relations policy,
outsourcing of services, more stringent legislation on business activities,
globalisation, and the changing demographics of the workforce have all meant
that leaders need to react to the many factors of change with speed and
efficiency should they hope to lead their organisation successfully through times
of change. Given the importance of leadership on the achievement of
organisational outcomes, the successful implementation of change and the
motivation of employees is an area that still requires considerable research and
review.
The study of leadership stretches over many centuries, although the
“modern” study of leadership is consider as having begun with the trait theories
of leadership in the late 1920s (Higgs and Rowland, 2000). The trait theories
11
of leadership focused on the personality and physical characteristics of leaders.
It included the appearance, energy level, height, gender, personality traits, and
intelligence of both successful and unsuccessful leaders to predict leadership
effectiveness (Chemers, 2000).
Stogdill (1948) conducted a review of 30 years of trait studies (1904 to
1947) and found no consistent list of traits linked to leadership behaviour. He
did however, report that a few traits (most notably intelligence) distinguished
leaders from their followers. The problem was that no cluster or even single
trait was related to leadership across a variety of situations. Stogdill (1948)
suggested that a leaders status, rather than trait factors, were the most
important determinants of effective leadership.
Stogdill (1974) conducted a subsequent review of trait studies published
from 1949 to 1970 and found considerable more traits that were likely to be
relevant to leaders. For example, prominent traits included assertiveness,
persistence, and self-confidence. Even though the results were stronger in his
subsequent review, Stogdill (1974) indicated that there were still no universal
leadership traits. He concluded that the possession of some traits did increase
the likelihood that a leader will be effective, but they did not guarantee
organisational effectiveness. Indeed, an important question that is central to
this dissertation is what constitutes effective leadership.
12
Measuring Effective Leadership
There is little published research concerning what effective leaders actually do.
This is due partly to indices of leadership effectiveness often being hard to
specify, and that a leaders success are frequently affected by factors outside
their own control (Hogan et al., 1994). One method in the EI literature that
appears to be accepted is to equate effective leaders to those demonstrating
transformational leadership behaviours. Transformational leaders are people
that are able to create a vision, communicate this vision, build commitment
amongst subordinates to the vision, and model the vision within the workplace.
In contrast, transactional leaders are managers that maintain the status quo. It
is argued that transformational leaders are able to deal with strategic matters
more efficiently, and, in turn, are able to build commitment in employees, and
are therefore more likely to take an organisation forward (Bass and Avolio,
1990a & 1994). This line of enquiry will typically use a self-report or 360-
degree measure such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by
Bass (Bass and Avolio, 1990b) to measure effective leadership.
Other researchers have contended that leadership effectiveness involves
a leader’s ability to influence an organisation’s bottom line. That is, to impact
on the profitability of a business area, the quality of services rendered, or the
ability to meet business outcomes (Hogan et al., 1994). This type of leadership
effectiveness has always been difficult to measure as objective criteria are often
absent (Murensky, 2000). Nevertheless, research is increasingly identifying
different mediums for measuring leadership effectiveness, including
shareholders’ return on investment (Bass, 1990a), actual performance of an
13
organisational unit via manager performance ratings (Hogan et al., 1994), and
more balanced approaches that incorporate non-financial measures such as
customer loyalty (Kaplan & Norton, 1994).
Arvey and Murphy (1998) suggest that the major contributor of an
employee’s worth to the organisation is through work behaviour, and ultimately,
performance. Thus, these should be the factors used in examining a leader’s
effectiveness. Arvey and Murphy also suggest that there is an increased
confidence regarding the use of manager ratings and other subjective appraisal
instruments and formats. There is increased recognition that subjectivity does
not automatically translate into rater error or bias, and that ratings are most
likely valid reflections of true performance, and represent a low-cost mechanism
for evaluating employees. This view is research substantiated with evidence
now demonstrating that manager ratings of employee performance are valid
indicators of actual performance.
For example, Vance, MacCallum, Coovert and Hedge (1998) used
confirmatory factor analysis to support the construct validity of performance
ratings amongst a sample of 256 jet engine mechanics with actual performance
data gathered. Yammarino and Bass (1990) examined 186 officers from the
United States Naval Academy, and their results showed consistent relationships
amongst the leadership measures, and between the leadership and outcome
measures (i.e., ratings by subordinates and superiors).
Viswesvaran, Ones and Schmidt (1996) conducted a meta-analytic study
comparing the reliability of job performance ratings across organisations. There
results showed that performance ratings (both peer and supervisory) are an
14
important method of job performance measurement within organisations. Also,
supervisory ratings appear to have higher reliability than peer ratings.
For this dissertation, leadership effectiveness is defined as the ability of a
senior officer to beneficially impact an organisation’s bottom line (in other
words, to influence the productivity of a business area, the quality of services
rendered, or the ability to meet business outcomes). This view of leadership
fits within the goal setting theory, which aims to align an executive’s work
behaviour with the business strategy (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Within the Australian Public Service (APS), Executive Officers (or
executives) frequently define the goals and objectives that are needed for an
organisation to either meet government and community expectations, or (in the
case of autonomous agencies) to compete successfully. The responsibility of
executives is to ensure that organisational goals or objectives are realised
through the performance management system. The intent of the performance
management system is to focus, assess, and reinforce an executive's work
behaviours towards organisational objectives, thus ensuring that work
behaviours are strategically driven (Waddell, Cummings & Worley, 2004). A
performance appraisal process underpins this performance management
system.
From the perspective of senior management, the central objectives of
the performance appraisal are to identify and highlight the link between an
executive's performance and the agency's goals, and to improve workplace
communications between executives and their immediate staff. Senior
management also aims to ensure that executives, through the performance
15
appraisal process, have a clear appreciation of the tasks that they must
complete, and the level of performance required of them when undertaking
these tasks (Waddell et al., 1994). As the appraisal process measure a leader’s
ability to deliver on business outcomes, it logically provides an opportunity for
researchers to measure leadership effectiveness within an organisational
setting.
Ideally, information from an appraisal process ought to be collaborated
with information obtained via some form of multi-rater feedback process to
assess actual workplace behaviours. This would support Arvey and Murphy's
(1998) suggestion that the major contributor of an employee’s worth to the
organisation is through work behaviour, and ultimately, performance. The
performance appraisal focuses on the performance, while the multi-rater
feedback focuses on behaviours displayed in a work setting.
Leadership behaviours, whether measured through evaluations by peers,
staff, superiors, or customers, are prone to subjective bias if they do not have a
clear and objective standard or a benchmark for comparison (Edwards, Ayres &
Howard, 2003). Within the APS, the Senior Executive Leadership Capability
Framework (SELCF) defines the expected leadership capabilities of senior
officers (Australian Public Service Commission [APSC] 2004a). This framework
also forms the pillar for the annual appraisal discussion between a senior
manager and an executive about leadership behaviours. The SELCF contains
five core capability clusters:
1. Exemplifies personal drive and integrity
16
2. Cultivates productive working relationships
3. Communicates with influence
4. Shapes strategic thinking, and
5. Achieves results
In summary, the research suggests that an effective leader is one who
can possess the ability to influence the bottom line and can demonstrate core
leadership behaviours. We can also look at the research for a working
definition of ‘leadership’ that can not only anchor itself to an organisational and
institutional context, but also reflect the notion of leadership as an individual
quality, thus incorporating the many leadership perspectives.
Edwards et al. (2003) provide one such definition, arguing that
leadership is the “capacity at both the individual and institutional levels to:
identify and define organizational goals and desired outcomes; develop
strategies and plans to achieve those goals and deliver those outcomes; and
guide the organization and motivate its people in reaching those goals and
outcomes” (p. 4). Edwards et al. (2003) further argue that there are
characteristics that are necessary preconditions for an individual to be an
effective leader, such as energy, commitment, persistence, integrity, and a
capacity to inspire others. This view of leadership is consistent with other
definitions of leadership (especially goal setting theories), which reflect the
assumption that leadership involves a process, whereby intentional influence is
exerted by leaders over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities
and relationships in organisations (Yukl, 2006). The two psychological
17
constructs that have yielded the most promising findings around leadership
effectiveness have been that of cognitive intelligence and personality (Hogan et
al., 1994)
Cognitive Intelligence and Personality as Predictors of Leadership
There are several studies now published showing that both intelligence and
certain personality dimensions are associated to leadership effectiveness
(Hogan et al., 1994; Howard & Bray, 1990). This section briefly looks at both
constructs as predictors of leadership effectiveness.
Cognitive Intelligence as a Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness
The research of intelligence as a predictor of leadership effectiveness has been
quite stable over the past 100 years (Bass, 1990a; Hunter & Hunter, 1984).
The conclusion from intelligence testing is that effective leaders do possess
moderately higher levels of intellectual capability (Murensky, 2000).
The evolution of intelligence testing began with the work of British
scholar, Sir Francis Galton, in the latter part of the 19th century. Galton spent a
large part of his career attempting to measure simple cognitive processes, like
auditory and sensory abilities, in order to discover the relationship between
heredity and human ability (Brody, 2000). In his book, “Hereditary Genius”
Galton (1869) concluded that success ran in families because great intelligence
was passed from generation to generation via genetic inheritance. However,
18
Galton himself had little success in his endeavours to produce a psychological
intelligence test (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1989; Martin, 2001).
The breakthrough for intelligence testing came through Spearman’s
(1904) development of the statistical technique of correlation, and the French
psychologist Alfred Binet who, in 1905, along with his colleague Theodore
Simon, published the first useful test of general mental ability to identify
children who would profit from mainstream schooling. Binet discovered that
average students could handle certain tasks that handicapped students could
not. Binet calculated the normal abilities for students at each age, and could
pinpoint how many years a student's mental age was above or below the norm
using a crude scale (Brody, 2000; Martin, 2001).
The idea that a test could determine a child's "mental age" became
enormously popular. Just before World War I, a German psychologist named
Wilhelm Stern suggested a better way of expressing results than by mental age.
Stern focused on the ratio between the subject's chronological age and their
mental age. Therefore, a 10-year-old scoring one year ahead of their
chronological age (110) would be not as significant as a 5-year-old scoring one
year ahead (120). Binet’s work along with Stern’s concept of the intelligence
quotient appeared promising, with these ideas spreading across Europe and
America. It was in America that Binet’s original work appeared to flourish with
the work of people like Lewis Terman (1916). Of significance to EI was Binet’s
view that, while IQ tests could predict academic scores in children, in
subsequent years they provided little prediction as to non-academic outcomes,
or at least significant amounts of variance was still unaccounted for once
19
intelligence was controlled in predicting life outcomes (Bryson, 2004). This
unaccounted variance is one reason EI has gained significant interests in both
the business and research community.
The greatest surge in intelligence testing came in 1917, when America
entered World War I. By the mid-1920’s, many companies began testing
programs to determine who would be hired, promoted, or transferred, and the
scope of intelligence testing was broadened to include tests of achievement,
aptitude, interest, and personality (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1989). However, the
greatest market for intelligence tests was not organisations, but schools. In the
years, following World War I, practically every school system in the United
States, and much of Europe, began some sort of intelligence scoring program.
The original intelligence tests focused almost exclusively on verbal and
problem solving ability (Martin, 2001) until the pioneer work of David Wechsler
who published a more sophisticated test of adult intelligence, the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). His improvements came in the form of
developing scales that were less dependent on a subject’s verbal ability by
adding a non-verbal component. Wechsler also discarded the original
intelligence quotient in favour of a new scoring scheme that revolved around
the normal distribution (Martin, 2001). This model of intelligence and its
assumptions have dominated the intelligence field (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1989).
The work of intelligence research pioneers was predominately based on
hierarchical models of intelligence (Sternberg, 1990). That is, in analysing the
inter-relationship of scores amongst mental ability tests, researchers discover
the factors of individual differences in intelligence (Davidson & Downing, 2000).
20
For example, one of the most prominent hierarchical models being the theory of
fluid (Gf) and crystallised (Gc) ability (Sternberg, 1990).
One of the most widely cited research studies examining the importance
of cognitive ability and other dimensions of leadership are that of Schmidt and
Hunter (1998). Schmidt and Hunter (1998) statistically summarised a large
body of data collected over the last 85 years relating to selection methods used
in personal and organisational psychology. Their article looked at 19 different
selection processes from the perspective of predicting further job performance
and future learning. They found that cognitive ability tests could obtain a
validity coefficient (“r”) of 0.51. Hermelin and Robertson (2001), in a similar
study of selection methods, found validity coefficients of 0.45 with job
performance.
Bartone, Snook and Tremble (2002) examined a large cohort of US
Military cadets over a 3 to 4 year training period, specifically examining the
influence of cognitive and personality variables on military leadership
performance. Results showed that logical reasoning correlated positively with
leader performance.
Howard and Bray (1990), in a longitudinal study of Bell Systems
managers extending over more than 30 years, found that cognitive ability was
strongly related to career advancement after 20 years.
Hunter (1986), in a review of hundreds of studies examining the
predictive ability of psychological constructs, showed that cognitive ability
predicted performance in all jobs. He argued that general cognitive ability
21
predicts job knowledge (r = .80 for civilian jobs), and job knowledge predicts
job performance (r = .80).
Within this hierarchical view of intelligence sits EI. Mayer, Caruso and
Salovey (2000a, b) proposed that information processing subscales of general
intelligence also deal with emotional processing. This is in stark contrast to trait
personality, which sits outside the conceptual view of intelligence and is another
psychological construct to have dominated the leadership research. Personality
also has a rich history of research and can potentially provide insight into leader
attitudes, motivations, and behavioural tendencies.
Personality as a Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness
The defining of personality itself relies very much on what approach is taken to
study the construct. There are at least three general models to creating an
overall framework of personality that can be used to explain the different levels
of complexity that characterise a person’s personality (Dawda, 1997; Mayer,
2007).
The first, and perhaps the most widely researched model of personality,
is the view that personality consists of psychological traits. In particular, the
dominant personality research taxonomy has been the five-factor model, or Big
Five of personality, which uses a lexical approach to narrow natural language to
standard applicable personality adjectives. Generally, researchers agree that
there are five robust personality factors, which serve as a meaningful taxonomy
22
for classifying personality attributes (Barrick and Mount, 1991, Digman, 1990).
Refer to Table 1 for more details on possible personality taxonomies.
The study of personality traits potentially dates back to the earlier works
of Aristotle, who spoke about dispositions such as modesty and cowardice as
key determinants of moral and immoral behaviour (Matthews, Deary and
Whiteman, 2003). Barrick and Mount (1991) suggest that the modern day
measurement of personality traits based on the Big Five personality
characteristics, began shortly after McDougall (1932) wrote that, “personality
may to advantage be broadly analysed into five distinguishable but separate
factors, namely intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper…”
(p. 15).
Like cognitive ability, efforts to measure personality factors evolved
through a number of phases. The introduction of factor analysis to the study of
personality marked a turning point. Cattell (1943, 1945, 1947, 1965, 1987)
applied a factor analytical approach to personality and developed a more
complex taxonomy of individual differences that consisted of 16 primary factors.
These were built, in part, on the earlier work of Allport and Odbert (1936) who
extracted nearly 18,000 potentially useful trait descriptors from Webster’s
dictionary. Tupes and Christal (1992) used Cattell’s earlier work to further
reduce these variables to five factors. Since then, significant amounts of
research to further explain the five-factor taxonomy of personality has
occurred. Two of the most prominent works in that field were Goldberg’s
(1990) ‘Big Five’ and, Costa and McCrae’s (1992) ‘Five Factor Model’. Both are
displayed in Table 1, which also highlights Cattell’s higher order five factors.
23
Table 1
Comparison of the Leading Five Factor Models on Personality
There appears to be some agreement amongst researchers that there
are five primary personality factors. However, as can be seen from table 1,
there is some disagreement about the precise definition of these factors
(Barrick and Mount, 1991). Other problems with the trait taxonomy include
difficulties replicating some of the earlier research (e.g., the work of Cattell),
and the possible exclusion of other universal personality factors (e.g., honesty
or humility) (Block, 1995). There is also a tendency to adopt single-word
adjectives, which makes the five-factor models incapable of describing the
dynamics of personality in organisations, or the variation of personality
characteristics over situations (Block, 1995).
The personality trait approach does, offer insights into the individual
parts of personality, but fails to give any sense of how personality functions as
a total system (Mayer, 2007). The second approach, known as personality
types, suffers from similar problems. It clusters personality traits into similar
groupings that appear to work well together, rather than look at personality
more holistically (Mayer, 2007).
24
Personality Type, or Psychological Type, are terms most commonly
associated with the model of personality development created by Isabel Briggs
Myers, the author of the world's most widely used personality inventory, the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Myers' and
her mother, Katharine Briggs, developed their model and inventory around the
ideas and theories of psychologist Carl Jung, a leading exponent of Gestalt
personality theory (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998).
Jung's theory proposes that, often, what appears as random behaviour
is, in fact, quite systematic and consistent. The apparent randomness is due to
the basic differences in the way people prefer to use their perception and
judgment. According to Jungian theory, then, if people are assumed to differ
systematically in what they perceive and judge, then it may be reasonable to
assume that they will differ accordingly in their reactions, interests, values,
motivations and skills (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).
The MBTI® is a self-report questionnaire concerned with the differences
in the way people perceive and the way they make decisions (Myers &
McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998). The MBTI®
contains four bi-polar scales that can be reported as continuous scores or
reduced to four-letter code or type's. The scales are:
Extraversion-Introversion (EI), designed to reflect whether an
individual is an extravert (oriented primarily toward the outer
world) or an introvert (oriented primarily toward the inner world).
25
Sensing-Intuitive (SN), designed to reflect an individual’s preference
for two opposite ways of acquiring information, or finding out about
things.
Thinking-Feeling (TF), designed to reflect an individual’s preference
between two contrasting ways of judgment.
Judgment-Perception (JP), designed to describe the process an
individual uses primarily in dealing with the outside world (Myers &
McCaulley, 1985).
The various combinations of these preferences yield sixteen possible
combinations called ‘types’. Each individual is classified in terms of four letter
preferences (e.g., ESTJ, INFP, Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley,
Quenk & Hammer, 1998). Type theory suggests that there are vigorous
relationships between these preferences. For each type, there will be a leading
dominant function or process, and a secondary auxiliary function or process
that interplay with a person’s attitudes (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Therefore,
each type is postulated to define a specific set of behavioural tendencies
reflecting differences in a persons attitudes, interests, and decision-making
style (Boyle, 1995).
Personality Type theory, while popular, suffers considerable
methodological problems (Barbuto, 1997; Boyle, 1995). For example, according
to Gardner and Martinko (1996), the abbreviated version of the MBTI® is now
discontinued due to reliability and validity problems. Boyle (1995), also
26
suggests that the inclusion of experimental items into the latest version of the
MBTI®, which are not used for scoring purposes, serves only to increase
testing time, and provides no suitable information for standard use of the
MBTI®.
Another criticism of the MBTI® is the samples reported are typically high
school and university students. There is a paucity of research available for
adult populations, minorities or working-class populations (Barbuto, 1997;
Boyle, 1995). Wiggins (1989) also suggested that there appears to be little
support for the assumption of dichotomous types.
The final way one can approach personality is via a systems approach.
The systems approach divides personality into broad structures or areas. Each
area is partly distinct and, collectively, they cover all personality functions
(Mayer, 2001a, 2007). Mayer’s (2001a, 2007) Systems Framework of
Personality divides personality into four areas. The first is identified as Energy
Development, which deals with the motives and emotions within one oneself.
Mayer (2007) argues that people draw on mental energy (i.e., the potential
mental activity) to function psychologically. This, in part, is determined by a
person’s motives and emotions. Motives are thought to represent basic urges,
which force an individual to act (e.g., to eat or drink). Emotions, on the other
hand, help guide individuals motives by either enhancing or discouraging the
likelihood of an individual’s behaviour at the right moment.
The second area, Knowledge Guidance, deals with the many mental
maps or models we develop of the real world to help guide our behaviour. For
27
example, returning to the basic motive of eating, the actual notion of food and
where one may find some is recorded in an individual’s mental model (Mayer,
2007).
The third area is Action Implementation. Earlier, we noted how mental
energy develops and is attached to internal mental models, which guide our
behaviour. Generally, these models correspond to actual goals that are
represented in the outside world, and may satisfy one’s needs (e.g., the eating
of food). Once goals have been established, the personality system provides
plans for execution so as to attain these goals (Mayer, 2007).
The final area is Conscious Self-Regulation. This area guides an
individual to deal more effectively with the environment by allowing one the
capacity for interval review, Ober servation and intervention on established
mental models of the real world (Mayer, 2007).
In looking at the three general models that can characterise a person’s
personality, the dominant approach to studying leadership behaviour has been
to use the trait perspective to personality.
Despite criticisms (see Block, 1995), the trait approach to personality
does provide a useful framework for the broad description of individual
characteristics of personality, and the prediction of behaviour (Barrick and
Mount, 1991; Dawda, 1997). This dissertation is interested in the prediction of
effective leadership behaviour, and whether emotional intelligence can predict
behaviour beyond that of global characteristics of personality. Therefore, the
28
trait approach, or Five Factor Model, offers a suitable framework to the study of
leadership behaviours.
For example, personality traits such as conscientiousness (Barrick &
Mount, 1991), self-confidence (Bass, 1990a), internal drive (Howell and Avolio,
1993; Miller and Toulouse, 1986), personal integrity (Cox and Cooper, 1989),
power motivation (Bray and Howard, 1988; McClelland and Boystzis, 1982) and
technical knowledge of a job (Bass, 1990a) have been found to be influential
predictors of effective leadership.
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) postulated that while research showed that
the possession of certain traits alone does not guarantee leadership success,
there is now sufficient evidence to imply that effective leaders are different
from other people in certain key respects. They offered a taxonomy of traits,
which is shown in Table 2. These key traits appear broad enough to
encompass the previous research by Stogdill (1974) on personality traits that
predicted workplace outcomes.
29
Table 2
Findings of Recent Research on Leader Traits or Skills Associated With Effective Leadership
30
Even with these promising leadership research findings involving
intelligence and, to a lesser extent, other personality traits, there still remain
many questions around why some leaders are more successful than others in
dealing with environmental demands and life in general. Does EI add anything?
Emergence of the Emotional Intelligence Concept
One area gaining extraordinary interest in both the media and academic
research and appearing to be important in the study of leadership is the field of
EI. The popular media touts EI as the key to identifying and developing future
leaders. Some prominent EI advocates suggest that EI is the crucial difference
between an average leader and an effective leader, with close to 90 percent of
an effective leader’s success being attributable to EI (Goleman, 1998; McKee,
2005). While no study to date has been able to demonstrate that claim, the
cumulative research on EI does show every indication that it can be predictive
of performance and is, in fact, a construct worthy of inclusion within the field of
leadership research (Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).
This section will first examine the various EI models, with particular
emphasis given to the theories underlying the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) and the Swinburne Emotional Intelligence Test
(SUEIT). Later, this section will conclude with an examination of the
relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, which appears to offer
some support for the personality domains of effective leadership.
31
Historically, philosophers and scientists have considered concepts of
emotions and intelligence separately in Western culture for over 2000 years
(Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Of particular interest, the field of intelligence has
dominated the predictive leadership research for the best part of last century
(Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Phillips and Hunt, 1992).
Gardner (1983) was one of the first to challenge the notion of
intelligence as a unitary ability. Drawing on evidence from neurophysiology and
psychology, he suggested that there were multiple intelligences. Within his
earlier theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner described seven forms of
intelligence, two of which have proven particularly influential to the
development of EI theory. The first intelligence of note is the Interpersonal
intelligence domain, which is the ability to notice and make distinctions among
other individuals’ moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. The
other pertinent intelligence is described as Intrapersonal intelligence, which is
the ability to access one’s own feelings, range of affect or emotions, and to be
able to draw upon them as a means of understanding and guiding one’s
behaviour (Gardner, 1983). For Gardner, the notion that one could access their
feelings or emotions did not constitute EI, but rather was part of a general self
and social-awareness ability which were inter-connected with one another
(Mayer, 2006).
Salovey and Mayer (1990) drew together much of the material available
on cognition (i.e., capacity to carry out abstract reasoning) and emotion
(defined as signals that convey regular, discernable meanings about
32
relationships) and developed a theory of EI (Mayer, 2001b; Mayer & Geher,
1996).
Between 1994 and 1997, EI was popularised by psychologist and
journalist Daniel Goleman (1995) in his book “Emotional Intelligence”. During
this time, Goleman (1995) made up a new definition that was substantially
different from that conceived by Salovey and Mayer (1990). It appeared to
equate EI with good social behaviour. Since 1997, there has been an explosion
of activity in a new and now fuzzily defined area. EI is now used popularly to
mean various things, including motivation, empathy, sociability, warmth, and
optimism (Mayer, 2001b).
Mayer and Salovey (1997) argue that there are two major EI models that
drive current research: (1) ability models and (2) mixed models. Ability models
conceptualise EI in a similar way to cognitive intelligence (i.e., Intelligence
Quotient - IQ). These models suggest that EI should develop over time, be
correlated with measures of IQ, and be measurable with a test based on
performance (Ciarrochi, Chan & Caputi 2000; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso 2004a).
When Salovey and Mayer (1990) proposed the construct of EI, they argued that
there is another layer of intellectual competence untapped by traditional
definitions of intelligence. Instead of replacing traditional definitions of
intelligence, EI simply enriches a multivariate matrix of intellectual competence
(Dai and Sternberg, 2004). For this reason, the ability-based models of EI can
be seen as an extension of information-processing theories of intelligence.
Information-processing, or cognitive theories, of intelligence all attempt to
33
understand human intelligence in terms of mental processes that contribute to
cognitive task performance (Sternberg, 1985; Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
In contrast, mixed models of EI incorporate both non-cognitive models
(e.g., BarOn 1997) and competency-based models (e.g., Goleman 1995).
These mixed models typically overlap with traditional models of personality, and
tend to utilise self-reports as their primary mode of assessment. They are
viewed as personality trait theories of intelligence, although, as will be explored
later, they appear to reflect the domain of personality more so than the domain
of intelligence.
A critical question for researchers is whether EI is distinguishable from
traditional measures of personality and cognitive ability. The ability-based
measure of EI has been repeatedly shown to have incremental value over
traditional measures of intelligence (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Ciarrochi,
Dean & Anderson, 2002; Mayer in 2006; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000b;
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003) and should theoretically follow on
from previous information-processing theories on intelligence. In contrast,
mixed model measures of EI correlate, sometimes strongly, with measures of
personality (Ciarrochi, Chan & Caputi, 2000; Ciarrochi, Chan, Caputi, & Roberts,
2001; MacCann, Mathews, Zeidner & Roberts, 2004). Some research has
shown that these measures can show incremental value over personality in
predicting life satisfaction (Austin, Saklofske & Egan, 2005a,b; Ciarrochi, Chan
& Bajgar, 2001; Palmer, Donaldson & Stough, 2001), increased willingness to
seek help for personal-emotional problems (Ciarrochi and Deane 2001) and
depression (Schutte et al., 1998). Whereas others have shown that, they add
34
little incremental value in predicting workplace outcomes (Davies, Stankov, &
Roberts, 1998). Whether these associations with self-report EI are due to it
being a new concept not previously defined, or simply an extension of
personality traits is yet to be fully explored in the research.
As EI can be both viewed and measured quite distinctively, depending on
which theoretical model is used, one really needs to explain which EI model
they are using before conclusions can be drawn about its usefulness in
predicting leadership effectiveness. For the ability model of EI, the instrument
that has arguably generated the most interest and research so far has been
that by Mayer and his colleagues via the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™), which uses a criterion-report test format to
assess people’s EI.
For self-report EI tests, or mixed models, there has been significant
commercial momentum over the past decade with dozens, if not hundreds, of
self-report style EI tests becoming available on the market. One such self-
report EI test is the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT).
This test, while not as widely published in scientific journals as the Goleman
Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) or the BarOn EQ-i test, does warrant
investigation as it focuses on EI in the workplace rather than general EI. It also
has evidence supporting its reliability and validity, is normed for Australian
populations, and derived from the key factors found in the dominant mixed EI
models (e.g., BarOn EQ-i). Both ability model EI with the MSCEIT™ and mixed-
model of EI with the SUEIT will be examined further in the following sections.
35
Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence
Traditional views of intelligence refer to mental abilities such as reasoning,
engagement in abstract thought, or any of a dozen other related groups of
mental abilities (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 2000b). Emotions, on the other
hand, typically include the emotions themselves, moods, evaluations, and other
feelings. Definitions of EI should in some way connect the two terms if they
wish to hold any practical application, like the prediction of leadership
effectiveness (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999)
offer a definition that draws both emotion and intelligence together, that is:
“Emotional intelligence refers to an ability to recognise the meanings
of emotions and their relationships and to reason and problem-solve on the
basis of them. Emotional intelligence is involved in the capacity to perceive
emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, understand the information of
those emotions, and manage them” (p. 267).
This definition combines the notion that emotions make thinking more
intelligent, and that one will think intelligently about emotions. This definition
states that even as emotions and cognition represent different functions of the
mind, they do in fact interact and are expressed in an integrated form (Mayer,
Salovey & Caruso, 2004a,b). Mayer and Salovey (1990) use this definition to
articulate their EI theory, which further describes several discrete emotional
36
abilities. These emotional abilities are divided into four branches as shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. A four-branch model of the skills involved in EI.
The four ability areas are arranged from lower, more molecular skills, to
higher molar skills (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 2000a). The lowest level of these
branch areas concerns the ability to perceive and express one’s emotion, for
example in a facial expression or a piece of artwork. The next level up involves
assimilating basic emotional experiences into thinking. As a person matures,
emotions begin to shape and improve thinking by directing an individual’s
attention to important changes around them. For example, a child who worries
about their homework while watching television may not act on that emotion.
A teacher may also worry about a lesson that needs to be competed for the
next day. The teacher, with their better-developed thinking, will likely move
onto completing the task before their emotion overtakes them. The third level
Emotional Intelligence
Reflectively Regulating Emotions
Understanding of Emotion
Emotional Facilitation of Thinking
Perceiving and Expressing Emotion
37
involves the understanding and reasoning behind emotions. Each emotion does
in fact follow its own specific rules. For example, anger can manifest itself
when justice is denied, fear often changes to relief. Many emotional sets move
along a continuum of intensity. EI is about understanding this continuum and
how to best reason about emotion accordingly. The fourth and highest level
involves the management and regulation of emotion in oneself and others, for
example, knowing when to calm down after feeling angry, or being able to
alleviate the anxiety of another person (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al.,
2000a).
The model also makes predictions of the internal structure of
intelligence. That is, EI is viewed as another form of intelligence, as mental
problems that have either right or wrong answers. The measured skills of EI
correlate with other measures of mental ability, and the absolute ability level
will rise with age. These are some of the trademarks of existing intelligence
tests (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, et al., 2000a).
Finally, the model also makes predictions on life outcomes in general.
Specifically, that an emotionally intelligent individual will be more likely to:
(a) Have grown up in bio-socially adaptive households (i.e., have had
emotionally sensitive parenting),
(b) Be non-defensive,
(c) Be able to reframe emotions effectively (i.e., be realistically
optimistic and appreciative)
(d) Choose good emotional role models,
38
(e) Be able to communicate and discuss feelings, and
(f) Develop expert knowledge in a particular emotional area (Mayer, et
al., 2000a, p. 400) such as leadership.
There are a few known ability-based EI tests that tap into aspects of
Mayer and Salovey’s (1990, 1997) theoretical model of EI, for example, the
Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS) by Lane, Quinlan and Schwartz
(1990). Another is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT™) developed by the same authors who brought us the ability model of
EI (Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, 2002). The MSCEIT™ evolved from its
predecessor, the Multi-factor Emotional Scale (MEIS; Mayer, et al., 1999).
Some researchers regard The MSCEIT™ as the most scientifically accepted
ability test for EI currently on the market (Zeidner et al., 2004). For this
reason, the MSCEIT™ will now be looked at in light of the ability model of EI
discussed above.
Measuring EI with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test
The MSCEIT’s™ predecessor, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale
(MEIS), was regarded as reliable, distinctive and found to be related to
important life outcomes (Brackett and Geher, 2006). However, it suffered from
some methodological problems (see Zeidner et al., 2004) and was quickly
improved upon and commercialised.
39
The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test is an ability-based
scale (Mayer et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 2002). That is, it is intended to
measure how well people perform on tasks and solve emotional problems,
rather than simply use self-judgement. The MSCEIT™, while producing a single
EI performance score, is linked to a Four Branch Model of EI. An overview can
be found in Table 3.
Table 3
Overview of the Four-Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence
Branch name Brief description of skills involved
Perceiving Emotions (Branch 1) The ability to perceive emotions in oneself
and others, as well as in objects, art,
stories, music, and other stimuli.
Facilitating Thought (Branch 2) The ability to generate, use, and feel
emotion as necessary to communicate
feelings, or employ them in other cognitive
processes.
Understanding Emotions (Branch 3) The ability to understand emotional
information, how emotions combine and
progress through relationship transitions,
and to appreciate such emotional
meanings.
Managing Emotions (Branch 4) The ability to be open to feelings, and to
modulate them in oneself and others so as
to promote personal understanding and
growth.
Each branch score, in turn, is made up of two individual tasks. The
MSCEIT™ is capable of producing an overall scale, four branch scores and 8
40
task level scores. The MSCEIT™ also produces two overarching area scores,
Experiential Emotional Intelligence and Strategic Emotional Intelligence. The
scales and sub scales are presented in table 4. Overall, the MSCEIT™ is based
on the EI definition and theory postulated by Mayer and Salovey (1997).
Table 4
Structure of the MSCEIT™
The MSCEIT™ can be scored via one of two methods - the “general
consensus” method or the “expert consensus” approach. The general
consensus method uses a normative sample of 5000 to score an item. If 70%
of the normative sample selected “A” as a response, that score would yield a
score of .70 for that item. Thus, the identified correct answer is the one that is
considered correct by the majority of people in the research or standardised
sample. The expert scoring method follows the sample principles. However,
41
instead of using the normative sample, a sample of 21 emotion experts is used
to formulate the scores associated with each item. The correlation between the
general consensus based and expert based item response frequencies is .90
using the latest version of the MSCEIT™ (Mayer et al., 2002).
The consensus versus expert scoring system of the MSCEIT™ has
received much attention from critics. For example, Roberts, Zeidner and
Matthews (2001) examined the predecessor to the MSCEIT™, the MEIS and
showed that the general and expert scoring methods yield conflicting results.
In another study, the same authors looked more specifically at which scoring
method was superior in terms of reliability and validity (MacCann et al., 2004).
The authors concluded that there are perhaps more rigorous statistical
processes for scoring the MSCEIT™ that still involve consensus scoring. There
still remains little conclusion as to which scoring method is better, although the
publishers of the MSCEIT™, Multi-Health Systems (MHS) advocate the general
consensus method, largely due to its large sample base. Even with this
criticism, the MSCEIT™ is seen as an objective test as test items have a range
of answers that vary according to their ‘correctness’, or appropriateness, or
frequency of use in the population, which are determined, by either consensus
or expert scoring systems (Brackett, Lopes, Ivcevic, Mayer & Salovey, 2004).
The MSCEIT™ also shows good signs of reliability and validity. For
example, in a study by Mayer et al. (2003), the MSCEIT™ was found to show
reasonable reliability and support for the dimensional structure postulated by
Mayer and Salovey (1997) of EI. The reliabilities of the four branch scores for
both methods of scoring were between .76 and .91. Brackett and Mayer (2003)
42
reported the test-retest reliability of the full test over a three-week period to be
.86 (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). In another study conducted independently of the
original authors, Palmer, Gignac, Manocha and Stough (in press) also found
support for the internal reliability of the MSCEIT™ (co-efficient scores in the .71
to .90 range) but only partial support for the underlying factor structure, with
three factors instead of four being identified. In another independent study,
Livingstone and Day (2005) found statistical support via a confirmatory factor
analysis for the four-factor model of the MSCEIT™.
Mayer et al. (2004a) summarised research examining the correlations
between the MSCEIT™ scores and personality traits. They reported that all
weighted mean correlations were below r = .21. Brackett and Mayer (2003)
also found the MSCEIT™ was able to predict important life criteria such
psychological health and wellbeing, in particular personal growth and positive
relations (r = .36 and r = .27 respectively). Further studies by Brackett et al.
(2003) found that lower MSCEIT™ scores in males were associated with drug
use, alcohol use, deviant behaviour, and poor relations with friends (rs = -.28
to -.45). Similarly, the MEIS has been positively correlated with verbal
intelligence and self-reported empathy (Ciarrochi et al., 2000).
Mayer et al. (2000) proposed that EI should relate to IQ. Studies have
found that high scores on dimensions of the MSCEIT™ and the MEIS predict
high performance on a cognitive decision-making task (see Day & Carroll,
2003). They are also related to verbal SAT scores (r =.35, Brackett et al.,
2003) and the WAIS-III vocabulary subscale (r =.17, Lopes, Salovey, & Straus,
2003).
43
Research within organisational settings has also shown promising results.
For example, individuals who scored higher on the MSCEIT™ received higher
supervisor ratings for job performance, r = .22 (Janovics & Christiansen, 2002),
and obtained higher ratings for customer service, r = .46 (Rice, 1999).
Furthermore, it has been reported that high scores are linked to greater merit
increases, peer and supervisor ratings, rs = .36 to .51 (Lopes, Côté, Grewal,
Kadis, Gall & Salovey, 2003) and subordinate ratings of leaders, r = .39 (Kerr,
Garvin, Heaton & Boyle, 2006).
In summary, these results suggest that although the MSCEIT™ is in its
early stages, it is reliable and valid in measuring something other than
personality and well being, and relates to important outcomes (Brackett &
Geher, 2006).
Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence
Mixed models describe EI as exhibiting similar characteristics as traditional
views of personality traits. That is, they are an individual’s characteristics or
preferred ways of behaving (e.g., extroversion – Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Mixed models of EI are substantially different from the mental ability models.
Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) and the Reuven
BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (BarOn EQ-i) are two of the most
prominent measures available that fit this notion of mixed EI models. Both of
these tests of EI will be explored further to assist us in discussing the relatively
new self-report Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT).
44
Goleman (1998) defined EI as “the capacity for recognising our own
feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing
emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). Goleman (2001)
redefined the mental ability model originally proposed by Salovey and Mayer
(1990) into four broad competencies, which could be further broken down into
another 20 subcategories (refer to table 5). He purposely moved away from
defining his model as a form of intelligence to a set of competencies. This
reflects his thinking that competencies are better predictors of success and can
be learnt. He defines an emotional competence as a learned capability that is
largely based on EI and results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman,
1998). Along with Goleman’s Emotional Competence Model, Table 5 also
highlights two other trait theories of EI that are explored later.
45
Table 5
Comparison of Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence
Goleman’s Emotional Competency
Model
BarOn’s EI Model Palmer & Stough’s EI Model
Self-Awareness
Emotional self-awareness
Accurate self-assessment
Self-confidence
Intrapersonal Components
Emotional self-awareness
Assertiveness
Self-regard
Self-actualisation
Independence
Emotional Recognition and
Expression
Ability to identify one’s own
feelings
Ability to express those inner
feelings
Self-Management
Self-control
Trustworthiness
Conscientiousness
Adaptability
Achievement drive
Initiative
Adaptability Components
Problem solving
Reality testing
Flexibility
Emotions Direct Cognition
Emotional knowledge
Problem solving
46
Social Awareness
Empathy
Service orientation
Organisational awareness
Interpersonal Components
Empathy
Social responsibility
Interpersonal relationship
Understanding of Emotions External
Identify emotions
Understand emotions
Relationship Management
Developing others
Influence
Communication
Conflict management
Leadership
Change catalyst
Building bonds
Teamwork & collaboration
Stress Management Components
Stress tolerance
Impulse control
Emotional Management
Manage positive emotions
Manage negative emotions
General Mood Components
Happiness
Optimism
Emotional Control
Controlling of emotions
47
Boyatzis and Goleman (1999) developed the Emotional Competency
Inventory (ECI) based on Goleman’s theory. The ECI measures the four
underlying EI competencies and their sub-categories as previously described in
Table 4. A recent review undertaken by Brackett and Geher (2006) on the ECI
found poor support for their underlying structural model, and limited research
was available on the psychometric proprieties of the instrument around both
structural and incremental validity. Brackett and Geher (2006) point out that
there is some predictive workplace evidence around the ECI. For example,
scores obtained on the ECI were correlated positively with several indices of job
performance in fire fighters from Britain (Stagg & Gunter, 2002, cited in
Brackett & Geher, 2006).
Murensky (2000) also examined the relationship between the
competencies of ECI (Boyatzis and Goleman, 1999) with the attainment of
strategic organizational goals as measured via objective business outcomes,
such as an increase in shareholder value amongst 90 senior managers at an
international oil corporation. While she found a strong overlap in most
dimensions of the ECI and measures of personality (as measured by the
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)) (e.g., r =
.47 for the correlation between Self-awareness and Extraversion), there was
some variance explained above the NEO-PI in predicting organisational
performance.
The other prominent mixed model of EI is offered by Reuven Bar-On
who described EI as “…an array of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and
skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental
48
demands and pressures” (Bar-On 1997, p. 14). Simply put, this description
refers to any ability or skill that is not specifically cognitive (Mayer, 2006).
Bar-On's model is multifactorial and purportedly relates to the potential
for performance, rather than performance itself. It revolves around a group of
five factorial components (emotional skills) described in table 5. Recently, Bar-
On (2004, 2005) described the general mood factor as a facilitator of EI rather
than part of it.
There is considerably more research available on the merits of the Bar-
On EI model measured via the BarOn Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ-i,
Bar-On, 1997). In one study, the EQ-i was predictive of excessive alcohol
consumption after controlling for personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). In
another study examining the EQ-i and occupational performance amongst US
Air Force recruits, results showed that high scores on the EQ-i were associated
with those more likely to succeed in the recruitment process (r = .53; citied in
Bar-On, 2005). The BarOn has also demonstrated strong internal reliabilities (rs
> = .90) and shown sufficient test-retest reliability (r = .85 after one month;
BarOn, 1997). Research has also found that the EQ-i has a multiple r with the
Big Five personality factors (i.e., Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) of r = .75 (Mayer, 2006).
Both the Goleman and Bar-On models of EI can be viewed as taxonomic
models of EI that overlap with traditional personality measures and involve self-
report methods to measure the EI construct. They both also seem to measure
values (e.g., “service orientation” for Goleman and “social responsibility” for
Bar-On).
49
A final mixed model of EI that shares some of these virtues is that
offered by Ben Palmer and Con Stough via the Swinburne University Emotional
Intelligence Test (SUEIT - Palmer & Stough 2001). Palmer and Stough (2001;
Palmer 2003) offer a new taxonomic model of EI, which consists of an
overarching EI factor and five sub-scale factors as, displayed in Table 5. The
model appears to share similar constructs as those postulated by both Golemen
and BarOn (Palmer, 2003). For example, all models share the concept of self-
awareness and the ability to manage emotions in others. The SUEIT also
appears to be less value laden than either Goleman or BarOn EI models. In
addition, as shown in Table 5 above, the SUEIT is reflective of many of the
available self-report EI measures, and appears to minimise the overlap with
measuring pro-social values. Further details of this framework and the
psychometric proprieties underlying the model can be found in the next section
on measuring EI via the SUEIT.
There is one final point to be made about mixed models of EI. A major
challenge facing these conceptual models is that, in order to maintain
themselves as a legitimate form of intelligence, they need research to support
both their underlying factor structures, and association with traditional forms of
cognitive intelligence tests. As indicated earlier, most intelligence tests are
moderately correlated with one another. A low to moderate correlation
between an EI measure and a traditional cognitive intelligence test would
signify that the EI measure is distinct from the traditional cognitive test but still
related to the domain of intelligence. No correlation would suggest that the EI
50
measure is unrelated to the domain of intelligence (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
This is a point we will explore further in this dissertation research.
Measuring EI with the Swinburne Emotional Intelligence Test
The Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT) was developed
after an extensive factor analytic study involving five prominent measures of EI
at the time (Palmer & Stough 2001; Palmer 2003). Four of these were
commonly used self-report measures of EI, including the Bar-On Emotional
Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997), the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (Salovey, Mayer,
Goldman, Turvey & Palfai, 1995), the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II
([TAS-20] Bagby, Taylor & Parker, 1994a,b), and the Emotional Intelligence
Scale ([EIS] Schutte et al., 1997). The fifth EI measure was the Multifactor
Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS), the predecessor of the MSCEIT™.
Palmer and Stough’s (2001) taxonomic model of EI was used to develop
the SUEIT. The SUEIT provides an overall EI score that indicates a participant’s
general workplace EI, and five sub-scale scores. The sub scale scores include:
(1) Emotional recognition and expression (in oneself), which is the
“ability to identify one’s own feelings and emotional states, and the
ability to express those inner feelings to others”
(2) Emotions direct cognition, which measure the “extent to which
emotions and emotional knowledge is incorporated in decision
making and/or problem solving”
51
(3) Understanding of emotions external, which is the “ability to identify
and understand the emotions of others and those manifest in
external stimuli”
(4) Emotional management, which is the “ability to manage positive
and negative emotions both within oneself and others” and
(5) Emotional control, which is “how effectively emotional states
experienced at work such as anger, stress, anxiety and frustration
are controlled” (Palmer & Stough, 2001, p. 5).
The SUEIT EI model bears considerable overlap with other mixed models
and measures of EI (Palmer & Stough 2001; Palmer 2003). For example, one
of the most popular theories within the EI mixed model paradigm is Goleman’s
(1998 & 2001) EI model. Goleman’s (2001) model appears to fit with the
SUEIT taxonomic model of EI above by appearing to measure the same
underline EI constructs. Further evidence to support the notion that the SUEIT
is a mixed model of EI lies with the questions used to measure EI, which
appear to be somewhat similar to questions used to examine the
comprehensive Five-Factor Model of personality (David, 2003).
Preliminary results reflect high internal consistencies for each of the five
sub-scales (emotional recognition and expression r = 0.77; emotions direct
cognition r = 0.89; understanding of emotions external r = 0.70; emotional
management r = 0.83; emotional control r = 0.77), and the total SUEIT EI
score (r = 0.91). It also shows sufficient test-retest reliability (r = .95 after one
52
month; Palmer & Stough, 2001). Research has also found that the SUEIT has a
moderate correlation with three of the Big Five personality factors (i.e., r = .44
for Extraversion, r = -.41 for Neuroticism and r = .27 for Openness – Palmer
and Stough, 2001).
There is also growing research to support the SUEIT’s discriminate
validity with self-reported transformational leadership style (see Palmer and
Stough, 2001; Palmer, Gardner and Stough, 2003; Palmer, Walls, Burgess and
Stough, 2000) and ability to predict leadership style (Downey, Papageorgiou &
Stough, 2005).
Both the MSCEIT™ and SUEIT offer an opportunity to measure and
examine leadership effectiveness from two different and extreme perspectives
of EI, that of the ability model versus the mixed model.
Leadership Effectiveness and Emotional Intelligence
People have theorised that EI contributes to people’s capacity to work
effectively in teams, manage stress, and/or lead others (Ashkanasy, Trevor-
Roberts, & Kennedy, 2000; George, 2000; Goleman, 1998; Mayer at al., 2004a;
Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003). For example, leaders who
are poor at perceiving emotions may unknowingly miss important emotional
signals from their co-workers. Similarly, leaders who are poor at managing
their own emotions may allow emotions to interfere with effective action. For
instance, when they feel anxious, they may avoid giving an important speech,
or when they feel angry, they may inappropriately lash out at a co-worker.
53
Finally, leaders who are poor at managing others emotions would be expected
to be poor at resolving interpersonal conflicts and creating positive “emotional
climates” that maximise productivity.
Caruso, Bienn and Kornacki (2006) further suggest that within an
organisational setting, EI appears to be most important in roles that require
frequent interpersonal contact with people, where such contacts form the basis
for effectiveness. Such a role would describe that of a leader who is often
interacting with numerous people to achieve business outcomes. The authors
also argue that while there has been a great deal of speculation regarding the
relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, there has been little
empirical evidence supporting this to date.
The available EI-Leadership research supports the hypothesis that self-
reported EI is linked to self-reported transformational leadership style (Barling,
Slater & Kelloway, 2000, Palmer et al., 2001; Gardner & Stough, 2002). Barling
et al. (2000) conducted an exploratory study on the relationship between EI
and transformational leadership. Their results suggest that self-reported EI is
associated with three aspects of transformational leadership. Namely, idealised
influence, inspirational motivation, and individualised consideration. The
leaders who reportedly exhibited these behaviours were assumed more
effective in the workplace.
Palmer et al. (2001) administered a self-report EI measure to 43
managers in order to evaluate the link between EI and leadership style. They
found significant correlations with several components of the transformational
leadership model. Specifically, the inspirational, motivation and individualised
54
consideration components of transformational leadership style correlated with
self-reported ability to both monitor and manage emotions.
Gardner and Stough (2002), and later Palmer et al. (2003), also
examined the relationship between a self-report measure of EI (using the
SUEIT), personality (Big Five) and effective leadership (as measured by the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, MLQ – Bass and Avolio, 1990b). Their
results indicated that EI, specifically the ability to perceive and understand
emotions in others, accounted for the majority of the variance in
transformational leadership styles when compared to other personality
measures.
Dulewicz and Higgs (1998, 1999, 2000) examined the link between self-
reported EI and job competence, and unlike many previous studies, did not
focus on the transformational-transactional model. These researchers looked at
leadership effectiveness from the perspective of progression within the
hierarchy of an organisation amongst 58 managers from the UK and Ireland.
Using a self-report measure of EI, which they derived from a job competency
survey, they found that EI was able to explain a greater proportion of an
individual’s advancement than either cognitive intelligence (also derived from
elements of the job competency survey) or personality traits (using the Sixteen
Personality Factor and Organizational Personality Questionnaire).
In another study, Higgs & Aitken (2003) examined 40 senior managers
using the self-report EI questionnaire, which focused on measures of self-
awareness, emotional resilience, motivation, interpersonal sensitivity, influence,
intuitiveness and conscientiousness, and integrity. Looking at the relationship
55
between managers’ overall performance assessment ratings and their EI scores,
they found minimal relationships between core aspects of effective leadership
(e.g., strategic leadership and leading capability) and overall EI score.
In summary, the available research supports the hypothesis that self-
report measures of EI is linked to indices of leadership style and effectiveness.
However, research is needed to evaluate whether an ability-based test of EI is
related to objective (or non-self-report) measures of leadership effectiveness.
While research based on self-reported managerial style is important, it
does not establish whether an ability-based test of EI or self-report measure of
EI is related to objective measures of leadership effectiveness, such as manager
ratings or measures of actual business unit performance. In one study, Lopes
et al. (2003) examined the link between an ability measure of EI (MSCEIT™)
and several indicators of job performance, including salary, merit increases, and
company rank. They also assessed interpersonal facilitation, affect and
attitudes at work, and leadership potential, using both peer and supervisor
ratings in 44 analysts and clerical/administrative employees. They found that
EI was related to the percentage of pay increase, internal classification level,
and better peer and supervisor ratings. Importantly, these results held even
after controlling for the effects of cognitive ability and personality traits.
In another study, Kerr et al. (2006) examined the relationship between
an ability measure of EI (MSCEIT™) and subordinates’ leadership ratings in 38
supervisors within a large manufacturing organisation. They found that EI was
positively related to subordinates’ leadership ratings on two of the four branch
model factors (r = .43 for perceiving emotion and r = .52 for using emotion)
56
and the overall EI score (r = .39). Unlike the previous study, the authors failed
to control for either personality or traditional measures of cognitive intelligence.
In an unpublished doctoral thesis, Bryson (2004) also explored the
relationship between leadership skills as reported via a 360-degree measure
and EI among a group of managers who enrolled in two leadership
development programs at the Centre for Creative Leadership. Small but
significant correlations were found between elements of the leadership scale
and two branches of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI model: Facilitating Thought
and Managing Emotions.
It has already been demonstrated in the previous section that the ability-
based model of EI psychometrically resembles intelligence in several ways.
However, there is surprisingly little work published on linking EI to workplace
performance, with Lopes et al. (2003) and Kerr et al. (2006) being important
exceptions. Critics of EI, such as Landy (2005), have pointed out that the
available data upon which applied EI speculations rest is embarrassingly flimsy.
Others have gone as far as suggesting that EI is an invalid concept, suggesting
it is not a form of intelligence and is defined too broadly (Locke, 2005). These
criticisms seem more levelled at mixed models of EI and are not reflective of
the advances in ability-based EI measures such as the MSCEIT™.
Landy’s (2005) and Locke’s (2005) criticisms or views are in fact
reflective of a good number of scholars in industrial and organisational
psychology and organisational behaviour (e.g., Conte, 2005; Zeidner, Matthews
and Roberts, 2001). The primary arguments offered by critics of EI are that EI
is little more than a loose conglomeration of extended personality traits, EI does
57
not meet psychometric standards, and that EI has no clear measurement rubric
– it changes all the time (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003). Ashkanasy and Daus
(2005; Daus & Ashakansy, 2005), in a reply to the critics of EI, suggested that
these arguments generally hold true for self-report measures or mixed models
of EI, but not for ability models of EI, and that the four branch model offered
by Mayer and Salovey (1997) is the only scientifically defensible model of EI.
Zeidner et al. (2001) suggest that what is needed is for EI research studies to
demonstrate not just criterion and predictive validity, but also discriminate or
incremental validity with respect to existing tests of intelligence and personality.
In conclusion, the purpose of this literature review was to explore the
trait theories of leadership and leading EI theories, and to note how both the
ability and mixed models of EI approaches the prediction of effective
leadership, potentially adding to the growing literature on leadership traits or
abilities, in particular those associated with both intelligence and personality.
This research sought to answer the question of whether EI plays an important
role in leadership effectiveness by undertaking a series of workplace studies
described next in Chapter 3 and 4.
Chapter 3 deals with the first study. This was a small exploratory study
designed to look at the relationship between an ability measure of emotional
intelligence (MSCEIT™) and leadership effectiveness amongst senior executives
who undertook a developmental centre activity, and self-reported their
performance ratings for the 2002 - 2003 financial year. No self-report EI
measure was used in study one.
58
Chapter 4 deals with the second study. This study sought to extend the
first by examining the link between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of
leadership effectiveness, namely, attainment of business outcomes and the
display of effective interpersonal behaviours. This study formed part of the
2003 – 2004 annual performance appraisal process in a much larger sample. A
measure of personality and reasoning ability were also administered in order to
examine the incremental value of ability-EI measures over measures that are
commonly used in the organizational setting. Finally, a self-report measure of
EI (i.e., the SUEIT) was also administered in order to examine its relationship to
leadership outcomes.
59
CHAPTER 3
Study I
Emotional Intelligence and its Relationship to Workplace Performance
Outcomes of Leadership Effectiveness
Statement of the Problem and Research Hypothesis
The available research (see chapter 2) supports the hypothesis that EI is linked
to indices of leadership style and effectiveness. This research has focused on
self-reports of EI and of leadership style. Research is needed to evaluate
whether an ability-based test of EI is related to relatively objective (or non-self-
report) measures of leadership effectiveness.
Leader effectiveness has always been difficult to measure as objective
criteria are often absent (Murensky, 2000). Some have argued that emphasis
must be placed on shareholders’ return on investment (Bass, 1990a), while
others have advocated for a more balanced approach, which also incorporates
non-financial measures (Kaplan & Norton, 1996).
Within the Australian Public Service, two measures of leader
effectiveness are often used: the Performance Management System, and 360
measures of leadership behaviours espoused within the workplace. They are
measures that are intended to assist one’s understanding if a leader has
managed to attain their organisational goals in such a manner that the
organisation is also able to grow. The purpose of the performance
management system is to evaluate an employee’s performance in achieving
60
agreed business outputs (e.g., increased product turnover) in the previous
financial year (known as the ‘what’, i.e., what has been achieved? For the
dissertation we refer to this as Business Outcomes Achieved) and to
evaluate how the employees demonstrate the expected leadership behaviours
in achieving those outputs (known as the ‘how’, i.e., how has it been achieved?
Do executives model the core values of the organisation? For the dissertation, I
refer to this as Effective Interpersonal Behaviours). The “what” and “how”
evaluations highlight two separate but related aspects of an individual’s
performance (Management Advisory Committee, 2001).
The performance management system is seen as a good indicator of an
individual’s leadership effectiveness (Management Advisory Committee 2001).
That is, does an individual meet business outcome in such a manner that they
not only achieve results but also build effective working relationships? This
leads us to our first hypothesis, which is the core focus of this study.
H1 an ability-based model of EI is positively associated with Effective
Leadership as measured via a Performance Management System
Ability-based Measure of EI – Relationship with Personality and
Intelligence
An ability-based measure of EI was used in this study, the Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Version 2.0 (MSCEIT™ V2.0; Mayer et al.,
2002). The MSCEIT™ is intended to measure the four dimensions of EI as
61
postulated by Mayer and Salovey (1997), (a) perceiving emotion accurately, (b)
using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion, and (d)
managing emotion. The MSCEIT™ is based on the premise that EI involves
problem solving with and about emotions (Mayer et al., 2003). This concept is
quite different to the many self-report measures of EI in that it does not
correlate highly with personality, and tends instead to correlate modestly with
IQ (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Dawda & Hart, 2000; MacCann, Mathews, Zeidner
and Roberts, 2003).
As revealed in the literature review, the MSCEIT™ has been found to
show reasonable reliability and support for the dimensional structure postulated
by Mayer and Salovey (1990) of EI. These results suggest that the MSCEIT™ is
reliable and valid in measuring something other then personality and well being,
and relates to important outcomes. This draws us to a second and third
hypothesis.
H2 an ability-based measure of EI is distinct from the Big Five personality
factors.
H3 an ability-based measure of EI is related to IQ but distinguishable
from it.
62
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 41 (N for the entire study) executives from a large
Australian Public Service organisation with 24 (57.14%) of respondents being
male, and 18 (42.86%) female. Participants’ aged ranged from 27 – 57, and
the average age was 42.24 (S.D. = 8.31). 75% of participants had been with
the organisation for 10 years or more (M = 15.56, S.D. = 8.20).
Procedure
Volunteers were sought from within an Australian Public Service organisation to
participate in a Career Development Centre (CDC). As part of the CDC, the
administration of a battery of psychological tests (i.e., 16PF, MSCEIT™ and
WASI) was given to all participants. All participants were provided with
information regarding the instruments, consent forms, a copy of the 16PF, and
either a paper and pencil version of the MSCEIT™ or computer access codes for
completing the MSCEIT™ on-line. Participants were also scheduled in to
complete the WASI. Participants self reported their performance management
results (i.e., their scores on achieving business outcomes and dealing effectively
with people). In exchange for their participation, individuals were provided
with a confidential feedback report on their results for each of the instruments.
Materials
Measurement of Emotional Intelligence. The MSCEIT™ V2.0 (Mayer et
al., 2002) was used to assess EI. The MSCEIT™ is an ability measure of EI as
it asks participants to complete a set of tasks associated with either perceiving
63
emotion, using emotion, understanding emotional information or managing
emotions. It contains 141 items, which are broken down into eight tasks, which
are further divided into four branches of abilities including (a) perceiving
emotion, (b) using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion,
and (d) managing emotions. Mayer et al. (2002) reported reliabilities of α =
0.91 for the full scale, α = 0.81 for emotional management, α = 0.77 for
emotional understanding, α =0.76 for emotional facilitation, and α = 0.90 for
emotional perception.
Measurement of Personality. Participants completed the well validated
16 Personality Factor questionnaire (Conn & Rieke, 1998). The 16PF was
chosen, as it is a widely used and recognised personality test within the
Australian Public Service sector with the availability of Australian norms. The
total scale contains 185 items and each subscale contains 10 to 15 items.
Measurement of Cognitive Ability. The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence (WASI – Psychological Corporation, 1999) was used to measure
cognitive ability. The WASI consists of four subtests: Vocabulary, Block Design,
Similarities, and Matrix Reasoning. These subtests measure an individual’s
expressive vocabulary, verbal knowledge, visual-motor coordination, abstract
conceptualisation, verbal reasoning ability and non-verbal fluid reasoning. The
WASI is seen as a good measure of IQ, yielding the traditional measures of
verbal, performance and full scale IQ in a relatively convenient fashion.
64
Leadership Effectiveness. For a richer description of the performance
management system please refer to study two in Chapter 4. In summary, the
Performance Management System measures both the Business Outcomes
Achieved and Effective Interpersonal Behaviours, which are rated on a five-
point scale (1 to 5) by the participants’ direct manager. Individuals are not
rated for their innate abilities, knowledge or skills, but rather on how well they
achieved business outputs over the financial year. The meaning of each rating
is: (5) Exceptional - Performance well beyond expectations, breaking new
ground, producing outcomes of considerable value to the organisation, often
quite unanticipated; (4) Superior - Achievement has been consistently high on
the range of indicators, behaviours, capabilities and any leadership role
throughout the financial year; (3) Fully Effective - Good and meritorious
achievement. Has achieved standard detailed in performance agreement for
both business outputs and behaviours; (2) Borderline Performance - has slipped
below standards detailed in performance agreement for either business outputs
and/or behaviours; and (1) Unsatisfactory - Continued failure to achieve
expected standard.
The performance management system is seen as a good indicator of an
individual’s leadership effectiveness (Management Advisory Committee, 2001).
It assesses not only whether a person achieved results (the Business Outcomes
Achieved of performance), but also whether they built effective working
relationships while achieving results (the Effective Interpersonal Behaviours of
performance).
65
With regards to the Multi-rater (360°) assessment, all participants were
asked to complete an on-line multi-rater (360°) instrument (Perspectives on
Executive Leadership Capabilities - PELC). It comprises 40 behavioural
statements that relate to the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC)
Leadership Capability Framework (refer to chapter 4 for more details on the
APSC leadership capability framework).
The PELC involves an individual self-rating his or her own leadership
effectiveness, while direct staff and the individual’s direct manager also rates
the person on the same criteria. That is, it involves a manager and at least
three subordinates (M = 3.6 subordinates per participating executive). No data
on age or gender were collected to maintain the anonymity of direct managers
and their participants’ subordinates. While we would expect a positive
correlation between individual’s performance ratings and their results obtained
on the multi-rater questionnaire, the multi-rater offers us further insight into
leadership behaviours espoused by an individual as it includes views from staff
and manager. The PELC’s scale reliability coefficient was 0.93.
Results
A preliminary analysis on the relationship between EI, Personality and Cognitive
Intelligence and leadership effectiveness was conducted. Correlational analysis
was also conducted between EI and personality and IQ. Following these
analyses, the study focused on the predictive validity of EI.
66
Emotional Intelligence, Personality, Cognitive Intelligence and leadership
effectiveness
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship between
EI and leadership effectiveness as measured through the performance
management ratings. Table 6 showed that a relationship between the total EI
score (M = 100.1) and performance rating on the “Effective Interpersonal
Behaviours” (or EIB for short) scale (M = 3.61) existed (r (40) = 0.38, p < .05).
These results support the notion that EI is related to a leader’s effectiveness in
being able to achieve organisational goals through the obtainment of higher
performance ratings thus supporting the first hypothesis.
67
Table 6 Correlations Coefficients between EI, Personality and Cognitive Ability with Performance Management Ratings Achieves Business
Outcomes Rating Effective Interpersonal Behaviour Rating
Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence Total EI Score .02 .38* Perceiving Emotion .24 .42** Facilitating Thought -.03 .23 Understanding Emotion .23 .37* Managing Emotions .01 .16 Personality Warmth -.07 .07 Reasoning .15 .31 Emotional Stability .37 .28 Dominance .45*** .12 Liveliness .15 .02 Consciousness .19 .05 Social Boldness .07 -.04 Sensitivity -.00 .16 Vigilance -.17 -.24 Abstractedness -.15 -.06 Privateness -.40 -.36 Apprehension -.00 -.08 Openness to Change .09 -.07 Self Reliance -.08 -.09 Perfectionism .25 .22 Tension -.16 -.21 Extraversion .18 .15 Anxiety -.25 -.28 Tough Mindedness .00 -.04 Independence .29 .04 Self Control .19 .14 Cognitive Ability Verbal IQ .00 .18 Performance IQ .06 .17 Full Scale IQ .04 .20 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .003. The .003 is the Bonferroni adjusted significance level for
the 16 personality items. Values at the .05 and .01 level were not treated as significant for the
personality variable.
68
Table 6 also shows that in regards to Personality, once we controlled for
type I error, only Dominance was positively related to an executive ability to
achieve business outcomes. Cognitive ability did not seem to impact the
performance management outcomes.
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship
between EI, personality, cognitive ability and multi-rater leadership feedback
ratings. Table 7 showed significant correlations amongst various branches of
the EI construct and the multi-rater leadership instrument. These results
indicate that a leader’s ability to perceive emotion and understand emotion
impacts on three or more core leadership behaviours as measured in the multi-
rater instrument. Personality in particular anxiety and extroversion correlated
with the multi-rater leadership instrument even after adjusting for type I error.
Only the last item of the multi-rater leadership instrument correlated with
cognitive intelligence.
69
Table 7
Correlations Coefficients between the MSCEIT™ Total and Branch Scores with
Multi-rater Leadership Feedback Ratings
SST CPWR EPDI CI AR
Emotional Intelligence Total EI Score .20 .34* .37* .16 .22 Perceiving Emotion .17 .33 .39* .11 .31 Facilitating Thought .01 .15 .19 -.06 .08 Understanding Emotion .35* .37* .27 .38* .16 Managing Emotions .31 .32 .21 .29 .04 Personality Warmth .28 .24 .11 .24 .01 Reasoning -.08 .07 .09 .04 .21 Emotional Stability .35 .36 .40 .31 .25 Dominance .41 .32 .19 .28 .25 Liveliness .36 .25 .19 .24 -.05 Consciousness .07 .17 .18 .13 .21 Social Boldness .42 .47 .25 .31 .10 Sensitivity -.15 -.16 -.23 -.07 -.27 Vigilance -.43 -.53*** -.43 -.32 -.46 Abstractedness -.03 -.18 -.32 -.05 -.32 Privateness -.50*** -.48*** -.31 -.30 -.27 Apprehension -.40 -.31 -.35 -.29 -.17 Openness to Change .25 .12 .14 .22 .02 Self Reliance -.29 -.34 -.28 -.08 -.05 Perfectionism -.04 .16 .29 -.00 .19 Tension -.54*** -.38 -.26 -.32 -.25 Extraversion .48*** .46** .29 .29 .09 Anxiety -.63*** -.56*** -.53*** -.45*** -.39 Tough Mindedness -.10 .04 .14 -.10 .23 Independence .42 .32 .19 .30 .15 Self Control -.06 .14 .27 .01 .30 Cognitive Ability Verbal IQ .12 .03 .21 .07 .28 Performance IQ .09 .17 .28 .07 .39* Full Scale IQ .13 .12 .29 .09 .39*
SST = Shapes Strategic Thinking; CPWR = Cultivates Productive Working Relationships;
EPDI = Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity; CI = Communicates with Influence; AR =
Achieve Results. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .003. The .003 is the Bonferroni adjusted
70
significance level for the 16 personality items. Values at the .05 and .01 level were not treated
as significant for the personality variable.
Emotional Intelligence and Personality
No significant correlations were found between total EI score and any of the 16
personality factors, p > 0.05 (refer to table 8). At the four branch level small
correlations were found between warmth (r = 0.37), vigilance (r =-0.33) and
privateness (r = -0.38) and understanding emotion at p < 0.05. Similarly,
warmth (r = 0.32, p < 0.05), social boldness (r = 0.31, p < 0.05) and
privateness (r = -0.44, p < 0.01) correlated with managing emotion. Only
vigilance (r = -0.33, p < 0.05) correlated modestly with perceiving emotion.
These results support previous research, which showed that MSCEIT™ scores
are distinguishable from personality scores (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et
al., 2003) and generally support the second hypothesis.
71
Table 8
Correlations Between 16PF Primary & Global Factors and MSCEIT™
Personality
Factors
Emotional
Intelligence
Perceiving
Emotions
Using
Emotions
Understanding
Emotions
Managing
Emotions
Warmth .17 -.04 .22 .37* .31*
Reasoning -.01 .08 -.07 .26 -.11
Emotional Stability .08 .10 .07 -.11 -.01
Dominance -.04 -.12 .00 .04 .12
Liveliness .05 -.15 .01 .25 .31
Consciousness -.14 -.10 -.13 -.21 -.15
Social Boldness -.03 -.22 .08 .13 .31*
Sensitivity .04 -.06 -.00 .16 .04
Vigilance -.22 -.33* .02 -.33* -.17
Abstractedness -.08 -.14 -.06 .18 .13
Privateness -.28 -.08 -.23 -.38* -.44**
Apprehension -.22 -.15 -.19 .04 -.23
Openness to Change .09 -.06 .08 .19 .18
Self Reliance -.14 .00 -.12 -.26 -.27
Perfectionism .17 .20 .15 -.05 .01
Tension -.26 -.05 -.28 -.26 -.24
Extraversion .19 -.03 .17 .38* .42**
Anxiety -.28 -.21 .21 -.11 -.23
Tough Mindedness -.07 .13 -.06 -.29 -.21
Independence -.04 -.17 .06 .06 .18
Self Control .04 .16 .03 -.22 -.17
* p < .05; ** p < .01
72
Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive Intelligence
The mean verbal IQ for this group was 117.2 (S.D. = 12.31), performance IQ
114.9 (S.D. = 10.67) and full scale IQ 118.3 (S.D. = 10.43).
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine any relationships
that may exist between EI and cognitive intelligences. Table 9 below shows
that the relationship between the total EI score (M = 100.1) and verbal IQ (M =
117.17), performance IQ (M = 114.85), full scale IQ (M = 118.26) was
significant, r (40) = .336, p < .05, r (40) = .402, p < .05, and r (40) = .430, p
< .01 respectively. These findings suggest that the MSCEIT™ in fact does
correlate with cognitive intelligence, indicating that the construct constitutes a
cognitive ability (see Mayer et al., 2000), thus supporting our third hypothesis.
Table 9
Correlations Coefficients between EI and Cognitive Intelligence
Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full Scale IQ
Total EI Score .336* .402* .430**
Perceiving Emotion .300 .345* .365*
Facilitating Thought 382* .416** .481**
Understanding
Emotion
.201 .280 .299
Managing Emotions .052 .129 .113
* p < .05; ** p < .01
73
Predictive Validity of the EI Construct
To explore the potential predictive validity of the EI construct forward stepwise
regression analyses were conducted using the performance management
achieves business outcomes and effective interpersonal behaviour measures as
the dependent variables (refer to table 10). The five global personality factors,
full-scale IQ and total EI score were entered in as the predictors. Variables
needed to achieve a significant probability of .05 for them to be considered in
the forward step and entered into the regression model. This process allows
for the identification of the regressors that most improve the fit in the model.
The personality factor independence emerged as the strongest predictor
of the “business outcomes achieved” measure of leadership effectiveness (β =
.12, p < 0.01), which accounted for 8% of the variance in the performance
measure. This was followed by the personality factor self control (β = .12, p <
0.05). Overall the final model was statistical significant accounting for
approximately 18% of the variance in the business outcomes achived
perspective of the performance management system, F (2, 37) = 4.00, p <
0.05.
Table 10
Stepwise Regression Fit – Business Outcomes Achieved Ratings
Step Predictor β ∆R2
1 Independence .12 .08
2 Self Control .12 .09
Note. Stepwise regression, total sample (N = 40); p to enter < .05; p to remove > .10;
74
The second stepwise regression analyses (found in Table 11) focused on
the performance management effective interpersonal behaviour measures as
the dependent variables. Emotional intelligence emerged as the strongest
predictor of the “effective interpersonal behaviour” measure of leadership
effectiveness (β = .02, p < 0.05), which accounted for 14% variance in the
performance measure. The overall model was statistical significant accounting
for approximately 18% of the variance in the effective interpersonal behaviour
perspective of the performance management system, F (2,36) = 3.93, p <
0.05.
Table 11
Stepwise Regression Fit – Effective Interpersonal Behaviour Ratings
Step Predictor β ∆R2
1 Emotional Intelligence .02 .14
2 Anxiety -.06 .04
Note. Stepwise regression, total sample (N = 40); p to enter < .05; p to remove > .10;
Discussion
The findings suggest that executives higher on EI are more likely to achieve
business outcomes and be considered as effective leaders by their subordinates
and direct manager. Regression analysis revealed that EI was able to predict
effective leadership. These results may have important implications on how we
performance manage, select and develop executives. However, caution must
be given in making too wide a generalisation of these findings, as the sample
size is small.
75
In terms of performance management, it is important for an executive to
be able to not only deliver outputs (the Achieve Business Outcomes of
performance), but also to deal effectively with colleagues and staff (the
Effective Interpersonal Behaviours of performance – Management Advisory
Committee, 2001). It may be common for executives to have the ability to
achieve business outcomes but not effective interpersonal skills. For example,
a technical specialist may perform complex tasks tenaciously and manage to
produce business outputs, but may be ineffective at managing his or her
subordinates, leading to staff turnover and under performing. The results of
this study show that EI may be useful in identifying who is and is not likely to
deal effectively with colleagues and staff.
A central theme of the ability-based MSCEIT™ is that it has incremental
value over both personality and cognitive intelligence (Mayer et al., 2002)
although this was not tested for in study one. The overall EI score did not
correlate with any of the sixteen personality factors. Some of the subscales of
the MSCEIT™ correlated modestly with warmth, vigilance, privateness, and
social boldness. These results support previous research, which showed that
MSCEIT™ scores are distinguishable from personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003;
Brackett et al., 2003)
Concerning cognitive intelligence, correlations were found between one’s
total EI score and verbal IQ, performance IQ and full scale IQ, supporting our
final hypothesis. Worth noting is that the executives in this study had
significantly higher IQ than average adult population. This pattern of findings
suggests that an executive may need a high IQ to get to the management or
76
executive levels, but once there, IQ does not discriminate between better or
worse performing managers. It may useful to evaluate whether the MSCEIT™
can be used to help select the best performing managers.
The correlations between EI and performance measures of leadership
effectiveness were modest (rs < 0.42). However, this level of correlation is the
same or higher in magnitude as many other correlations observed in the
personal selection context (Cook, 1995). For example, assessment centres
show correlations with performance that often vary between .33 to. 43.
Indeed, many of the most important relationships observed in psychology occur
at the r = .35 and below range (Mayer et al., 2001), and correlations of this
magnitude can lead to substantial increases in selection success rate (e.g., in
picking high quality managers (Rosenthal and Rubin, 1982).
The research had some limitations that will need to be addressed in
future research. It will be interesting to evaluate the link between EI and
leadership in larger samples, and across different industries. It will also be
important for research to evaluate the ability of EI to predict future
performance. I continue to hypothesise that EI leads to better executive
performance. However, it is possible that good executive performance leads to
higher EI. One way to resolve this problem is to conduct a longitudinal study
that involves measuring EI before newly hired executives start the job. This
would allow one to establish if EI skills were likely to be antecedents to
managerial success.
Study one was very much an exploratory study on the relationship
between an ability measure of EI and leadership effectiveness amongst senior
77
executives. The conclusion drawn from study one is that EI shows much
promise in the organisational domain and is worthy of further investigation. In
study two (see next chapter) I sought to extend and replicate study one by
further examining the link between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of
leadership effectiveness. I also administered a measure of personality and
reasoning ability in order to examine the incremental value of ability-EI
measures over measures that are commonly used in the organisational setting.
Finally, I administered a self-report measure of EI, in order to examine its
relationship to leadership outcomes, something that does not appear to have
been published previously.
78
CHAPTER 4
Study II
A Critical Evaluation of the Role of Emotional Intelligence in
Leadership Effectiveness
Statement of the Problem and Research Hypothesis
In the present study I sought to extend past research by examining the link
between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of leadership effectiveness,
namely, attainment of business outcomes and the display of effective
interpersonal behaviours. Past research has predominately focused on self-
report measures of EI using smaller samples to examine leadership style. I also
administered a measure of personality and reasoning ability in order to examine
the incremental value of ability-EI measures over measures that are commonly
used in the organisational setting, in order to deal directly with some of the
major criticisms being levelled at the EI paradigm. For example, in a special
issue of the Journal of Organizational Behaviour on EI, those authors critiquing
the EI concept concluded that any future EI research should always include
both measures of personality and measures of EI so that personality and EI
may be examined for overlap, redundancy, etc in the prediction of outcomes
(Conte, 2005; Landy, 2005). Finally, I administered a self-report measure of
EI, in order to examine its relationship to the attainment of business outcomes,
personality and reasoning ability.
79
This study also extends that of study one by further exploring the
linkages between personality at a more detailed level (i.e., focus will be on the
16 primary factors) and looking at the relationship between the two EI
measures. As outlined in chapter two, there is growing scepticism that EI
simply measures already well-established personality traits. Most published
studies appear to focus on the relationships between the Big Five personality
traits and EI and very little else is written on other personality taxonomies.
There is still a need for more systematic investigation on how the major
elements of EI might be related to existing dimensional models of personality
like the 16PF. Descriptive statistics and internal reliabilities for the EI measures
and personality measure are also explained in more detailed here than in study
one.
The primary measures of leadership effectiveness were based on a
structured performance management assessment. The structured performance
management system assesses employees’ progress towards organisational
goals (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002), and is seen as a good indicator of
an individual’s leadership effectiveness (Hogan et al., 1994; Management
Advisory Committee 2001). It establishes whether an individual meets business
outcomes in such a manner that they not only achieve results but also build
effective working relationships. Importantly, the performance management
system is tied to concrete outcomes for the individual: Leaders who score well
on the system receive larger bonus pay increases (up to 15% of their normal
pay).
80
George (2000) suggests that leadership involves the development of a
collective sense of goals, instilling in others both knowledge and appreciation of
certain work activities, and generating a sense of excitement, confidence, and
trust. These leadership elements are all present in a structured performance
management system. I would further argue that these elements all require a
leader to use their emotions to enhance how they communicate to subordinates
and assist in problem solving, which in turn would assist them to effectively
carry out the role of a leader.
An ability-based measure of emotional intelligence was used in this
study, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Version 2.0
(MSCEIT™ V2.0; Mayer et al., 2002). As discussed earlier the MSCEIT™ is
intended to measure the four dimensions of emotional intelligence as
postulated by Mayer and Salovey (1997), (a) perceiving emotion accurately, (b)
using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion, and (d)
managing emotion. The MSCEIT™ is based on the premise that emotional
intelligence involves problem solving with and about emotions (Mayer et al.,
2003).
I hypothesize that each branch of EI is important to leadership
effectiveness. Concerning the first dimension, a leader who is skilled in
perceiving emotion knows what people feel, reads people accurately, is good at
recognising their own feelings and can express their feelings appropriately
(Caruso & Salovey, 2004). It is argued that these skills are particularly
important as it allows a leader to accurately capture important social data
around them, in particular the ability to “read between the lines” when dealing
81
with people which in turn can impact the organisations bottom line. For
example, a leader who can accurately identify that their staff are confused or
not aligned to the new business strategy can alter their approach to ensure
business outcomes are met (Caruso and Wolfe, 2004).
The second of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-based
model, facilitating thought, is concerned with the ability to integrate basic
emotional experiences into one’s thought processes and to access, generate
and use emotions to facilitate problem solving, reasoning, decision-making, and
creativity (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). From a leadership perspective, emotions
direct a person’s attention to important changes, enables one to consider
multiple perspectives and different forms of reasoning are facilitated by
different kinds of moods. For example, if we turn to the area of sports, the
coach is often required to infuse the team with energy and positive thinking,
especially if they are considered the underdogs. In this positive mood, the
team is able to generate new ideas and enthusiasm to assist them to win the
game (Caruso & Wolfe, 2004). This analogy can be carried over to the
corporate world. Teams with positive moods are more likely to generate more
creative ideas, and teams with negative moods are less likely to make errors
when dealing with detailed work like accounts (Forgas, 2001).
The third EI branch is understanding emotions, or the ability to think
accurately about emotions. Understanding emotions is the ability to think
accurately about emotions. It involves being able to connect situations with
certain emotions. It also involves knowing that it is possible to feel several
possibly conflicting feelings in certain situations. Understanding what leads to
82
various emotions is a critical component of emotional intelligence. For instance,
annoyance and irritation can lead to rage if the cause of the irritation continues
and intensifies. Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is
important in our dealings with other people and in enhancing our self
understanding (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). In an organisational setting, effective
leadership would mean understanding subordinates, peers and clients' feelings
and emotions. Leaders who can understand the impact of an event on (for
example) the morale of their team, the political implications on a peer, or the
needs of a client, would be better equipped to predict the resulting emotions
and adjust their behaviours accordingly to maximise the chances of success.
The last branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-
based model is managing emotion. Managing emotions means that a person
feels their feelings, but then uses these feelings in a judicious way, rather than
acting on them without thinking. For example, anger (like many emotions) is a
misunderstood emotion. Anger is not necessarily a “bad” thing to feel. In fact,
anger can help to overcome adversity, bias and injustice. Anger can arise when
someone feels frustrated, cheated, or taken advantage of within the workplace.
Yet anger, if left to itself, can be blinding and cause people to act in negative,
or antisocial ways. Managing emotions relates to a person's ability to feel the
emotion, no matter what the emotion may be, but to then combine thinking
with this emotion in order to make the best possible decisions and take the
most effective actions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). This leads me to the first
hypothesis:-
83
H1 ability based emotional intelligence dimensions will be related to a
leader’s effectiveness in being able to achieve organisational goals as
reflected by higher ratings in achieving business outcomes and dealing
effectively with people.
This hypothesis extends the first study where the focus was only at the
broad level measure of emotional intelligence. This was due to the relatively
small sample of study one.
The MSCEIT™ was chosen as the primary EI measure as it has been
developed as an ability measure of EI and does not correlate highly with
personality (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Dawda & Hart, 2000; MacCann et al., 2003).
As discussed in chapter two the MSCEIT™ was found to show reasonable
reliability and support for the dimensional structure postulated by Mayer and
Salovey (1990) of emotional intelligence (Mayer et al., 2003). It is
distinguishable from well-studied measures of personality and well-being and
has been reported to predict important life criteria such as drug use, alcohol
use and academic achievement (Brackett and Mayer, 2003), performance on a
cognitive decision-making task (see Day & Carroll, 2003), low levels of social
deviance (Brackett et al., 2003) and higher levels of intelligence (MacCann et
al., 2003). These results suggest that the MSCEIT™ is reliable and valid in
measuring something other then personality and well being, and relates to
important outcomes. Following from study one I re-examine the relationship
between ability-based EI with both personality and cognitive intelligence. This
leads me to my second and third hypothesis, which is identical to study one.
84
H2 an ability-based measure of EI is distinct from the Big Five personality
factors.
H3 an ability-based measure of EI is related to IQ but distinguishable
from it.
This study also looked at the relative contribution of a self-report EI
measure. There is growing research to suggest that mixed models or self-
report measures of EI correlate significantly with personality (Ciarrochi et al.,
2000; Ciarrochi et al., 2001; MacCann et al., 2004. Thus the fourth hypothesis
is:-
H4 Self-report EI measures will correlate substantiality with personality
factors, in particular the Big Five personality domains as measured by
already well-established personality instruments.
Returning to notion that with respect to leadership research, the true
test perhaps lays not whether EI is conceptualised via either an ability or mixed
approach, but more with the ability of EI to predict over and above already well
established constructs such as conscientious or analytical intelligence (Caruso et
al., 2006). Chapter two firmly established the differences between ability-based
EI models and those defined as mixed model of EI. Ability-based models are
seen as being related to intelligence and quite distinct from personality, where
85
as mixed models of EI overlap substantially with personality. In this chapter I
also offer theoretical reasons why an ability-based model of EI would be related
to leadership. Thus my final hypothesis rest with the premise that:
H5 Self-report EI measures will show less incremental validity than
ability-based measures of EI, once we control for traditional personality
and cognitive reasoning measures in predicting leadership effectiveness.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 122 managers from a large Australian Public Service
organisation. Managers who did not complete the main battery of measures or
whose performance ratings were not accessible were then excluded leaving a
final sample of 117 managers (56 men, 60 women, 1 unreported; mean age
40.54, SD = 8.95).
Participants’ mean tenure within the organisation was approximately 15
years. The level of qualifications amongst the sample was quite impressive
with approximately 32% reported to have completed a masters degree or
higher; 22% reported to have completed a postgraduate diploma or certificate;
33% reported to have completed an undergraduate degree and 4% reported to
have completed some form of associate diploma or certificate.
The sample is also well representing of the Australian Public Service
(APS) in terms of age and gender with a Sate of the Service report by the
86
Australian Public Service Commission (2004b) showing that the average age
across all APS organisations is 41 years, with woman representing 53% of the
workforce.
Procedure
Participants were administered a battery of psychological tests that assessed
personality, reasoning ability, and both an ability and mixed models of EI.
Participants self reported their performance management results (i.e., their
scores on achieving business outcomes and dealing effectively with people). In
exchange for their participation, individuals were provided with a confidential
feedback report on their results on each of the instruments (refer to appendix c
for an example of a report).
Materials
The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) v 2.0
The MSCEIT™ v.2.0 is an ability measure of EI requiring participants to
complete a set of tasks associated with either perceiving emotion, using
emotion, understanding emotional information or managing emotions (Mayer et
al., 2002). It contains 141 items which are broken down into eight tasks, which
are further divided into four branches of abilities including (a) perceiving
emotion, (b) using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion,
and (d) managing emotions. The MSCEIT™ can be scored via one of two
methods - the “general consensus” method or the “expert consensus”
approach. For this study the general consensus method was employed as it
uses a larger normative sample.
87
In regards to the coefficient alphas, the results reflect moderate to high
internal consistencies for each of the four branch level scores with reliabilities of
α = 0.67 for the full scale, α = 0.75 for managing emotions, α = 0.70 for
understanding emotion, α =0.78 for using emotion, and α = 0.76 for perceiving
emotion. These values are consistent with the research to date on the
MSCEIT™, which has also shown promising validity studies across a diverse
range of psychological constructs (see Palmer et al., in press; Mayer et al.,
2000; Mayer et al., 2003; Roberts et al., 2001).
The Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT)
Given space limitations in this study, I could not include every self-report
measure of EI that exists in the literature. I thus sought a measure that was
representative of self-report measures and mixed models of EI in general. The
SUEIT was developed after an extensive factor analytic study involving five of
the predominant measures of EI (Palmer 2003; Palmer & Stough 2001). Four
of these were commonly used self-report measures of EI including the BarOn
Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997), the Trait Meta-Mood Scale
(Salovey et al., 1995), the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II (TAS-20;
Bagby, Taylor & Parker, 1994a,b), and the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS,
Schutte et al., 1997). In addition to representing a number of central EI
dimensions, the SUEIT also had the advantage of focusing on EI in the
workplace, rather than general EI.
The SUEIT consists of 65 items that ask participants to indicate the
extent to which a particular statement is true of the way they typically think,
feel and act at work (on a five-point scale: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 =
88
sometimes, 4 = usually, 5 = always). The SUEIT report provides an overall EI
score that indicates a participant’s general workplace EI, and five sub-scale
scores as outline in chapter 3.
The SUEIT EI model bears considerable overlap with other mixed models
and measures of EI (Palmer 2003; Palmer & Stough 2001). For example, one
of the most popular theories within the EI mixed model paradigm is the
framework of EI put forward by Goleman (1998 & 2001). Goleman (2001)
defines EI as (1) the capacity to recognize emotions in oneself (self-awareness;
(2) the capacity to regulate emotions in the self (self-management); (3) the
capacity to recognize emotions in others (social awareness); and (4) the
capacity to regulate emotions in others (relationship management). Goleman’s
model appears to fit with the SUEIT taxonomic model of EI above. Further
evidence to support the notion that the SUEIT™ is a mixed model of EI lay with
the questions used to measure EI that appear to be somewhat similar to
questions used to examine the comprehensive Five-Factor Model of personality.
For example, the Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO Personality Inventory Revised
has one such item as “I am always able to keep my feelings under control”.
This compares with the SUEIT item of “I find it difficult to control strong
emotions”. There are many other items within the SUEIT that appear to share
considerable content overlap with the NEO PI-R items (David, 2003).
These results reflect high internal consistencies for each of the five sub-
scales (emotional recognition and expression α = 0.74; emotions direct
cognition α = 0.69; understanding of emotions external α = 0.78; emotional
management α = 0.73 and emotional control α = 0.76), and total SUEIT EI
89
score (α = 0.72). These results generally support the published coefficients
alphas for the SUEIT, which also reflect a high degree of internal consistency.
There is also growing research to support the SUEIT’s discriminate validity with
self-reported transformational leadership style (see Palmer and Stough, 2001;
Palmer et al., 2003; Palmer et al., 2001).
Measuring Personality via the 16PF
Participants completed the well validated Sixteen Personality Factor
(16PF) questionnaire (Conn & Rieke, 1998). The 16PF was discussed in chapter
three.
Measuring Cognitive Ability - Factor B Reasoning
The 16PF primary factor B examines what is described as Reasoning.
Factor B is generally used as a quick measure of general mental ability due to
its brevity and moderately high relationship with measures of intelligence (Conn
& Rieke, 1988). The scale measures three areas of general reasoning ability,
namely verbal, numerical, and logical reasoning in a 15-item scale. The scale
has an overall coefficient alpha of .80 and has been shown to correlate with
other general ability measures such as the Information Inventory (r = .61) and
the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (r = .51).
90
Measuring Leadership Effectiveness via an Annual Appraisal
The Australia Public Service performance-based pay system involves a
combination of both expectancy and goal-setting theories. Expectancy theory
comprises three central themes, that is an employees understanding of their
performance goals and belief they possesses the abilities to achieve these
goals. Secondly, an employee believes that if they perform to the level
specified by their performance goals, substantive performance rewards will be
forthcoming and thirdly, the performance rewards are believed to be
worthwhile to justify the extra effort (O’Donnell & O’Brian, 2000).
Goal-setting theory maintains that a merit pay system will improve
employee performance where goals are specified, challenging and accepted by
employees during their performance appraisal process (O’Donnell & O’Brian,
2000).
The annual appraisal is a formal feedback discussion between a manager
and an executive about work performance. The purpose of the annual
appraisal is to review an executive’s performance against their business plans,
sometimes referred to as performance and development agreement (PDA).
There are two focuses placed on the annual appraisal: (1) Has the individual
attained organisational outcomes or what has been achieved, and (2) How has
the individual guided and motivated people in reaching these business
outcomes? Examples of the attainment of organisational outcomes include
whether occupational health premiums have been decreased, whether external
charter standards have been met, whether the specific area has delivered on
key government initiatives, or whether tax revenue targets have been achieved.
91
This section of the PDA is always expressed in terms of both deliverable and
measurable targets.
The focus on guiding and motivating people requires leaders to
demonstrate core leadership behaviours as outlined by the Australian Public
Service Commission (APSC) Leadership Capability Framework. Figure 2 displays
this framework.
Figure 2. Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) Leadership Capability
Framework
92
The framework has five core leadership capabilities: (1) Shapes strategic
thinking (i.e., someone who inspires a sense of purpose and direction; focuses
strategically; harnesses information and opportunities; and shows judgment,
intelligence and commonsense); (2) Achieves results (i.e., someone who builds
organisational capability and responsiveness; marshals professional expertise;
ensures closure and delivers on intended results; and steers and implements
changes and deals with uncertainty); (3) Cultivates productive working
relationships (i.e., someone who nurtures internal and external relationships;
values individual differences and diversity; guides, mentors and develops
people; and facilitates co-operation and partnerships); (4) Communicates with
influence (i.e., someone who communicates clearly; listens, understands and
adapts to an audience; and negotiates persuasively) and (5) Exemplifies
personal drive and integrity (i.e., someone who engages with risk and shows
personal courage; commits to action; displays resilience; and demonstrates
self-awareness and a commitment to personal development).
To assist in the labelling of each element of the PDA, the first section of
the PDA will be described as Business Outcomes Achieved, whereas the
second component will be described as Effective Interpersonal Behaviours
as it aligns itself with the APSC leadership framework. Both the business
outcomes achieved and effective interpersonal behaviours are initially rated on
a five point scale (1 to 5) by the participant’s direct manager. The meaning of
the five ratings discussed earlier are repeated here:- (5) Exceptional -
Performance well beyond expectations, breaking new ground, producing
outcomes of considerable value to the organisation, often quite unanticipated;
93
(4) Superior - Achievement has been consistently high on the range of
indicators, behaviours, capabilities and any leadership role throughout the
financial year; (3) Fully Effective - Good and meritorious achievement. Has
achieved standard as detailed in performance agreement for both business
outputs and behaviours; (2) Borderline Performance - has slipped below
standard as detailed in performance agreement for either business outputs
and/or behaviours; and (1) Unsatisfactory - Continued failure to achieve
expected standard.
An important integrity aspect of the appraisal process is the fact that the
ratings for both business outcomes achieved and leadership behaviours go
through a series of checks before they are finalised (refer to figure 3 for an
illustration of the performance management process). An individual executive
will first collate evidence about his or her performance, which is further
supplemented by the executive’s direct manager who also collates evidence on
their performance. The aim of this is to identify if specific business targets
have been met. During the appraisal discussion, both the executive and direct
manager will review business objectives and outcomes, review the executive
behaviour against the leadership framework and agree on interim ratings for
both the business outcomes achieved and alignment of leadership behaviours
components.
A third party committee then moderates the interim ratings, and
generally, individuals displaying superior or exceptional performances are highly
scrutinised by both department and corporate assurance processes. The
importance of the corporate assurance process becomes particularly evident
94
when one considers that executive directors are entitled to performance pay
should their individual performance ratings reach a certain level. The higher
the performance ratings, the higher the performance based pay they are
entitled to receive. There is also strong evidence to suggest that correlations
between managers and peers are high (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988).
Manager
Executive Officer
Specific targetsbeen met?
Independently collect andevidence
Independently collect andevidence
PDA Discussion
Review original objectives & outcomes
Review executive behaviours against leadership framework
Review any learning & development plans
Reviewevidence
Agree on interim ratings
Performanceratings
What & How
Manager -Employee
Corporate Assurance Committee Departments PerformanceAssurance Committee
Final Ratings
Feed
back
to
the
Exec
utiv
e O
ffic
er
Figure 3. Illustration of the Performance Management Cycle
Consistent with the validity of this rating procedure, the business
outcomes achieved and effective interpersonal behaviours components have
been shown to correlate significantly with internal peer 360 performance
ratings, r = .52 (Rosete, 2004). In addition, past research has supported the
validity of this sort of rating system (McEvoy and Beatty, 1989; Hogan et al.,
95
1994; Management Advisory Committee 2001; Corporate Leadership Council,
2002). For example, McEvoy and Beatty (1989) examined the predictive
validity of performance evaluations compared to assessment centre ratings and
concluded that performance ratings were as effective as assessment centre
data in forecasting performance seven years later.
Based on data from 437 publicly traded companies, McDonald and Smith
(1995) demonstrated that companies with performance management programs
outperformed companies without such programs on a wide range of financial
and productivity measures. For example, higher profits, higher stock value,
high sales growth per employee and lower real growth in numbers of
employees. This is strong evidence to support the notion that performance
ratings are a valid tool for measuring leadership effectiveness.
96
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Internal Reliabilities
Ability-Based EI - The MSCEIT™
Overall, the raw MSCEIT™ sample mean of .49 (SD = .05) scored similarly to
the general consensus scoring normative sample (M = .51; SD = .06) as
reported for the MSCEIT™ user’s manual (Mayer, et al, 2002). In all four of the
branch level scores and for the overall EI score, the mean scores fell within the
average range (see table 12).
In regards to the coefficient alphas, the results reflect moderate to high
internal consistencies for each of the four branch level scores and total
MSCEIT™ EI score, with the highest in the understanding emotion branch level
score. These results are generally lower then the published coefficients alphas
for the MSCEIT™. Further coefficient alpha analysis was carried out on the
inter-correlations among the five sub-scales and total MSCEIT™ EI score (see
Table 13).
In a review of the correlations between the four-branch level scores of
the MSCEIT™ and the total MSCEIT™ EI score, we find average to high
correlations. This is expected as the total MSCEIT™ EI is comprised of each of
the respective branch level scores and in line with what is reported in the user’s
manual (Mayer, et al, 2002). Table 13 also shows that there is generally a
positive manifold of correlations between the sub-scales themselves. The sizes
of these correlations are generally lower than that reported in the user’s manual
97
(Mayer, et al, 2002). Overall, the size of these correlations suggests that the
branch level scales are distinct yet related facets, and that the MSCEIT™ is
measuring a unifactoral construct of EI.
98
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for the MSCEIT™
2 Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2002
99
Table 13
Pearson Correlations among the MSCEIT™ Branch Levels
MSCEIT™ Perceiving
Emotion
Using Emotion Understanding
Emotions
Managing
Emotions
Emotional
Intelligence
Perceiving Emotion (–) .48** .16 .26** .79**
Using Emotion (–) .19* .34** .74**
Understanding Emotions (–) .38** .45**
Managing Emotions (–) .54**
Emotional Intelligence (–)
* p < .05, ** p < .01
100
Self-Report EI - The SUEIT
Descriptive statistics for the SUEIT EI score, and five sub-scales are presented
in Table 14. Overall, the sample mean SUEIT EI of 218.83 (SD = 22.28) scored
similarly to the normative sample (M = 226.75; SD = 17.25) as reported for the
workplace SUEIT (Palmer and Stough, 2001).
In four of the five sub-scales, and for the overall EI score, the mean
percentile scores fell within the average range, whereas the Emotions Direct
Cognition (EDC) subscale fell within the low range. The EDC subscales measure
the “extent to which emotions and emotional knowledge is incorporated in
decision making and/or problem solving” (p.6.). The results indicate that
generally, executives within this organisation may tend to exhibit a very
analytical or technically oriented decision-making style where decisions at work
are predominantly made on facts and technical information (Palmer and
Stough, 2003).
In regards to the coefficient alphas, the results reflect high internal
consistencies for each of the five sub-scales and total SUEIT EI score, with the
highest in the EDC sub-scale. These results generally support the published
coefficients alphas for the SUEIT, which also reflect a high degree of internal
consistency. Further coefficient alpha analysis was carried out on the inter-
correlations among the five sub-scales and total SUEIT EI score (see Table 15).
In a review of the correlations between the five sub-scales of the SUEIT
and the total SUEIT EI score, we find very high correlations. This is expected
as the total SUEIT EI is comprised of each of the respective sub-scales and in
101
line with what is reported for the workplace SUEIT (Palmer and Stough, 2001).
Table 15 also shows that there is generally a positive manifold of correlations
between the sub-scales themselves. The size of these correlations is generally
higher than that reported for the workplace SUEIT (Palmer and Stough, 2001).
In particular, there is a substantial correlation between the Understanding
Others Emotions and Emotional Management with the sub-scales sharing
approximately 36% of the variance in this data set. Higher inter-correlation
was found between Emotional Control and Emotional Management suggesting
that these scales share approximately 49% of the variance in this data set.
102
Table 14
Descriptive Statistics for the SUEIT Factors
3 Palmer and Stough, 2001
103
Table 15
Pearson Correlations among the SUEIT Factors
SUEIT Emo Rec Und Emo Emo Cog Emo Mgt Emo Con EI Score
Emotional Recognition & Expression (–) .45** .36** .41** .30** .72**
Understanding Others’ Emotions (–) .22* .60** .51** .84**
Emotions Direct Cognition (–) .10 -.08 .48**
Emotional Management (–) .70** .78**
Emotional Control (–) .64**
Emotional Intelligence Score (–)
Emo Rec = Emotional Recognition and Expression; Und Emo = Understanding Others Emotions; Emo Cog = Emotions Direct Cognition; Emo
Mgt = Emotional Management; Emo Con = Emotional Control. * p < .05, ** p < .01
104
Personality – The 16PF
Descriptive statistics for the 16PF primary factors are presented in table 16. For
the primary scales, mean scores between 4 and 6 indicate normal average
range of functioning. Overall, the sixteen primary scales tended to be between
4 and 6 with minimum and maximum scores generally being between 1 and 10.
These results indicate that the population was in fact quite normal, with
proportional numbers of executives exhibiting the breadth of personality
dimensions one would be expected in any normal population. The exception
was Reasoning which had a mean of 7.5 (SD = 1.5).
Table 17 shows the correlations between primary factors. The majority of
primary factors were correlated at alpha levels of .01 or .05 with Extraversion
with the exception of the correlations between Emotional Stability, Rule
Consciousness, Sensitivity, Abstractedness, Apprehension, and Perfectionism,
which were not significant. Other primary factors that correlated with
significant numbers of other primary factors at alpha levels of .01 or .05 include
Tension, Self Reliance, Openness to Change, Privateness, Social Boldness and
Liveliness. With the exception of Extraversion, no other primary factors
correlated with the primary factor of Reasoning.
105
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics for the 16PF primary Factors
Primary Factor Min Max Mean SD
Warmth 1 10 4.52 1.93
Reasoning 3 10 7.5 1.50
Emotional Stability 1 9 5.27 1.84
Dominance 1 10 4.87 2.03
Liveliness 1 9 4.80 2.13
Consciousness 1 8 4.21 1.73
Social Boldness 1 9 4.24 2.04
Sensitivity 2 10 6.19 1.98
Vigilance 2 10 5.19 1.73
Abstractedness 2 10 5.98 2.21
Privateness 1 10 6.10 2.32
Apprehension 2 10 5.83 1.96
Openness to Change 1 10 5.99 2.02
Self Reliance 3 10 6.73 2.17
Perfectionism 1 8 4.16 1.66
Tension 2 10 6.45 1.84
106
Table 17
Pearson Correlations among the 16PF Primary Factors
War Reas Emot Domi Live Rule Soci Sens Vigi Abst Priv Appr Open Self Perf Tens
Warmth (–) -.19* .11 .23* .41** -.00 .55** .16 -.31** -.01 -.56** -.03 .33** -.48** -.18 -.21*
Reasoning (–) .09 .04 -.09 -.16 -.14 .05 -.17 .09 .02 .03 .15 .03 -.12 -.09
Emotional Stab. (–) .36** .18 .10 .30** -.20* -.21* .27** -.30** .59** .20* -.29** .22* -.45**
Dominance (–) .33** -.04 .48** -.12 -.08 -.06 -.31** -.35** .40** -.20* .07 -.04
Liveliness (–) -.07 .51** -.13 -.20* -.19* -.52** -.23* .22* -.57** -.12 -.16
Rule (–) -.01 -.13 -.14 -.18 -.03 .08 -.24* -.12 .39** -.15
Social Boldness (–) -.05 -.20* -.15 -.58** -.34** .32** -.51** -.03 -.23*
Sensitivity (–) .07 .32** .01 .20* .08 .21* -.07 .27**
Vigilance (–) .14 .38** -.03 -.08 .44** .17 .23*
Abstractedness (–) .08 .16 .40** .29** -.38** .11
Privateness (–) .12 -.27** .60** .13 .21*
Apprehension (–) -.27** .17 -.19* .29**
Openness (–) -.20* -.17 -.27**
Self Reliance (–) .11 .33**
Perfectionism (–) -.02
Tension (–)
107
Warm = Warmth; Reas = Reasoning; Emot = Emotional Stability; Domi = Dominance; Live = Liveliness; Rule = Rule Consciousness; Soci =
Social Boldness; Sens = Sensitivity; Vigi = Vigilance; Abst = Abstractedness; Priv = privateness; Appr = Apprehension; Open = Openness to
Change; Self = Self Reliance; Perf = Perfectionism; Tens = Tension. * p < .05, ** p < .01
108
Cognitive Ability – Factor B
The Reasoning scale of the 16PF had a mean of 7.5 (SD = 1.5). The relatively
high mean in this study suggests that as a group, the participants are generally
more intelligent, brighter, and have higher general mental capacity than the
normal population, operating at the 84 percentile.
Correlational Analyses
Leadership Effectiveness
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine if any relationship existed
between the total EI score of the MSCEIT™ with both business outcomes
achieved and effective interpersonal behaviour ratings (see Table 18). The
results indicated that higher ability EI was associated with better performance.
In addition, all of the EI subscales correlated with effective interpersonal
behaviour performance ratings (perceiving emotion r = .44, p<.01; using
emotion r = .26, p<.01; understanding emotion r = .24, p<.01; and managing
emotion r = .24, p<.01), and two subscales, perceiving (r = .26, p<.05) and
managing emotions (r = .17, p<.05) correlated with the business outcomes
achieved performance ratings. These results support hypothesis one that
ability-based EI is related to a leader’s effectiveness in being able to achieve
organisational goals through the obtainment of higher performance.
In contrast, no significant correlations were found between total SUEIT
EI scores and any of the performance management measures. Only the sub-
branch factors of emotional management (r = .22, p<.05) and emotional
109
control (r = .24, p<.05) correlated significantly with one aspect of the
performance rating, namely an individual’s alignment to effective interpersonal
behaviours.
There were no significant correlations between the five global factors or
sixteen primary factors with performance ratings.
Table 18
Correlations Coefficients between the MSCEIT™, SUEIT, Personality, Reasoning
Ability and Performance Management Ratings
BOA
Performance
Ratings
EIB
Performance
Ratings
Ability-Based EI (i.e., MSCEIT™)
Emotional intelligence .26** .52**
Perceiving emotions .19* .44**
Using emotions .15 .26**
Understanding emotions .07 .32**
Managing emotions .17* .24**
Self-reported EI (i.e., SUEIT)
Emotional intelligence .09 .14
Emotional recognition .07 .02
Understanding others .00 -.00
Emotions direct cognition .03 .09
Emotional management .09 .22*
Emotional control .18 .24*
Personality Factors
Warmth -.02 -.00
Emotional Stability .13 .10
Dominance .12 -.00
Liveliness .03 -.09
110
Consciousness -.10 -.11
Social Boldness .02 -.06
Sensitivity -.07 -.11
Vigilance -.21 -.19
Abstractedness .21 .09
Privateness -.19 -.13
Apprehension -.07 -.07
Openness to Change .20 .13
Self Reliance -.13 -.09
Perfectionism -.06 -.14
Tension -.05 -.12
Extraversion .08 .02
Anxiety -.14 -.14
Tough Mindedness -.12 -.02
Independence .12 .00
Self Control -.15 -.08
Cognitive Intelligence
Factor B Reasoning -.00 .12
BOA = Business Outcomes Achieved; EIB = Effective Interpersonal Behaviours. * p <
.05; ** p < .01. A bonferroni adjustment was undertaken for the 16 personality items.
Values at the .05 and .01 level were not treated as significant for the personality
variable.
111
Emotional Intelligence and Personality
Self report measures of emotional intelligence – SUEIT.
In respect to the SUEIT EI measure and the 16 PF, Table 19 and 20 show
significant correlations between many of the global and primary personality
measures and the total EI score, as well as many of the five subscales of the
SUEIT. This supports the fourth hypothesis in that self-report EI measures
correlate significantly with many of the primary and global personality factors as
measured through the 16PF.
112
Table 19
Correlations Between 16PF Global Factors and SUEIT
Personality
Factors
Emotional
Recognition
Understanding
Others
Emotions
Direct
Emotional
Management
Emotional
Control
Emotional
Intelligence Extraversion 0.57** 0.27** 0.34** 0.43** 0.21* 0.52**
Anxiety -0.18* -0.16 -0.00 -0.45** -0.43** 0.35**
Tough -0.34** -0.18* -0.36** -0.05 -0.08 -0.29**
Independence 0.42** 0.29** 0.24** 0.32** 0.24** 0.43**
Self Control -0.22* -0.04 -0.22** 0.13 0.14 -0.06
* p < .05, ** p < .01
113
Table 20 Correlations Between 16PF Primary Factors and SUEIT
Personality
Factors
Emotional
Recognition
Understanding
Others Emotions
Emotions Direct
Cognition
Emotional
Management
Emotional Control Emotional
Intelligence
Warmth 0.44** 0.22** 0.45** 0.26** 0.08 0.42**
Reasoning 0.10 -0.07 -0.02 -0.09 0.15 0.01
Emotional Stability 0.21* 0.11 -0.08 0.42** 0.39** 0.29**
Dominance 0.39** 0.25** 0.21* 0.23** 0.21* 0.37**
Liveliness 0.34** 0.23** 0.10 0.29** 0.07 0.29**
Consciousness -0.11 0.01 -0.02 0.12 0.15 0.04
Social Boldness 0.45** 0.34** 0.24** 0.45** 0.31** 0.51**
Sensitivity 0.22* 0.12 0.21* -0.04 0.03 0.15
Vigilance -0.38** -0.12 -0.20 -0.19 -0.28** -0.34**
Abstractedness 0.00 -0.03 0.15 -0.23* -0.09 -0.05
Privateness -0.65** -0.21* -0.31** -0.40** -0.20* -0.50**
Apprehension -0.06 -0.18 0.06 -0.33* -0.23* -0.21*
Openness to Change 0.30** 0.19* 0.24** 0.21* 0.17 0.32**
Self Reliance -0.38** -0.15 -0.28** -0.35** -0.22* -0.39**
Perfectionism -0.19* 0.02 -0.29** 0.15 0.11 -0.06
Tension 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.30** -0.35** 0.19*
* p < .05, ** p < .01
114
Ability measures of emotional intelligence - MSCEIT™
Table 21 significant correlations were found between total EI score and anxiety
(r = -.28). At the four branched level (see table 22) small correlations were
found between vigilance (r =-0.26) and apprehension (r = -0.21) and
perceiving emotion at p < 0.01. Similarly, emotional stability (r = 0.15, p <
0.05), social boldness (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) and vigilance (r = -0.22, p < 0.01)
correlated with managing emotion. Only reasoning (r = 0.30, p < 0.05)
correlated significantly with understanding emotion and apprehension (r = -
.024) with using emotion. These results support previous research and the
second hypothesis, which showed that MSCEIT™ scores are distinguishable
from personality scores (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2003).
Table 21
Correlations Between 16PF Global Factors and MSCEIT™
Personality
Factors
Emotional
Intelligence
Perceiving
Emotions
Using
Emotions
Understanding
Emotions
Managing
Emotions
Extraversion .15 .06 .17 .10 .22
Anxiety -.28** -.22* -.24* -.06 -.28
Tough Mindedness -.07 .05 -.04 -.16 .14
Independence .08 -.07 .10 .08 .18
Self Control .01 .07 -.02 -.19 .00
* p < .05, ** p < .01
115
Table 22
Correlations Between 16PF Primary Factors and MSCEIT™
Personality Factors Emotional
Intelligence
Perceiving
Emotions
Using
Emotions
Understanding
Emotions
Managing
Emotions
Warmth .09 .03 .12 .08 .16
Reasoning .11 .12 -.07 .30** -.02
Emotional Stability .18 .14 .18 -.00 .15*
Dominance .08 -.03 .07 .07 .13
Liveliness .06 -.00 .12 .08 .13
Consciousness -.07 .00 -.07 -.19 -.01
Social Boldness .12 .00 .15 .09 .26*
Sensitivity .05 .01 .00 .10 .00
Vigilance -.25** -.26** -.09 -.11 -.22**
Abstractedness -.06 -.15 -.05 .16 .04
Privateness -.20 -.11 -.15 -.17 .23
Apprehension -.24 -.21** -.24** .00 -.22
Openness to Change .09 -.01 .07 .09 .17
Self Reliance -.09 -.09 -.15 .04 -.14
Perfectionism .03 .01 .01 -.08 .11
Tension -.11 -.03 -.13 -.05 -.22
116
Emotional Intelligence and Reasoning Intelligence
In respects to reasoning ability table 23 shows that the ability EI sub-scale
understanding emotion was positively related to reasoning scale. The results
provide further support to the notion that the ability EI measure is tapping into
the intelligence domain and therefore supporting the third hypothesis.
Table 24 shows that the self-report EI measure did relate to
reasoning ability.
Self Report Measures of EI versus Ability Measures of EI
In examining the relationship between the SUEIT and MSCEIT™, it appears that
the SUEIT subscales of Emotional Management and Emotional Control correlate
modestly at either the .01 or .05 levels with the MSCEIT™ four branch levels
(see table 25).
117
Table 23
Correlations Between Reasoning Ability and MSCEIT™
Cognitive Factors Emotional
Intelligence
Perceiving
Emotions
Using Emotions Understanding
Emotions
Managing
Emotions
Reasoning .11 .14 -.07 .31** -.03
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 24
Correlations Between Reasoning Ability and SUEIT
Cognitive
Factors
Emotional
Recognition &
Understanding
Others
Emotions
Direct
Emotional
Management
Emotional
Control
Emotional
Intelligence
Reasoning .10 .07 -.02 -.09 .15 .01
118
Table 25
Correlations Between EI Measures (Ability Versus Self-Report)
Emotional
Recognition &
Expression
Understanding
Others
Emotions
Emotions
Direct
Cognition
Emotional
Management
Emotional
Control
SUEIT EI
Perceiving Emotions 0.12 0.06 -0.01 0.27** 0.33** 0.21*
Using Emotions -0.00 0.16 -0.00 0.21* 0.20* 0.16
Understanding Emotions 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.19* 0.25** 0.20*
Managing Emotions 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.33** 0.28** 0.27**
MSCEIT EI 0.13 0.15 0.05 0.35** 0.37** 0.30**
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
119
119
Predicting Leadership Effectiveness
Hierarchical Regression Analyses
It has already been established there is a relationship between ability-based EI
and performance, although the predictive validity was examined in study one
the incremental validity of EI in predicting leadership outcomes is yet to be
determined. I next carried out a series of hierarchical regression analyses in
order to determine if ability measures of EI related to performance after
controlling for Big Five personality factors and reasoning ability. Reasoning
ability was entered in Step one, the five global personality factors on Step two
and ability EI were entered in step three.
Table 26 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analyses with
the achieve business outcomes performance measure. The ability EI model
was a significant predictor of the “business outcomes achieved” ratings, after
controlling for both reasoning and the Big Five personality dimensions (β = .24,
p < .01; R2Change = .05, p < .01). Also, it wasn’t until the EI measure was
entered into the equation that a significant model was achieved, F (7, 112) =
2.31, p < .05.
120
120
Table 26
Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Ability-Based EI with the Business Outcomes
Achieved Performance measure
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F
1 Reasoning .00 .00 .00
2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .08 .08 1.89
3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness,
MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence
.13 .05 6.22*
* p < .05.
121
In respects to the self-report measure of EI, table 27 shows the results
of the hierarchical regression analyses with the achieve business outcomes
performance measure. When the SUEIT EI score was introduced into step 3 no
change in the variance occurred (R2change = .00, FChange = .01), F (7,108) =
1.59, p > .05. The addition did not increase the amount of variance in the
model. Only the second hierarchical step produce a significant model.
122
Table 27
Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Self-Report EI with the Business Outcomes
Achieved Performance measure
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F
1 Reasoning .00 .00 .01
2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .10 .01 2.24*
3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT
Emotional Intelligence
.10 .00 .01
* p < .05.
123
The results of the first two hierarchical regressions support hypothesis 5
in that the self-report EI measures showed no incremental validity, whereas the
ability-based measures of EI accounted for some of the variance once we
control for traditional personality and cognitive reasoning measures in
predicting a leaders ability to achieve business outcomes. The next set of
hierarchical regression examines the second element of the performance
system that is an executive’s ability to demonstrate effective interpersonal
behaviours.
Similar to the first set of regressions reasoning ability was entered in
Step one, the five global personality factors on Step two and ability EI or self-
report EI were entered in step three. Table 28 shows the results of the
hierarchical regression analyses with the effective interpersonal behaviour
performance measure. The ability EI model was a significant predictor of the
“effective interpersonal behaviour” ratings, after controlling for both reasoning
and the Big Five personality dimensions (β = .49, p < .01; R2change = .22, p <
.01). Also, it wasn’t until the EI measure was entered into the equation that a
significant model was achieved, F (7, 112) = 5.86, p < .01.
124
Table 28
Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Ability-Based EI with the Effective Interpersonal
Behaviour Performance measure
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F
1 Reasoning .02 .02 1.71
2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .06 .05 1.06
3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness,
MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence
.28 .22 31.97**
** p < .01.
125
125
Table 29 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analyses with
the effective interpersonal behaviour performance measure. When the SUEIT
EI score was introduced into step 3 a small change in the variance occurred
(R2change = .01, FChange = 1.60), F (7,108) = 1.44, p > .05. The addition of a
self-report EI only managed to increase about 1 per cent of variance in the
model. However, all three hierarchical steps failed to produce a significant
model.
126
Table 29
Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Self-Report EI with the Effective Interpersonal
Behaviour Performance measure
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F
1 Reasoning .02 .02 2.01
2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .08 .06 1.24
3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT
Emotional Intelligence
.09 .01 1.60
127
The results of the previous two hierarchical regressions further support
hypothesis 5 in that the self-report EI measures showed less incremental
validity than ability-based measures of EI which account for an additional 22
per cent in the variance, once we control for traditional personality and
cognitive reasoning measures in predicting leadership effectiveness.
An interesting theoretical question is whether ability-based EI can predict
above and beyond self-report EI measures if entered into the same regression
equation with both personality and reasoning. A potential criticism is that as
self-report EI measure is related to other independent variables, there
potentially could be an undetected suppression effect. In the next set of
regression equations, reasoning ability is entered in step one, Big Five
personality factors in step two, the self-report EI measure in step three and
ability EI were entered in step four. This was undertaken for both performance
measures (i.e., achieves business outcomes and effective interpersonal
behaviours). Tables 30 and 31 show the results of these analyses.
In both regressions analyses the ability EI model was a significant
predictor of both performance measure ratings, even after we control for an
additional independent variable in self-report EI. Predicting an additional 5
percent of the variance in the achieve business outcomes performance measure
and 18 in the effective interpersonal behaviour performance measure.
128
Table 30
Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors, Self-Report EI and Ability-Based EI with the Business
Outcomes Achieved Performance measure
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F
1 Reasoning .00 .00 .01
2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .10 .10 2.24*
3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT
Emotional Intelligence
.10 .00 .01
4 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT
Emotional Intelligence, MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence
.15 .05 5.99**
* p < .05, ** P < .01.
129
Table 31
Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors, Self-Report EI and Ability-Based EI with the Effective
Interpersonal Behaviours Performance measure
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F
1 Reasoning .02 .02 2.01
2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .08 .06 1.24
3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT
Emotional Intelligence
.09 .01 1.60
4 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT
Emotional Intelligence, MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence
.27 .18 24.43**
** p < .01.
130
Discussion
The findings suggest that the managers who achieve the best business
outcomes are the ones who score higher on an EI ability test, and manifest
certain personality characteristics (e.g., high openness, low vigilance, and low
privateness). Importantly, the ability measure of EI was able to predict
effective leadership over and above well-established workplace measures, such
as reasoning ability and personality. In contrast, self-reported measures of EI
had little to offer over and above these well-established measures. These
results may have important implications for how we engage in the performance
management, selection, and development of executives.
Self-reported EI
The SUIET tended to correlate moderately with personality, especially with
extraversion, anxiety, and independence. These results are consistent with
evidence that suggests self-report measures of EI overlap with well-established
personality traits or behaviours (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Ciarrochi et al., 2001;
MacCann et al., 2004).
On a practical level, these results suggest that self-report EI may not add
significant incremental value over personality in predicting leadership success,
although previous research has shown it can predict quality of life outcomes,
like life satisfaction and depression (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Austin et al.,
2005ab). The SUEIT failed to correlate with a leader’s ability to achieve
business outcomes. This was one of two key performance measures used
131
within the workplace to measure leadership effectiveness. However, while the
SUEIT did correlate with the effective interpersonal behaviours performance
measure at a subscale level, the regression model with personality and
reasoning ability was found to be non-significant.
With limited prospects of either predictive or incremental validity there
appears to be little empirical justification for the use of self-report SUEIT
measures in the selection of executives (Landy, 2005; MacCann et al., 2004).
This is an important point as personality tests and self-report EI measures are
often used in the recruitment of executives and general staff. With minimum or
no incremental validity, and with considerably less predictive validity than
personality measures, there is little to justify the expense and time dedicated to
using the self-report SUEIT measures in the selection of executive staff.
In looking more closely at the self-report EI subscales, the results
suggest that at least two of the five sub-scales are heavily dependent on the
Emotional Management sub-scale. The Emotional Management sub-scale is
essentially the ability to manage both positive and negative emotions within
oneself and others (Palmer and Stough, 2001). One could argue that an
individual’s level of emotional control, and their ability to understand others’
emotions is dependent on their level of emotional management.
In looking at the relationship between self-report EI and ability-based EI
there were some small correlations found amongst a few of the subscales. This
is not surprising as the SUEIT was developed using factors taken directly from
the MSCEIT™ predecessor the MEIS. Therefore, some overlap between the
measures would be expected. Although as was shown in these studies, the
132
ability-based EI show considerable promise in terms of both predictive and
incremental validity.
Ability Based Measures of EI
Ability-based EI demonstrated a strong relationship with job
performance. An analysis of the individual subscales revealed that the most
important scales were perceiving emotions and managing emotions. These
scales related to the extent that executives achieved business outcomes. An
individual’s display of leadership behaviours, the capacity to perceive emotion,
use emotions, understand emotion and manage emotion all related to how
effectively an executive achieved their business outcomes.
George (2000) suggests that leadership involves the development of a
collective sense of goals, instilling in others both knowledge and appreciation of
certain work activities, and generating a sense of excitement, confidence, and
trust. One could argue that these elements all require a leader to use their
emotions to enhance how they communicate to subordinates, which in turn
would assist them to effectively carry out the role of a leader. Not surprisingly,
we find all four elements are critical in enabling a leader to meet business
outcomes. The ability to perceive emotions provides an awareness of emotions
and the ability to accurately read others emotions, especially subordinates.
Using emotions may provide a means to generate ideas within a team.
Understanding emotions may help people to have insight into what motivates
people and others’ points of view. Finally, managing emotions may allow a
133
leader to prevent unhelpful emotions from impacting their own behaviour and
may help them to manage other people’s emotions to enhance team and
individual performance (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). Thus, all four elements may
enhance a leader’s ability to communicate. These results are certainly
consistent with this hypothesis.
Of particular interest was the branch of perceiving emotion, which in
both performance ratings had the highest effect sizes. A leader who is skilled in
perceiving emotion would be described as someone who knows what people
feel, reads people accurately, is good at recognising their own feelings and can
express their feelings appropriately (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). These skills are
particularly important as it allows a leader to accurately capture important
social data around them, in particular the ability to “read between the lines.”
The present results have potential implications for how we manage
performance, selection and development of executives. In terms of
performance management, it is important for an executive to both deliver
business outcomes, and also deal effectively with colleagues and staff
(Management Advisory Committee, 2001). It may be common for technical
leaders to have the ability to achieve business outcomes but not necessarily
demonstrate core leadership behaviours. For example, a technical specialist
may perform complex tasks tenaciously and manage to produce business
outputs, but may be ineffective at managing his or her subordinates, leading to
issues of staff turnover and underperformance. The results of this study show
that EI may be useful in identifying who is and is not likely to deal effectively
with colleagues and staff. Furthermore, they also show which leaders are likely
134
to achieve business outcomes. Organisations who wish to maximise their ability
to meet business outcomes therefore have the choice to either recruit for these
abilities or to attempt to further develop these abilities in their top executives.
135
CHAPTER 5
General Discussion
Ability Based Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Effectiveness
Strong relationships were found overall between ability-based emotional
intelligence and a leader’s ability to achieve organisational goals or achieve high
multi-rater feedback ratings from subordinates, peers and direct managers.
The results held even after controlling for reasoning ability, verbal ability,
performance ability, and personality. In the second study, the effect sizes (“r”)
were in the order of .26 for the achievement of business outcomes, and .52 for
the effective interpersonal behaviours performance outcomes. They were
slightly lower in our first study, which consisted of a significantly smaller
sample. In regards to multi-rater leadership feedback ratings, significant effect
sizes ranged in the order of .3. These effect levels are considered to be large
by many researchers (see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
For example, research has consistently shown that personality traits, such as
conscientiousness, are related to most job performance criteria and typically
have an effect size in the order of .2 (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Schmidt and
Hunter (1998) have also shown that in analysing 85 years of research in
personnel selection, the General Mental Ability (GMA) tests have one of the
highest effect sizes at .51. Hermelin and Robertson (2001), in a similar study
of selection methods, found validity coefficients of 0.45.
136
Another strength of these findings is that the observed relationships
between ability-based EI occurred with different methods of measuring
leadership effectiveness. For example, they occurred with senior manager
performance ratings on achieved business outcomes, effective interpersonal
behaviour ratings, multi-rater ratings on leadership behaviours, and indices of
performance pay. Therefore, these results would be unlikely to suffer from
problems of inflated correlation due to method variance (e.g., as when you
correlate self-reports of EI and self reports of leadership).
In addition to showing criterion relevant validity, the ability measure of
emotional intelligence was also distinctive from other relevant workplace
measures. Across a number of different analyses, the same constant effect was
found, mainly that an ability-based model of EI was able to predict leadership
effectiveness over and above well-established measures of personality,
reasoning ability, verbal ability, and performance ability.
The ability-based model of emotional intelligence can be broken down
into four branches of emotional abilities, including (a) perceiving emotion, (b)
using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion, and (d)
managing emotions. Each of these emotional abilities were further examined to
see which ones were more important in enabling a leader to achieve business
outcomes, and be rated as effective leaders by their subordinates, peers and
managers.
The branch of Perceiving Emotion was consistently found to be the
most significant predictor of leadership success. This finding is consistent with
previous research. For example, Lopes et al. (2003) used an ability-based EI
137
measure and reported that financial analysts who scored higher on their ability
to perceived emotion were also viewed by their managers and peers as
displaying greater levels of leadership potential (r = .38). A study by
Livingstone and Day (2005), also using an ability-based EI measure, found
military personnel who were better at perceiving emotions in people would also
rate being more satisfied with their job. In another workplace study using an
ability-based EI measure, Kerr et al. (2006) found that supervisors who scored
higher on perceiving emotion were likely to be rated positively by their
subordinates as displaying leadership ability (r = .43). This is in line with our
findings where those executives who were high on the perceiving emotional
intelligence ability were more likely to receive higher multi-rater ratings on the
leadership dimension exemplifies personal drive and integrity. This research
clearly shows that perceiving emotions is linked to leadership performance.
The next step in research would be to identify what interpersonal skills are
being used, and how they are being employed by executives to achieve their
business outcomes.
So, what does it mean to be effective in perceiving emotion? Although
speculative, a leader who is skilled in perceiving emotion can be described as
someone who knows what people feel, reads people accurately, is good at
recognising their own feelings, and can express their feelings appropriately
(Caruso & Salovey, 2004). It is argued that these skills are particularly
important as it allows a leader to accurately capture important social data
around them, in particular the ability to “read between the lines” when dealing
with people, which in turn can impact the organisation’s bottom line. For
138
example, a leader who can accurately identify that their staff are confused or
not aligned to the new business strategy can alter their approach to ensure
business outcomes are met. It would be a naive leader who issues orders and
commands without observing how their staff react (Caruso and Wolfe, 2004).
Thus, the ability to perceive emotions appears important, as the ability to read
emotions within a situation seems closely related to how well one can respond
in that situation (George, 2000).
The ability to perceive emotions also includes identifying internal states.
In other words, a leader must also be able to accurately identify their own
feelings (i.e., self-awareness). Research suggests that the ability to perceive
emotions within oneself accurately is related to the ability to assess them in
others (Bryson, 2004). In addition, leaders who are more self-aware tend to
possess heightened levels of interpersonal control (Sosik & Megerian, 1999),
which in turn can enable them to prevent unhelpful emotions from getting in
the way. For example, an executive may be less likely to react impulsively
when angry. An executive may also be less likely to express aversive emotions
(since they are aware of their feelings). In other words, being aware of
emotions may give leaders the flexibility to act either consistently with their
emotions (e.g., anger leading to assertiveness), or inconsistently with their
emotions (anger but keeping ones mouth shut), whichever behaviour best
serves their goals. The executive who has no idea they are angry or sad is,
presumably, more likely to be pushed around by those emotions (George,
2000). They may therefore respond inappropriately or in a manner that does
not facilitate goal achievement and alienates their staff.
139
We also know that a leader’s emotional expression tends to impact both
follower affect and perceptions of leadership effectiveness. For example, Lewis
(2000) found that when a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) displayed an active
negative emotion (i.e., anger) as opposed to passive negative emotion (i.e,
sadness), subordinates would tend to exhibit a higher level of nervousness and
a lower level of relaxation. Also, those CEOs who exhibited a neutral emotional
mood as opposed to negative emotional mood (ie., anger or sadness) would be
rated as more effective by their subordinates.
The second of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-based
model, facilitating thought, is concerned with the ability to integrate basic
emotional experiences into one’s thought processes, and to access, generate
and use emotions to facilitate problem solving, reasoning, decision-making, and
creativity (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Bryson, 2004).
The results found a relationship between the display of leadership
behaviours and a leader’s ability to use emotional thought in their reasoning,
decision-making and problem solving. From a leadership perspective, emotions
direct a person’s attention to important changes, and enable one to consider
multiple perspectives. Different forms of reasoning are facilitated by different
kinds of moods. For example, if we turn to the area of sports, the coach is
often required to infuse the team with energy and positive thinking, especially if
they are considered the underdogs. In this positive mood, the team is able to
generate new ideas and enthusiasm to assist them to win the game (Caruso &
Wolfe, 2004). This analogy can be carried over to the corporate world. Teams
with positive moods are more likely to generate more creative ideas, and teams
140
with negative moods are less likely to make errors when dealing with detailed
work, like accounts (Forgas, 2001).
The third branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-
based model, understanding emotions, is considered the most cognitive of the
four, and has the highest correlation to abstract reasoning and general
intelligence (Mayer, et al., 2000). This premise is supported by this research,
and is explored further in the section below concerning emotional intelligence
and cognitive/reasoning ability. The ability to understand emotion was
significantly related to the leadership behaviours exhibited by leaders even after
controlling for both personality and reasoning. From a multi-rater perspective,
these leadership behaviours included the ability to shapes strategic thinking, to
cultivate productive working relationships, and to communicate with influence.
With regards to the perspective of shapes strategic thinking leadership
behaviour, I speculate that the ability to understand emotion may allow a
leader to acknowledge that some subordinates may be resistant to future
strategic direction. As a result, this insight helps them to create a shared
commitment by understanding how subordinates may react to planned change.
This fits neatly with our review of the literature in chapter two which sees
leaders as facilitators of change.
The leadership behaviour of cultivate productive working relationships is
all about a leader who demonstrates a capacity to nurture relationships, value
individual differences, and guides, mentors and develops others. By applying
the understanding emotions ability to one’s workplace, a leader is likely to be in
a better position to harness an understanding of the differences within a team
141
in order to anticipate reactions and enhance interactions amongst team
members. This would be facilitated by the third leadership behaviour,
communication with influence. By understanding emotions, I propose that
leaders are in a better position to seek understanding from team members and
to tailor their communication style and messages accordingly.
The study undertaken by Lopes et al. (2003) appears to be the only
other research available using the MSCEIT™ which supports these findings.
Their findings showed that financial analysts who scored higher on their ability
to understand emotion were not only more likely to be viewed by their
managers as displaying greater levels of leadership potential (r = .34), but were
also likely to hold higher positions within the organisation (r = .36).
Understanding emotions is the ability to think accurately about emotions.
It involves being able to connect situations with certain emotions. It also
involves knowing that it is possible to feel several conflicting feelings in certain
situations. Understanding what leads to various emotions is a critical
component of emotional intelligence. For instance, annoyance and irritation
can lead to rage if the cause of the irritation continues and intensifies.
Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is important in our
dealings with other people, and in enhancing our self-understanding (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997). In an organisational setting, effective leadership would mean
understanding the feelings and emotions of subordinates, peers, and clients.
Leaders who can understand the impact of an event on,for example, the morale
of their team, the political implications on a peer, or the needs of a client,
would be better equipped to handle the resulting emotions and adjust their
142
behaviours accordingly to maximise the chances of success. In essence, it can
facilitate a leader’s ability to cultivate productive working relationships with
people, an important component of the SELC Framework as discussed earlier.
The last branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-
based model is managing emotion. This research found that this ability played
a significant role in a leader’s ability to meet business outcomes and display
leadership behaviours in the workplace. These results are in keeping with
previous studies.
Lopes, Brackett, Nezlek, Schutz, Sellin and Salovey (2004) conducted
two studies which found the ability to manage emotions was associated with
the quality of social interactions. In the first study, Lopes et al. (in press)
looked at the quality of relationships between a participant and two of their
closest friends. They found the managing emotions subscale to be positively
correlated with participants’ self-reports and friends’ ratings of positive
interactions and tendency to provide emotional support. The second study
expands the circle of friends to include anyone who interacted with the
participants over a two-week period. Results showed that managing emotions
scores were positively related to the perceived quality of interactions with
members of the opposite sex.
In a similar study looking at social relationships, Lopes et al. (2003)
explored the link between ability-based emotional intelligence and the perceived
quality of one’s interpersonal relationship. Results showed that global
satisfaction with one’s relationship was associated with the ability to manage
one’s emotions.
143
The study undertaken by Lopes et al. (2003) showed that financial
analysts who scored higher on their ability to manage emotion were more likely
to be viewed by their managers as displaying greater levels of leadership
potential (r = .41). They were also more likely to hold higher positions within
the organisation (r = .40), and more likely to receive higher percentage merit
increases (r = .40).
Managing emotions means that a person feels their feelings, but then
uses these feelings in a judicious way, rather than acting on them without
thinking. For example, anger (like many emotions) is often misunderstood.
Anger is not necessarily a “bad” thing to feel. In fact, anger can help to
overcome adversity, bias, and injustice. Anger can arise when someone feels
frustrated, cheated, or taken advantage of. Yet anger, if left to itself, can be
blinding, and can cause people to act in negative or antisocial ways. Managing
emotions relates to a person's ability to feel the emotion, no matter what the
emotion may be, but then to combine thinking with this emotion in order to
make the best possible decisions and take the most effective actions (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997).
We know from the research that a leader’s mood and emotions can be
viewed as another source of information which a leader can capitalise on in
order to assist them with making more effective decisions, and with developing
more effective coping strategies to workplace events. For example, in a study
of sale groups, George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that leaders’ positive
moods were positively associated with the groups’ pro-social behaviour, and
negatively associated with the groups’ turnover rate. George (1995) found that
144
followers led by sales managers who experienced positive moods at work
tended to provide higher quality customer service than those led by sales
managers who did not experience positive moods.
The exploration of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability
model would not be complete without linking it to the Australian Public Service
(APS) Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework (SELCF). Although I
am hypothesising, the link is important as the SELCF forms the major element
for determining which leadership behaviours are expected from executives
working within the APS. This relationship has already been tentatively explored
through our earlier comments regarding understanding emotion and cultivating
productive working relationships. What is apparent is that the ability-based EI
model can provide a clear understanding of the emotional processes that
underline certain leadership behaviours, which I theoretically apply to the APS
SELCF (see table 32).
145
Table 32
Emotional Intelligence Processes and Leadership Capability Framework*
146
147
Table 34 displays numerous leadership behaviours that are central to the
APS SELC Framework. It shows that there are numerous emotional processes
that underline aspects of leadership.
Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence
This dissertation has highlighted that not all EI models are alike in being able to
predict effective leadership. While the ability-based model of EI seems more
successful in predicting leadership effectiveness, the self-report EI model was
somewhat less convincing. This research used the SUEIT taxonomic model of
emotional intelligence which has five domains: (1) emotional recognition and
expression (in oneself); (2) emotions direct cognition; (3) understanding of
emotions external; (4) emotional management and (5) emotional control. As
the SUEIT was derived from other well known self-report EI models (e.g., TAS
20 & BarOn), and shares similar characteristics to other well known mixed
models (e.g., Goleman’s emotional competency model), it was thought that the
SUEIT was representative of mixed model measures of emotional intelligence.
There was evidence that some aspects of the SUEIT related to leadership
performance. Leaders who reported that they are good at managing and
controlling their emotions also had higher performance ratings for their
effective interpersonal skills.
Significant correlations were also found across the 16 primary personality
factors and the five global personality subscales, with r reaching .65 in some
cases. Leaders who reported themselves high on emotional intelligence also
148
tended to be high on warmth and social boldness, and low on privateness. One
cannot help but postulate that perhaps these behaviours can be attributed to
people who generally want to be around other people and be noticed, and
reflect someone who injects considerable energy into initiating and maintaining
social relationships (i.e., an extrovert).
It is generally accepted that personality traits only predict about 10% of
what makes a successful leader. This was consistent with these studies where
personality predicted around 8 percent of the variance in leadership
performance. The self-report SUEIT model appeared to explain considerably
less of the variance than personality.
These results appear consistent with the growing evidence that suggests
self-report measures of EI overlap with well-established measures of personality
traits or behaviours (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Ciarrochi et al., 2001; MacCann et
al., 2004). From a research perspective, these results seem to confirm some of
the criticisms that have been levelled at EI, which describe EI as little more
than a loose conglomeration of extended personality. These criticisms appear
to be more applicable to self-report EI measures like the SUEIT than ability-
based EI measures.
On a practical level, these results suggest that self-report SUEIT may
only add trivial incremental values, at best, over personality in predicting
leadership success. One major difficulty with the overlap between self-reported
SUEIT and personality is the difficulty in distinguishing whether a result
involving self-reported SUEIT is really just a replication of a previous result
using a similar personality measure. For example, research has clearly
149
demonstrated a link between self-esteem and mental health (Ciarrochi, Scott,
Deane & Heaven, 2004). Thus, if an EI measure correlates substantially with
self-esteem and mental health, is the EI test measuring something new, or is it
replicating previous self-esteem effects? These results support previous
research by David (2003) that reported self-reports, particularly the SUEIT, are
substantially and significantly correlated with the Big Five factors of personality.
Self-report measures of EI also raise the potential problem of response
bias. A general problem found with all self-report inventories is that a response
may be influenced by various biases that do not relate to the construct, which
the inventory is trying to measure (Mathews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002).
These biases include impression management, where there is a deliberate
attempt from a respondent to present themselves with particular qualities (also
knowing as faking), and self-deception, which is largely an unconscious biasing
of response, and response styles biases, which include forms of acquiescence
patterns of responding (i.e., tending to answer ‘yes’ - Mathews, Zeidner &
Roberts, 2002). Steps can be taken to reduce these biases, like seeking
additional corroborative evidence for high scorers. However, this just adds
another layer of complexity to the usefulness of self-report measures in an
organisational setting.
However, one cannot assume that all self-report EI measures are
useless. Indeed, as demonstrated in this research, there appears some
evidence of the utility of the SUEIT, and it can be distinguished from other
personality constructs when predicting leadership ratings at least at the
subscale level. Specifically, the SUEIT was able to predict at least one measure
150
of leadership effectiveness (i.e. effective interpersonal behaviours) over and
above personality. Other research has found support for the discriminant and
incremental validity of self-report measures of emotional intelligence to
personality traits (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2003).
Some researchers are now questioning why we even need to show
incremental validity between self-report EI and personality. Petrides and
Furnham (2001) provide a theoretical positions for explaining the strong
relationship between self-report or mixed models of emotional intelligence and
personality. They argue that the construing of emotional intelligence through
ability based measures cannot, and will not, produce the same findings
construed through self-report inventories. Here I would agree in light of these
dissertation findings. Petrides and Furnham argue that the ability versus mixed
model distinction is not particularly useful and instead offered a different
categorisation for the emotional intelligence paradigm. The first category is
ability emotional intelligence or cognitive-emotional ability, which is concerned
with actual emotional ability and measured with maximum-performance
measures. This view of emotional intelligence fits best within the psychometric
intelligence domain. The second is Trait emotional intelligence or emotional
self-efficacy. Trait emotional intelligence refers to a constellation of emotion-
related self-perceptions and dispositions assessed through self-report and is
best anchored within the personality domain.
Petrides and Furnham argue that Trait EI is a distinguishable, lower-
order construct of the Big Five personality framework (Petrides & Furham,
2000, 2001, 2003). As Trait EI belongs to the lower domain of personality
151
traits, this in itself would imply that trait EI would be associated with higher-
order personality dimensions like the Big Five (Perez, Petridies and Furham,
2005). This view of self-report emotional intelligence fits very well with our
findings, in which the EI measure overlapped substantially with personality.
Other results showed that the overall MSCEIT™ EI score did not
correlate with any of the sixteen personality factors. Some of the subscales of
the MSCEIT™ correlated modestly with warmth, vigilance, privateness, and
social boldness. These results support previous research which showed that
MSCEIT™ scores are distinguishable from personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003;
Brackett et al., in press) and again fits with Petrides and Furham’s (2001) view
that elements of the ability EI domain do have some small overlap with
personality dispositions.
Emotional Intelligence with Verbal, Performance, and Reasoning
Ability
Both studies found that senior executives participating in this study were at
least one standard deviation above the normal population mean IQ score of
100. All were functioning between above average to superior levels.
Executives were also in the 84th percentile for reasoning ability. These results
are consistent with other organisational studies that show a strong and
consistent association between general intelligence and leadership. According
to Stogdill’s (1948, 1974) review of the leadership research, 48 studies found
that leaders are more intelligent than followers are. Leaders are expected to
152
gather, integrate, and analyse information in order to develop solutions and
solve complex problems. Leaders are also expected to be able to adapt to
changing business conditions and respond accordingly (Corporate Leadership
Council, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Therefore, testing for cognitive
ability in potential leaders is essential.
This study generally found little support that verbal, performance or
reasoning ability influenced leadership effectiveness. Perhaps most executives
were already performing at a higher cognitive level, and the range of IQ scores
are therefore restricted. Sternberg (2002) argues that the predictive value of
intelligence for leadership may vary across situations and is not as high as
much of the literature suggests. Both studies support this statement. Perhaps
once people obtain a certain level of cognitive intelligence, having higher
intelligence makes little difference (Sternberg & Vroom, 2002).
The mixed model of EI did not correlate with reasoning ability, drawing
further support to Petrides and Furham (2003) view that Trait emotional
intelligence cannot be classified as intelligence in the traditional sense.
Mayer et al. (2000) postulated that for ability-based emotional
intelligence to meet the traditional standards for an intelligence, it needs to
satisfy three criteria. It must be operationalised as a set of abilities, it must
correlate with pre-existing measures if intelligence, and the abilities should
develop with age and experience. Study one found moderate correlations
between the ability-based model of emotional intelligence and verbal
intelligence, performance intelligence, and full-scale intelligence. This supports
the second criteria. Study two revealed a positive correlation with reasoning
153
ability and Understanding Emotion, which is considered the most cognitive
branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) ability-based model. Together, these
results are consistent with the available research that has found the MSCEIT™
scores to relate modestly to a range of intelligence measures, including verbal
SAT scores (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2003) and the vocabulary subscale on
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003).
In summary, the findings of study one and two suggest that executives
who measure higher on ability-based emotional intelligence are more likely to
achieve business outcomes and be considered as effective leaders by their
subordinates and direct manager. Ability-based EI was distinct from
personality, and modestly related to verbal, performance, or reasoning ability.
Self-report models or, as Petrides and Furham (2003) describe, Trait emotional
intelligence were generally unable to predict effective leadership once we
controlled for personality, and were in fact redundant with existing personality
dimensions and unrelated to either verbal, performance or reasoning ability.
Applying Emotional Intelligence to the Workplace
This research does not discount personality or verbal, performance, or
reasoning ability as important determinants of workplace performance,
including effective leadership. Instead, amongst highly selected and intelligent
leaders, ability-based measures predicted effective leadership better than
personality or verbal, performance, and reasoning ability.
154
In contrast, self-report EI may not add considerable incremental value
over personality, verbal, performance, or reasoning ability in predicting
leadership success, and is potentially redundant alongside already established
personality traits. I would then agree with leading researchers and academics
(e.g., Zeidner et al., 2004; Landy, 2005) that there appears to be little empirical
justification, to date, for the use of self-report EI measures in an applied setting
such as recruitment. With these findings in mind, this next section briefly
considers the application of an ability-based model of emotional intelligence in
work settings.
The Corporate Leadership Council (2002) conducted a quantitative
survey of 19,000 individuals at 34 organisations in order to identify the core
areas of building a high-performance workforce. They identified seven key
insights regarding drivers of individual performance, the performance
management system being one. They concluded that organisations must
involve line managers as champions of performance management activities and
must hold managers accountable for performance improvement. In addition,
organisations must support managers with multiple perspectives on
performance. Using a measure of emotional intelligence in leadership positions
would undoubtedly offer chief executive offers and other senior managers a
new and different perspective on a leaders performance.
In terms of the performance management system, it is important for an
executive to both deliver outputs (i.e., the “achieves business outcomes” of
performance), and deal effectively with colleagues and staff (i.e., the “effective
interpersonal behaviours” of performance – Management Advisory Committee,
155
2001). It may be common for technical leaders to have skills for the “achieve
business outcomes” but not the “effective interpersonal behaviours” of
performance. For example, a technical specialist may perform complex tasks
tenaciously and manage to produce business outputs, but may be ineffective at
managing his or her subordinates, leading to issues of staff turnover and
underperformance. The results of this study show that emotional intelligence
may be useful in identifying who is and is not likely to deal effectively with
colleagues and staff. Furthermore, the results also show which leaders are
likely to achieve business outcomes at a superior level. My view is that
emotional intelligence lends itself as another means of measuring an individual's
behaviour, providing insights into which executive is likely to achieve business
outcomes, especially when there is a high degree of relationship work involved.
Organisations who wish to maximise their ability to meet business outcomes
therefore have the choice to either recruit for these abilities or further develop
these abilities in their top executives.
With regards to selection, Viswesvaran and Ones (2002) suggest that
when it comes to general mental ability (GMA) measures, “…some embrace it
enthusiastically; some tolerate it; and some spend their entire careers looking
for ways to minimise the effects of GMA in personnel selection” (p. 213). This
highlights that there is still considerable disagreement on the role of GMA in
organisational settings.
Those advocating the use of GMA in an applied setting often turn to the
research conducted by Schmidt and Hunter (1998). Their article attempts to
statistically summarise a large body of data, collected over the last 85 years,
156
relating to selection methods used in personal and organisational psychology.
The article looked at 19 different selection processes from the perspective of
predicting further job performance and future learning. The top selection
processes that yield the highest predictive validity, in order, were work sample
tests (r = .54); structured interviews and GMA tests (both r = .51); peer ratings
(r = .49), and job knowledge tests (r = .48). The authors advocate the use of
GMA (also called general cognitive ability and general intelligence) as it can be
used in most positions and has a very high predictive validity. With high
predictive validity and versatility across most positions, the authors advocate
the use of GMA (also called general cognitive ability and general intelligence).
While work samples are more predictive, the authors argue that these tests are
more costly to develop (i.e., one need to be developed for each position), and
can only be used with applicants who already know the job or have been
trained for the occupation or job. The results of study one and two would
suggest that testing for emotional intelligence in leadership positions would also
be cost effective, does not require an applicant to have the prerequisite job
knowledge, and has the incremental predictive validity of traditional IQ
measures. EI may be particularly useful when the leaders need to be highly
selected, and have little variance in their IQ. Ability-based EI could potentially
increase the prediction of a selection exercise enabling significant costs savings.
A technique known as utility analysis best demonstrates this.
Utility analysis provides a method to evaluate how well particular
psychological tests perform when used to make decisions. Personnel selection
and recruitment agencies use it frequently (De-Corte, 1996; Murphy and
157
Davidshofer, 1988; Russell, Colella and Bobko, 1993). In a recent recruitment
activity, I was involved in the selection of 12 Senior Executives who are typically
on approximately $A 130,000 salary packages. Using the utility analysis
formula and incorporating high effect sizes as observed in this thesis, I found
the productivity gain for one year due to hiring based on the ability-based EI
measure rather than at random was 4 million Australian dollars. That is, if we
were to theoretical put a dollar value to the increase productivity expected in
recruiting employees with higher EI ability it would be in the millions in this
particular work setting. For the actual calculations, please refer to appendix D.
In reality, we would not select potential candidates at random but would use a
combination of methods, which would decrease the monetary value quoted
earlier. Clearly, the results of these studies show that the ability-base EI would
add significant value in a selection process within this environment.
Developing emotional intelligence is perhaps more problematic than
simply recruiting for these abilities. There has been a proliferation of different
emotional intelligence training programs offered to organisations over the past
decade. However, few have had a scientific evaluation of their ability to predict
workplace outcomes (Matthews et al., 2004). The ability-based model of
emotional intelligence at least lends itself to be measured and tested in an
applied setting. The Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch model also lends
itself to further interpreting the emotional aspects of leadership behaviours (as
outlined in our previous table 34) and therefore provides a model for
developing leadership ability. However, this is speculative. We are still
grappling with the question of whether we can develop emotional intelligence.
158
Clearly, further research is needed in the domain of emotional intelligence (a
topic for the next chapter) along with a discussion of the contributions of this
research and its limitations.
159
CHAPTER 6
Contributions of the Research, Limitations and Future Research
Directions
Contributions of the Research
A recent report by the Australian Attorney-General’s Department on managing
and sustaining the APS workforce highlighted that the public service is facing a
big challenge in continuing to attract, retain and develop the people it needs.
There is especially a need for the development of strategies for identifying and
developing future leaders in an employment environment that is characterised
as tight, with diminishing supply of younger workers projected to enter the
labour market in the next few decades (Management Advisory Committee,
2005). This dissertation potentially offers us some insight into what constitutes
an effective leader. We know from research that measuring leadership skill and
its impact on an organisation’s performance is particularly difficult. In part, this
is due to leadership performance being situational. Using the performance
management system as an anchor for measuring leadership ability to meet
business outcomes or display effective interpersonal skills, and a multi-rater
measure to examine more closely the behaviours exhibited by our leaders, this
dissertation was able to examine empirically the performance of leaders within
a large public service organisation and offer some unique insights into the
practice of leadership.
This dissertation sought to understand the relationship between a
160
leader’s effectiveness in being able to achieve business outcomes and display
effective interpersonal behaviours, as reflected by higher performance ratings,
and a leader’s effectiveness in leading people and being able to achieve higher
multi-rater feedback ratings from subordinates, peers and direct managers with
emotional intelligence. In doing so, this is the first piece of research to
empirically show a link between ability-based emotional intelligence and
effective leadership within the APS. These findings show that executive officers
potentially benefit from having a high degree of ability-based emotional
intelligence. EI may help them to function at a superior level and be perceived
by their subordinates, peers and manager as displaying leadership behaviours.
The literature to date has argued that, for emotional intelligence to have
some legitimacy in the workplace, it needs to show incremental value over both
traditional personality and cognitive reasoning measures in predicting workplace
outcomes like leadership effectiveness. This is the one of the first pieces of
research to empirically demonstrate that emotional intelligence can in fact
predict leadership effectiveness over already well-established measures of
personality and cognitive intelligence.
What this research also found is that not all measures of emotional
intelligence are equal. By examining two distinct measures of emotional
intelligence (an ability measure and self-report measure) these studies were
consistent with other research which suggests that self-report models of
emotional intelligence are largely redundant in being able to predict workplace
outcomes once we control for personality traits or reasoning ability. The
emotional intelligence model offered by Mayer and Salovey (1997) is the only
161
one that offers us something new, and other measures of emotional
intelligence, like the SUEIT model, are more aligned to reframed taxonomies of
personality or perceived emotional competency.
The final contribution of this dissertation is the examination of the
relationships between various models of emotional intelligence with personality
and cognitive intelligence. In doing so, this dissertation was able to generate
further reliability and validity statistics on both EI measures. This is particularly
important for the SUEIT, which is a relatively new self-report measure of EI and
currently suffers from limited peer-reviewed published statistics on its
psychometric properties. For the MSCEIT™, this dissertation was able to
expand its growing research, demonstrating its worth in an applied setting.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Despite the contributions of this dissertation, the results need to be interpreted
with caution owing to some methodological limitations. Firstly, this dissertation
was limited to a single Australian Public Service organisation. Thus, the results
may not be valid in other public or private sector organisations. Validation of
the current findings in other industries will help rule out industry type as an
important contingency factor (Delery & Doty, 1996). For example, it may be
that EI is most needed in workplaces that involve substantial social interaction,
and less needed in jobs that involve individuals working by themselves.
A second limitation of the results presented in this dissertation was the
measures used for cognitive intelligence and reasoning ability. There is little
162
doubt that the mostly widely accepted intelligence test is the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale and associated tests. This dissertation did in fact use a
Wechsler measure of intelligence, but only in the first study. As such, the
dissertation was reliant on a measure of verbal, numerical, and logical
reasoning. While both the cognitive and reasoning ability results draw the
same conclusions, that the group of executives were at least one standard
deviation above the norm, we would need to seek further research with more
comprehensive measures of both crystallised and fluid intelligence if we are to
better understand how emotional intelligence relates to intelligence.
The EI measures themselves are not without their own limitations. For
example, the MSCEIT™ has received considerable criticism surrounding its
scoring methods (Roberts et al., 2001; MacCann et al., 2004). The two major
alternatives for scoring items on the MSCEIT™, as described in Chapter 2, is
through either general consenus scoring or expert consensus scoring. General
consensus scoring compares the participant’s responses to a normative
database of more than 5000 people. The expert consensus scoring compares
participant’s responses with the agreement of 21 international experts (Mayer,
et al., 2002). Critics, such as Matthews et al. (2004), point out that the general
consensus and expert consensus scoring methods have shown conflicting
results. However, these criticisms are largely directed at the precursor
instrument to the MSCEIT™, that is the Multi-Factorial Emotional Intelligence
Scale (MEIS). The MSCEIT expert ratings are based on a larger sample of
experts than the MIES, and show greater correspondence with consensus
scoring (Mayer et al., 2004a). Mayer et al. (2003) report correlations ranging
163
between .94 and .99 for the MSCEIT’s™ consensus and expert scores across all
subtests, and a correlation of .98 for the general EI composite.
This dissertation did not look at the differences between general
consensus and expert consensus scoring, choosing to use only the general
consensus scoring method recommended by the test publishers. As the
MSCEIT™ is still a relatively new measure, further research is needed on the
contributions that each form of scoring method may have on predicting
workplace outcomes. From a theoretical perspective, Mayer et al. (2003) found
that experts are more reliable judges and tend to confer on correct answers
more often where research has established clear criteria for potential answers.
Although the publishers of the MSCEIT™, Multi-Health Systems (MHS),
advocate for the use of the general consensus method, largely due to its large
sample base, all research published has shown that both consensus and expert
scoring methods are highly correlated.
The SUEIT also suffers from being a relatively new EI measure.
However, the SUEIT is built upon some of the more researched self-report EI
measures available (e.g., Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory and the twenty-
item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II), and overall, the research is continually
showing that self-report EI measures are moderately to highly correlated with
personality.
The samples sizes for study 1 were also quite small and any
interpretation needs to take this into consideration. Although, the findings were
replicated in study two which had a significantly large sample size.
164
In conclusion, these results make an important contribution to the study
of emotional intelligence in a work setting, but leave a number of important
questions unanswered. First, research needs to evaluate: Why does EI relate
to performance? Does it relate to interpersonal effectiveness on the job, as is
suggested in the discussion? And does it relate to other aspects of
management, such as inspiring enthusiasm, or managing stressful jobs?
Second, given the correlational nature of the present study, which also another
limitation of this dissertation, research needs to evaluate whether EI predicts
future performance, or merely co-occurs with performance. I hypothesised that
EI leads to better executive performance. However, it is possible that good
executive performance leads to higher EI. One way to resolve this problem is
to conduct a longitudinal study that involves measuring EI before newly hired
executives start the job. This would allow one to establish if EI skills were likely
to be antecedents to managerial success. Third, research needs to examine
whether these results generalise across different occupational settings. Finally,
is EI more important in interpersonal settings, compared to settings that require
little interpersonal contact (e.g., some information technology jobs)? Our
finding of a reliable link between EI and executive performance should
encourage researchers to address these issues in future research.
165
REFERENCES
Aditya, R. N. & House, R. J. (2002). Interpersonal acumen and leadership
across cultures: Pointers from the GLOBE study. In R. E. Riggio, S. E.
Murphy & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership.
Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological Monographs, 47.
Australian Public Service Commission. (2004a). Senior Executive Leadership
Capability Framework. Canberra, Australian Public Service Commission.
Australian Public Service Commission. (2004b). State of the Service Report.
Canberra, Australian Public Service Commission.
Arvey, R. D. & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
Ashakansy, N. M. & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional
intelligence in organizational behaviour are vastly exaggerated. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441-452.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Trevor-Roberts, E. & Kennedy, J. (2000). Leadership
attributes and cultural values in Australia and New Zealand compared:
An initial report based on "globe data". International Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 2(3), 37-44.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005a). Correlates of trait emotional
intelligence: results from Canadian and Scottish groups. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38(3): 547-558.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H. & Egan, V. (2005b). Personality, well-being and
health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 547-558.
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A. & Taylor, G. J. (1994a). The Twenty-Item Toronto
Alexithymia Scale - I. Item selection and cross validation of the factor
structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 23-32.
166
Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J. & Parker, J. D. A. (1994b). The Twenty-Item
Toronto Alexithymia Scale - II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent
validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 33-40.
Barling, J., Slater, F. & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 21(3): 157-161.
Bar-on, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical
manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bar-on, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale,
Description, and Summary of Psychometric Properties. In G. Geher
(Eds.), Measuring Emotional Intelligence: Common Ground and
Controversy (pp. 111-142). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishing.
Bar-on, R. (2005). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence.
Psicothema, 17.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and
job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Barbuto, J.E. (1997). A critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its
operationalization of Carl Jung's psychological types. Psychological
Report, 80, 611-625.
Bartone, P. T., Snook, S. A. & Tremble, T. R. (2002). Cognitive and Personality
Predictors of Leadership Performance in West Point Cadets. Military
Psychology, 14(4), 321 - 338.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990a). From transactional to transformational leadership:
Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1990b). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory,
Research, and Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Free Press.
167
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). Transformational leadership development.
Manuel for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologist Press.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990b). The implications of transactional and
transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational
development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4,
231-272.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benson, B. & Morrigan, P. A., (2000). Towards Knowledge Creating Leadership.
Canberra, Australian Taxation Office.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five factor approach to personality
description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.
Blohowiak, D. (2003). Filling the Leadership Pipeline, Lead Well Institute.
Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D. & Hay/Mcber. (1999). Emotional Competency
Inventory. Philadelphia, PA: Hay Group.
Boyle, G.J. (1995). Myers-Briggs type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric
limitations. Australian psychologist, 30(1), 71-74.
Brackett, M. A. & Geher, G. (2006). Measuring emotional intelligence:
Paradigmatic diversity and common ground. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas
& J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Intelligence and Everyday Life (pp. 27-50). New
York: Psychology Press.
Brackett, M. A., Lopes, P. N., Ivcevic, Z., Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (2004).
Integrating Emotion and Cognition: The Role of Emotional Intelligence.
In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition
(pp. 175-194). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brackett, M. A. & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and
incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.
168
Bracett, M. A., Mayer, J. D. & Warner, R. M. (2003). Emotional intelligence and
its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences,
36, 1387-1402.
Bray, D. & Howard, A. (1988). Career Growth and Human Resource Strategies.
Quorum Books.
Brody, N. (2000). History of Theories and Measurements of Intelligence. In R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 16-33). San. Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Bryson, K. D. L. (2004). Managerial success and derailment: The relationship
between emotional intelligence and leadership (Doctorial dissertation,
The Fielding Graduate Institute). UMI No. 3159997.
Caruso, D. R., Bienn, B. & Kornacki, S. A. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the
workplace. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Intelligence
and Everyday Life (pp. 187-205). New York: Psychology Press.
Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2004). The Emotionally Intelligent Manager. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Caruso, D. R. & Wolfe, C. J. (2004). Emotional Intelligence and Leadership
Development. In D.V. Day, S. Zaccaro, & S. Halpin (ed.). Leader
development for transforming organizations, (pp 237-263), Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 2004.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into
clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.
Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles [sic] findings in a
factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90.
Cattell, R. B. (1947). The ergic theory of attitude and sentiment measurement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7, 221-246.
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York:
Springer.
169
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional
integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 27-
43.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. & Bajgar, J., (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in
adolescents. Personality and individual differences, 31(7), 1105 - 1119.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional
intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539-
561.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A., Caputi, P., & Roberts, R. (2001). Measuring Emotional
Intelligence (EI). In J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas, & J. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional
intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry (pp.25-45). Philadelphia,
PA: Psychology Press.
Ciarrochi, J., Dean, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence
moderates the relationship between stress and mental health.
Personality & Individual Differences, 32(2), 197-209.
Ciarrochi, J. & Deane, F. P. (2001). Emotional competence and willingness to
seek help from professional and nonprofessional sources. British Journal
of Guidance and Counseling, 29: 233-246.
Ciarrochi, J., Scott, G., Deane, F. P. & Heaven, P. C. L. (2004). Relations
between social and emotional competence and mental health: A
construct validation study. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-
Behavior Therapy, 22, 171-188.
Corporate Leadership Council. (2002). Closing the performance gap: Driving
business results through performance management. Washington,
Corporate Executive Board.
Corporate Leadership Council. (2003). Assessment methods for identifying
leadership potential. Washington, Corporate Executive Board.
Con, S. R. & Rieke, M. L. (1998). The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual.
Champaign, Illinos.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
170
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440.
Cook, M. (1995). Performance appraisal and true performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 10(7), 3-7.
Costa, P. T. & Mccrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R Professional Manual Revised.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cox, C. J. & Cooper, C. L. (1989). The making of the British CEO: Childhood,
work experience, personality, and management style. Academy of
Management Executive, 3, 241-245.
Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J., Ed. (2004). Motivation, Emotion and Cognition.
London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Daus, C. S. & Ashakansy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of
emotional intelligence in organizational behaviour. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 453-566.
Daus, C. S. & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelligence
please stand up? On deconstructing the emotional intelligence debate.
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 41, 69-72.
David, S. (2003). Relationship of a measure of perceived emotional intelligence
to personality and impression management. 5th Industrial and
Organisational Psychology Conference, 28th June, Melbourne, Australia.
Davidson, J. E. & Downing, C. L. (2000). Contemporary Models of Intelligence.
In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M., Stankov, L. & Roberts, R. (1998). Emotional intelligence. In search
of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(4), 989-1015.
Dawda, D. (1997). Personality or factor-analytically developed, lay person, self-
report, single-word, adjectival descriptors of global characteristics of
personality structure: The NEO Five Factor Model and skimming the
171
surface of wetlands of personality. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from
http://www.sfu.ca/~wwwpsycb/issues/1997/summer/dawda.html.
Dawda, D. & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and
validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university
students. Personality and individual differences, 28, 797-812.
Day, A. L. & Carroll, S. A. (2003). Using an ability-based measure of emotional
intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and
group citizenship behaviours. Personality and individual differences,
36(6), 1443-1458.
De-Corte, W. (1996). Recruitment and selection decisions that maximise the
utility of a probationary selection to obtain a fixed quota of successful
selectees. Personnel Psychology, 49, 499-428.
Dee-Burnett, R., Johns, E. F., Russell, M. T. & Mead, A. D. (1997). 16PF Human
Resource Development Report Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human
resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and
configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(4), 802-835.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor
model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Downey, L. A., Papageorgiou, V. & Stough, C. (2005). Examining the
relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence and intuition in
senior female managers. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 27(4), 250-265.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (1998). Emotional intelligence: Managerial fad or valid
construct? Greenlands, Henley Management College.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and
developed? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20(5),
242-252.
172
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence - A review and
evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(4), 341 - 372.
Edwards, M., Ayres, R. & Howard, C. (2003). Public Service Leadership:
Emerging Issues. Canberra, National Institute for Governance, University
of Canberra.
Forgas, J. P. (2001). The affect infusion model (AIM): An integrative theory of
mood effects on cognitive judgements. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore
(Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook (pp. 99-134).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fulmer, R. (1997). The evolving paradigm of leadership development.
Organizational Dynamics, 25, 59-73.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary geneis: An inquiry into its laws and consquences.
New York: Appleton.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of the Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, W.L & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 22(1), 45-83.
Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership
and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 23(2), 68-78.
George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case
of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 778-794.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional
intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027-1055.
George, J. M. & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behaviour,
sales performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in a service
context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
173
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five
Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-
1229.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Batam.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Batam
Books.
Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-Based Theory of Performance. In C. Cherniss & D.
Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. New York:
Bantam.
Harris, M.M. & Schaubroek, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-
peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 43-62.
Hermelin, E. & Robertson, I. T. (2001). A critique and standardization of meta-
analytic validity coefficients in personnel selection. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(3), 253-277.
Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century?
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 273-284.
Higgs, M. & Aitken, P. (2003). An exploration of the relationship between
emotional intelligence and leadership potential. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 18(8), 814-823.
Higgs, M. and D. Rowland. (2000). Building change leadership capability: the
quest for change competence. Journal of Change Management, 1(2),
116–131.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership:
Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1990). Predictions of managerial success over long
periods of time: Lessons from the management progress study. In K. E.
Clark & M. B. Clark (Ed.), Measures of Leadership (pp. 113-143).
Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership.
Howell, J. M. & Avolio, J. B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
174
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of
consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(6), 891-902.
Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and unity of alternative predictors
of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and
job performance, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3), pp 340-362.
Jacobs, T. O. & Jacques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J.
Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement: Vol. 2. Organizations,
personnel and decision making (pp. 7-65). New York: Praeger.
Janovics, J. & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the
workplace. 16th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Kaplan, R. M. & Norton, D. P. (1994). The Balanced Scorecard: Harvard
Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1989). Psychological Testing: Principles,
Applications, and Issues. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N. & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and
leadership effectiveness leadership. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 27(4), 265-279.
Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (1993). Leaders, Fools, Imposter. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kirkaptrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? Academy
of Management Executive, 5(3), 48-60.
Kotter, J. P. (2001). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 85-96.
Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on
emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.
Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M. & Schwartz, G. E., (1990). The Levels of Emotional
Awareness Scale: A cognitive-development measure of emotion. Journal
175
of Personality Assessment, 55, 124-134.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: how followers respond to
negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 221-234.
Livingstone, H. A. & Day, A. L. (2005). Comparing the construct and criterion-
related validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures of emotional
intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(5), 757-
779.
Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlak, J. B., Schutz, A., Sellin, I. & Salovey, P.
(2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1018-1034.
Lopes, P. N., Cote, S., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M. & Salovey, P., (2003).
Evidence that Emotional Intelligence is Related to Job Performance,
Interpersonal Facilitation, Affect and Attitudes at Work, and Leadership
Potential. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P. & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence,
personality, and the perceived quality of social relationship. Personality
and Individual Differences, 35(3), 641-658.
Management Advisory Committee, (2001). Performance Management in the
Australian Public Service: A strategic framework. Canberra, Australian
Public Service Commission.
MacCann, C., Mathews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R. (2004). The assessment
of emotional intelligence: On frameworks, fissures, and the future. In G.
Geher (Eds.), Measuring Emotional Intelligence: Common Ground and
Controversy (pp. 19-50). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishing.
176
MacCann, C, Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. (2003). Psychological
assessment of emotional intelligence: A review of self-report and
performance-based testing. Intemational Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 11, 247-274.
Martin, J. (2001). Profiting from Multiple Intelligences in the Workplace.
Burlington: Gower.
Mathews, G., Deary, I. J. & Whiteman, M. C., (2003). Personality Traits.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science
and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D. (2001a). Primary divisions of personality and their scientific
contributions: From the trilogy-of-mind to the systems set. Journal for
the Theory of Behaviour, 31(4), 449 -477.
Mayer, J. D. (2001b). A field guide to emotional intelligence. Emotional
intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry. Philadelphia, Psychology
Press.
Mayer, J. D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help
integrate psychology! American Psychologist, 60(4), 294-307.
Mayer, J. D. (2006). A new field guide to emotional intelligence. In J. Ciarrochi,
J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Intelligence and Everyday Life (pp. 3-
26). New York: Psychology Press.
Mayer, J. D. (2007). Personality function and personality change. In J. Ciarrochi
& J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying EI: A practitioner guide (Chap. 5).
Psychological Press.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., and Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence
meets traditional standards for an intelligence, Intelligence, 27, 267-298.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2000a). Selecting a Measure of
Emotional Intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D.
A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory,
177
Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the
Workplace (pp. 320-341). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2000b). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.
Mayer, J. D. & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of
emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89-113.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey
& D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional
intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2000a). Models of Emotional
Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp.
396-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. R. (2000b). Emotional intelligence as
zeitgeist, as personality and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A.
Paker (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory,
Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the
workplace (pp. 92-117). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test User's Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2004a). Emotional intelligence: Theory,
findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2004b). A further consideration of the
issues of emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 249-255.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R. & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring
emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1): 97-105.
McCall, M. & Lombardo, M. (1983). What makes a top executive? Psychology
Today, 17(2), 26-31.
McClelland, D. & Boyatzis, R. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term
success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.
178
McColl-Kennedy, J. R. & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and
emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
545-559.
McDonald, D. & Smith, A. (1995). A proven connection: Performance
management and business results. Compensation and Benefits Review,
27(1), 59-64.
McDougall, W. (1932). Of the words character and personality. Character and
Personality, 1, 3-16.
McEvoy, G. M. & Beatty, R. W. (1989). Assessment centers and subordinate
appraisals of managers. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 37.
Mckee, A. L. (2005). Passion, and Power: Ei, Resonance and Renewal. 5th
Annual Emotional Intelligence Conference, Netherlands, 12 - 14 June.
5th Annual Emotional Intelligence Conference. Netherlands.
Miller, D. & Toulouse, J.-M. (1986). Chief Executive Personality and Corporate
Strategy and Structure in Small Firms. Management Science, 32(11),
1389-1409.
Murensky, C. L. (2000). The relationships between emotional intelligence,
personality, critical thinking ability and organizational leadership
performance at upper levels of management. (Doctorial dissertation,
Department of Psychology. Virginia, George Mason University). UMI No.
800-521-0600.
Murphy, K.R. & Davidshofer, C.O. (1988). Psychological Testing. London;
Prentice Hall.
Myers, I.B. McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and
use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
179
Myers, I.B. McCaulley, M.H. Quenk, N.L, & Hammer, A.L. (1998). MBTI Manual
(A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator).
Consulting Psychologists Press; 3rd ed edition.
O’Donnel, M. & O’Brien, J. (2000). Performance-based pay in the Australia
Public Service: Employee persepctives. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 20, 20-27.
Palmer, B. R. (2003). An Analysis of the Relationships Between Various Models
and Measures of Emotional Intelligence. (Doctorial dissertation, Centre
for Neuropsychology, School of Biophysical Sciences and Electrical
Engineering. Victoria, Swinburne University of Technology).
Palmer, B., Donaldson, C. & Stough, C., (2001). Emotional intelligence and life
satisfaction. Personality and individual differences: 1 - 10.
Palmer, B. R., Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2003). The relationship between
emotional intelligence, personality and effective leadership. 5th
Australian Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference.
Melbourne.
Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R. & Stough, C. (in press). A psychometric
evaluation of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence test
version 2.0. Intelligence.
Palmer, B. and Stough, C. (2001), Workplace SUEIT: Swinburne University
Emotional Intelligence Test – Manual, Organizational psychology
Research Unit, Swinburne University, Australia.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. & Stough, C. (2000). Emotional intelligence
and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 22(1), 5 - 10.
Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of
emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-
320.
180
Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European
Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.
Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral
validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood
induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-57.
Pérez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring trait emotional
intelligence. In R. Schulze and R. D. Roberts (Eds.), International
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Philips, R. L. & Hunt, J. G. (Eds.). (1992). Strategic leadership: A
multiorganizational-level perspective. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P. & Buckley, M. R. (2003).
Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 21-40.
Psychological Corporation., T. P., (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence, Manual. The Psychological Corporation.
Raju, N.S., Burke, M.J., & Maurer, T.J. (1995). A note on direct range
restriction corrections in utility analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 143-
149.
Rice, C. L. (1999). A quantitative study of emotional intelligence and its impact
on team performance, Pepperdine University.
Riggio, H. R. (2002). Multiple Intelligences and Leadership: An Overview. In R.
E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and
Leadership. (pp. 241-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roberts, R., Zeidner, M. & Matthews, G. M. (2001). Does emotional intelligence
meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and
conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196-231.
Rooy, D. L. V. & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of
181
Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 71-95
Rosental, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of
magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
166-169.
Rosete, D. (2004) A leader’s profile – what attributes make an effective leader?
4th International Test Users’ Conference, Melbourne, July 19-20, ACER,
pp. 50-55.
Russell, C.J. Colella, A. & Bobko, P. (1993). Expanding the context of utility:
The strategic impact of personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 46,
781-801.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J., Goldman, S., Turvey, C. & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional
attention, clarity and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the
Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Emotion, disclosure,
and health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition, & Personality, 9, 185-211.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications
of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden,
C. J. & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of
emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-
177.
Sosik, J. J. & Dworakivsky, A. C. (1998). Self-concept based aspects of the
charismatic leader: More than meets the eye. Leadership Quarterly, 9,
503-526.
Sosik, J. J. & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional
intelligence and performamce: The role of self-other agreement on
transformational leadership perceptions. Group & Organization
182
Management, 24(3), 367-390.
Spearman, C. (1904). Geaneral intelligence: Objectively determined and
measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.
Sternberg, R. & Vroom, V. (2002). The person versus the situation in
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 301-323.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligences.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of Mind: Concepts of the Nature of
Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Smart people are not stupid, but they sure can be
foolish: The imbalance theory of foolishness. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 232-242). New Haven, USA:
Yale University Press.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A review of
the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Terman, L. M. (1916). The Measurement of Intelligence. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on
trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225–251.
Vance, R. J., MacCallum, R. L., Covert, M. D & Hedge, J. W. (1988). Construct
validity of multiple job performance measures using confirmatory factor
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 74-80.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Agreements and disagreements on the
role of general mental ability (GMA) in industrial, work, and
organizational psychology. Human Performance, 15, 212-231.
183
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of
the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(5), 557-574.
Waddell, D. M., Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (2004). Organisation
Development and Change. Victoria: Thomson.
Wiggins, J.S. (1989). Review of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In J. C. Conoley
& J. J. Kramer (eds), Tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln,
NE: Univer of nebrasks press.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M., (1990). Long-term forecasting of transactional
leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary
findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Ed.), Measures of Leadership (pp.
151-169). Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership.
Yukl, G., (2006). Leadership in Organizations. New York: Prentice Hall.
Zeidner, M., Mathews, G. & Roberts, R. D. (2001). Slow down, you move too
fast: Emotional intelligence remains an elusive intelligence. Emotion,
1(3), 265 - 275.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the
workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An international review,
53(3), 371-399.
184
APPENDIX A - CONSENT FORM
I have been given information about emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness and discussed the research project with David Rosete who is conducting this research as part of a PhD degree, supervised by Dr Joseph Ciarrochi in the department of psychology at the University of Wollongong.
I understand that, if I consent to participate in this project I will be asked to: • Be administered by a psychologist the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence; • Be administered by a psychologist the Swinburne University Emotional
Intelligence Test and/or the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; and
• Complete the self-administrable Sixteen Personality Factor questionnaire. I also understand that an individual report summarising my findings will be provided with additional feedback and interpretation provided by a psychologist should I request this service. These reports will not be made available to any other individual. I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary, I am free to refuse to participate and I am free to withdraw from the research at any time. My refusal to participate or withdrawal of consent will not affect my relationship with the Australian Taxation Office.
If I have any enquires about the research, I can contact David Rosete (02 42232345) or Joseph Ciarrochi (02 42214884) or if I have any concerns or complaints regarding the way the research is or has been conducted, I can contact the Complaints Officer, Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Wollongong on 02 42214457.
By signing below I am indicating my consent to participate in this research entitled emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness, conducted by David Rosete as it has been described to me. I understand that the data collected from my participation will be used for a thesis manuscript, journal publications and organisational reports highlighting overall trends, and I consent for it to be used in that manner. This information is also made available to individuals should they request this information.
Signed Date / / Name (please print)
185
APPENDIX B – DEMOGRAPHIC FORM
This information is for statistical analysis only. No individual will be identified in any tabulation. Please respond appropriately with either a value or tick in the appropriate box
1. What is your gender? Male.............................................................................................................�1 Female.........................................................................................................�2 2. What is your age range? Less than 20 years ........................................................................................�1 20 years – less than 25 years.........................................................................�2 25 years – less than 35 years.........................................................................�3 35 years – less than 45 years.........................................................................�4 45 years – less than 55 years.........................................................................�5 55 years or older...........................................................................................�6 3. What is you current substantive or long term higher duties (more than
3 months) classification Executive Level 1 ..........................................................................................�1 Executive Level 2.1 .......................................................................................�2
Executive Level 2.2 .......................................................................................�3 SES and their equivalents ..............................................................................�4 4. How long have you been employed by the ATO? Less than 1 year ...........................................................................................�1 1 year – less than 2 years ..............................................................................�2 2 years – less than 5 years ............................................................................�3 5 years – less than 10 years...........................................................................�4
10 years – less than 15 years.........................................................................�5 15 years – less than 20 years.........................................................................�6 20 years or more ..........................................................................................�7 5. What is the highest level of qualification you currently hold. Doctorate or Ph.D .........................................................................................�1 Masters Degree.............................................................................................�2 Postgraduate Diploma or Certificate................................................................�3 Bachelor Degree (including Honours) ..............................................................�4
Associate Diploma or Certificate .....................................................................�5
High School Certificate or equivalent...............................................................�6
School Certificate or equivalent ......................................................................�7
None of the above.........................................................................................�8
186
6. What is your Business or Service Line? Office of the Chief Tax Counsel ......................................................................�1
Large Business & Internationals .....................................................................�2 Other PLEASE SPECIFY _____________________________________ �2 7. Considering your 2003 – 2004 End of Year Performance Appraisal, what
ratings did you receive for both the “what” and “how”? ‘What’ rating score of: ........................................................................... 1 to 5? ‘How’ rating score of: ............................................................................ 1 to 5? 8. For the 2003 – 2004 Multi Source Feedback report, what were your
average direct report ratings against each of the five leadership capabilities?
Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity ................................................. 1 to 6? ___ Cultivates Productive Working Relationships ............................................ 1 to 6? ___ Communicates with Influence ................................................................ 1 to 6? ___ Shapes Strategic Thinking...................................................................... 1 to 6? ___ Achieve Results..................................................................................... 1 to 6? ___ How many direct reports responded to your MSF questionnaire?...............
187
APPENDIX C – EXAMPLE OF A PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK REPORT
Please note that the contents of the report are of a fictitious person and a covering e-mail
or letter preceded each report.
188
PERSONALITY PROFILE
Personality instruments typically allow one to investigate human characteristics or traits
that are exhibited across situations, are stable and vary from individual to individual. The
Sixteen Personality Factor (5th Edition) is a comprehensive multi-dimensional measure of
personality based on extensive factor analytic research. The test is widely used in
business and industry for identifying personal qualities that influence work-setting
behaviours.
This report estimates the individual's level on each of the five broad personality
domains of the 16PF5.
A note on terminology. Personality traits describe, relative to other people, the
frequency or intensity of a person's feelings, thoughts, or behaviours. Possession of a trait
is therefore a matter of degree. We might describe two individuals as extraverts, but still
see one as more extraverted than the other.
Please keep in mind that "low," "average," and "high" scores on a personality test
are neither absolutely good nor bad. A particular level on any trait will probably be neutral
or irrelevant for a great many activities, be helpful for accomplishing some things, and
detrimental for accomplishing other things. As with any personality instrument, scores
and descriptions can only approximate an individual's actual personality. High and low
score descriptions are usually accurate, but average scores close to the low or high
boundaries might misclassify you as only average.
The table below provides the results of your five global personality factors. Scores
between 4 and 7 fall within the normal range of behaviour. Scores either above or below
tend to indicate a natural preference to either the right or left meaning of the global
behaviour.
Left Meaning 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 Right Meaning
Introverted Extroverted
Low Anxiety High Anxiety
Receptive Tough-Minded
Accommodating Independent
Unrestrained Self-Controlled
189
Extraversion versus Introversion
Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts
enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They
tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's
go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and
draw attention to themselves. Extraverts tend to be people-oriented and to seek out
relationships with others.
Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend
to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and disengaged from the social world. Their lack of social
involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply
needs less stimulation than an extravert and prefers to be alone. The independence and
reserve of the introvert is sometimes mistaken as unfriendliness or arrogance. In reality,
an introvert who scores high on the agreeableness dimension will not seek others out but
will be quite pleasant when approached.
In regards to your unique profile, it is worth noting that you obtain a high score for
Extroversion factor which measures the extent to which a person wants to be with or
around others; the extent of the person’s desire to be noticed and the amount of energy
given to initiating and maintaining social relationship.
Anxiety (Anxious versus Unperturbed)
Freud originally used the term neurosis to describe a condition marked by mental distress,
emotional suffering, and an inability to cope effectively with the normal demands of life.
He suggested that everyone shows some signs of neurosis, but that we differ in our
degree of suffering and our specific symptoms of distress. Today anxiety refers to the
tendency to experience negative feelings. Those who score high on anxiety may
experience several negative feeling such as anger, depression, or anxiety itself. They
respond emotionally to events that would not affect most people, and their reactions tend
to be more intense than normal. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as
threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional
reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in
a bad mood.
190
At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in anxiety are less easily
upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free
from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low
scorers experience a lot of positive feelings; frequency of positive emotions is a
component of the Extraversion domain.
In regards to your unique profile, it is worth noting that you obtain a low score for
Anxiety factor. Low-anxious people tend to be unperturbed; however, they may minimize
negative affect or be unmotivated to change because they are comfortable.
Tough-Mindedness (Tough-Minded versus Receptive)
Tough-Mindedness describes a dimension of cognitive style that distinguishes imaginative,
creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Receptive people are
intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be,
compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in
individualistic and nonconforming ways.
Another characteristic of the receptive cognitive style is a facility for thinking in
symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. Depending on the
individual's specific intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of
mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language,
music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts. People
with high scores on tough-mindedness tend to have narrow, common interests. They
prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle.
They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavours as
abstruse or of no practical use.
Tough-Mindedness and receptive styles of thinking are useful in different
environments. The intellectual style of the receptive person may serve a professor well,
but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in
police work, sales, and a number of service occupations.
191
Independence (Independent versus Accommodating)
Accommodating reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social
harmony. Accommodating individuals’ value getting along with others. They are
therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests
with others. Accommodating people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They
believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.
Independent individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They
are generally unconcerned with others well-being, and therefore are unlikely to extend
themselves for other people. Sometimes their scepticism about others motives causes
them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. Independent people tend to enjoy
trying new things and exhibit an intellectual curiosity. A strong element of social
forcefulness is evident in Independence. Independent people tend to form and to express
their own opinion and they often are persuasive and forceful, willing to challenge the
status quo, and suspicious of interference from others.
Accommodating is obviously advantageous for attaining and maintaining popularity.
Accommodating people are better liked than independent people. On the other hand,
accommodating is not useful in situations that require tough or absolute objective
decisions. Independent people can make excellent scientists, critics, or soldiers.
In regards to your unique profile, it is worth noting that you obtain a high score for
Independent factor, indicating someone who has the tendency to be actively and forcefully
self-determined in one’s thinking and actions. Tendencies to be dominant, socially bold,
vigilant and open to change. Independent people tend to enjoy trying new things and
exhibit an intellectual curiosity. Also a strong element of social forcefulness is evident in
Independence. Most notably is that Independent people are often persuasive and
forceful, willing to challenge the status quo, and suspicious of interference from others.
Self-Control (Self-Controlled versus Unrestrained)
Self-Control concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses.
Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and
acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than
192
work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. Unrestrained individuals can be
seen by others as colourful, fun-to-be-with, and zany.
Nonetheless, acting on impulse can lead to trouble in a number of ways. Some
impulses are antisocial. Uncontrolled antisocial acts not only harm other members of
society, but also can result in retribution toward the perpetrator of such impulsive acts.
Another problem with impulsive acts is that they often produce immediate rewards but
undesirable, long-term consequences. Examples include excessive socialising that leads to
being fired from one's job or hurling an insult that causes the break-up of an important
relationship.
Unrestrained behaviour, even when not seriously destructive, diminishes a person's
effectiveness in significant ways. Acting impulsively disallows contemplating alternative
courses of action, some of which would have been wiser than the impulsive choice.
Impulsivity also sidetracks people during projects that require organised sequences of
steps or stages. Accomplishments of an impulsive person are therefore small, scattered,
and inconsistent.
The benefits of high self-control are obvious. Self-control individuals avoid trouble
and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are
also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they
can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. Furthermore, extremely self-control
individuals might be regarded as stuffy and boring. Unrestrained people may be criticised
for their unreliability, lack of ambition, and failure to stay within the lines, but they will
experience many short-lived pleasures and they will never be called stuffy.
193
MAYER – SALOVEY - CARUSO EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TEST
MSCEIT Development Report – Obtain with permission from Dr David R Caruso
(EI Skills Group – www.eiskills.com)
Client: Report Example
MSCEIT Developed By: John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, David R. Caruso MSCEIT is published by: Multi-Health Systems of Toronto
194
WHAT IS EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE?
Defining Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence is “the ability to perceive emotions, to access and
generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and
emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote
emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
This is an ability model of emotional intelligence. John (Jack) Mayer and Peter
Salovey define emotional intelligence as the ability to reason with, and about,
emotions. For them, emotional intelligence combines feelings with thinking,
and thinking with feelings.
This model describes four, related abilities:
Identifying Emotions – the ability to correctly identify how people are feeling.
Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought - the ability to create emotions and to
integrate your feelings into the way you think.
Understanding Emotions - the ability to understand the causes of emotions.
Managing Emotions - the ability to figure out effective strategies that use your
emotions to help you achieve a goal, rather than being used by your emotions.
A Closer Look At the Four Abilities
Identifying Emotions
What Is Perceiving Emotions? Other people, as well as yourself, feel a certain
way. Even the world around you communicates and sends emotional
messages. Emotions contain valuable information about relationships and the
world. This ability starts with being aware of these clues, and then, accurately
identifying what these clues mean.
How is this ability used? You need to be aware of your own feelings and
195
emotions so that you have accurate data and information about the world
around you. Being aware of other's emotions is a key to working with people.
Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought
What Is Using Emotions? How we feel influences how we think. If you are
feeling sad, you may view the world one way, while if you feel happy, you
interpret the same events differently. People in a sad, or negative mood, tend
to focus on details and search for errors. Those in a more positive mood are
better at generating new ideas and novel solutions to problems. Knowing which
moods are best for which situations, and “getting in the right mood” is an
ability.
How is this ability used? Creative ideas can come from your ability to generate
a mood or an emotion. Feeling for other people, having emotional empathy,
may be based in part upon your ability to generate the same feeling that
another person is experiencing.
Understanding Emotions
What Is Understanding Emotions? Emotions contain information, and our
ability to understand this information and think about it plays an important role
in our day to day life. This ability answers questions such as: Why are we
feeling happy; If I say this to my friend, how will he feel; What will happen if I
say that to her?
How is this ability used? Insight into ourselves, and others, may require
emotional knowledge. This knowledge helps us to understand people better.
Managing Emotions
What Is Managing Emotions? If emotions contain information, then ignoring
this information means that we can end up making a poor decision. At times,
we need to stay open to our feelings, learn from these feelings, and use this
information to make decisions and to take appropriate action. At times, though,
it may be best to disengage from an emotion and to return to it later in order to
be effective.
How is this ability used? If you stay aware of your emotions, which contain
196
valuable information, and then use them to solve problems, the outcome may
be more positive.
YOUR OVERALL MSCEIT SCORE
Your MSCEIT scores are reported using the following scale:
Ability / Task
Develop
Consider
Develop-ing
Comp- etent
Skilled
Expert
Develop This Ability
Consider Developing This Ability
A Competent Score
Skilled in this Ability Area
Expertise in this Ability Area
We provide you with a score range in order to help you interpret your test
results. This score range is an estimate of your actual ability.
Develop This Ability: You may have some difficulty in this area. It would be
helpful to enhance your skills and knowledge.
Consider Developing This Ability: While this is not a strength, you can consider
enhancing this skill area if it is important part of your daily life.
A Competent Score: You have sufficient skill to perform in this area with some
degree of success.
Skilled in this Ability Area: This is an area of strength for you.
Expertise in this Ability Area: This may be a highly-developed area of expertise,
and suggests that you have great potential in this area.
197
An overall MSCEIT score is a handy summary of your results. Here is how you
scored on the MSCEIT.
YOUR OVERALL SCORE
Develop
Consider Develop-
ing
Comp- etent
Skilled
Expert
Emotional Intelligence
Your total score was in the Expert range. Your score indicates that you are
aware of emotions in yourself, and in others, and that your perception and
understanding of emotion is extremely accurate. You possess expertise in the
area of emotions.
Remember that all test scores are approximations of your actual
ability. Let’s next take a closer look at your MSCEIT ability scores.
198
MSCEIT ABILITY SCORES FOR Report Example
The most meaningful MSCEIT scores are the four ability scores. Here are your
MSCEIT results for these four scores:
YOUR ABILITY
SCORES
Develop
Consider
Develop-
ing
Comp-
etent
Skilled
Expert
Identifying Emotions
Using Emotions
Understanding Emotions
Managing Emotions
Your score for Identifying Emotions was in the Expert range. You are very
accurate in your read of how people feel, and you should utilize this ability.
Your score for Using Emotions was in the Skilled range. You might want to
find ways to employ this ability to accurately feel what other people feel and to
generate and access emotions to help you think.
Your score for Understanding Emotions was in the Competent range. You
usually are able to understand why people feel the way they feel. You can
describe feelings using emotional vocabulary.
Your score for Managing Emotions was in the Expert range. You are very
open to emotions and utilize the emotions to help you make better decisions.
You can engage emotions, even if they are uncomfortable, and you can
disengage from them when that is the best strategy.
199
Next, we’ll discuss each of your four ability scores in greater depth.
IDENTIFYING EMOTIONS RESULT
YOUR ABILITY
SCORE
Develop
Consider
Develop-
ing
Comp-
etent
Skilled
Expert
Identifying Emotions
You scored in the Expert range. Some possible interpretations of your score
include:
• You read people extremely well.
• Your gut feel for others is right on target.
• You are very open to, and aware of, emotional information.
Another way to help you further understand your results is to review the
following questions:
• Do you pay attention to other’s moods?
• Are you surprised by other’s analysis of the moods of people?
• Do you like to people watch?
• Do you look for emotional clues, such as tone of voice and posture, as
well as facial expressions?
This score indicates that you are good at accurately gauging which emotions
are present in your environment. You have a good emotional read on the
environment around you.
200
That means that you can read other people, and gauge how they are feeling.
Your gut sense as to whether a person is in a good mood or a bad one is right
on target. You can read other’s moods very accurately.
Social interactions can be enhanced by first accurately identifying other’s
emotions. Different actions are called for based upon the answer to emotional
identification questions such as: Is your friend really angry, or is he just
surprised by the news? Is she pleased by her performance, or just glad that it
is over? Use the information you gather about others in your decisions,
thinking, and actions. This is a very important resource that you have available
to you.
More About Identifying Emotions: The ability to accurately recognize
emotions is the most basic emotional intelligence skill. This basic aspect of
emotional intelligence involves recognizing and correctly identifying emotion in
people and the world around you. Identifying emotions is important because
the better the emotional read you have on a situation, the more appropriately
you can respond.
Performance on this ability involves attention to, and awareness of, emotions.
But, simple awareness is not enough: you must also have the ability to discern
between sadness and fear, anger and disgust. Beyond that, the degree to
which fear, anger or happiness is present must be determined.
USING EMOTIONS
YOUR ABILITY
SCORE
Develop
Consider
Develop-
ing
Comp-
etent
Skilled
Expert
Using Emotions
201
You scored in the Skilled range. Some possible interpretations of your score
include:
• You have accurate emotional empathy, and can feel what other people
feel.
• You are flexible or open-minded, and switch points of view and feelings.
• Your leadership style has the potential to energize, and to motivate
others.
One way to help you further understand your results is to review the following
questions:
• Do you easily change your feelings?
• Are you able to feel what the other person was feeling? (Not
understand them or their feelings, but to get into the same mood as
them?)
• Do you psych yourself up?
• Do you bring yourself down?
• Do you excite a group of people?
• Do you get into other people's head and heart?
• Do you grab people's attention?
• Does your thinking reflect your feelings?
You may be able to encourage open-minded decision making, planning and
idea generation by considering multiple points of view. You can generate
enthusiasm for a project, and energize, direct and motivate the group, and
yourself.
202
More About Using Emotions (to Facilitate Thought)
Your Using Emotions score is the ability which allows you to employ your
feelings to enhance the cognitive system (thinking) and, as such, can be
harnessed for more effective problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making, and
creative endeavors. Of course, cognition can be disrupted by emotions, such as
anxiety and fear, but emotions also can prioritize the cognitive system to attend
to what is important and even focus on what it does best in a given mood.
Emotions also change the way we think, creating positive thoughts when a
person is happy, and negative when the person is sad. These changes in
viewpoint force us to view things from different perspectives. Such shifting
viewpoints may foster creative thinking.
UNDERSTANDING EMOTIONS
YOUR ABILITY
SCORE
Develop
Consider
Develop-
ing
Comp-
etent
Skilled
Expert
Understanding Emotions
You scored in the Competent range. Some possible interpretations of your
score include:
• You have a reasonably good emotional vocabulary.
• You have some knowledge of complex emotions.
• You can be emotionally aware and insightful.
One way to help you further understand your results is to review the following
questions:
203
• Do you correctly answer emotional what-if questions?
• Are your analyses of people usually on-target?
• Do you employ your emotional knowledge to help you figure people
out?
• Do you describe emotions in a rich manner?
• Are you a good judge of others?
Your score on Understanding Emotion suggests that you have a good
understanding of emotional transitions. You can also describe emotions and
the difference between them. There are certainly emotions that you struggle to
understand, or to describe. You might want to attend more carefully to subtle
differences between similar emotion words.
More About Understanding Emotion
Understanding emotions means being able to think accurately about emotions.
It involves being able to connect situations with certain emotions. It also
involves knowing that it is possible to feel several, possibly conflicting feelings
in certain situations. Understanding what leads to various emotions is a
critical component of emotional intelligence. For instance, annoyance and
irritation can lead to rage if the cause of the irritation continues and intensifies.
Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is important in our
dealings with other people and in enhancing our self understanding.
204
MANAGING WITH EMOTIONS
YOUR ABILITY
SCORE
Develop
Consider
Develop-
ing
Comp-
etent
Skilled
Expert
Managing Emotions
You scored in the Expert range. Some possible interpretations of your score
include:
• You can make optimal decisions because you stay open to emotions.
• Your decisions include thinking and feeling.
• You may have a long-term focus on problem solving.
One way to help you further understand your results is to review the following
questions:
• Do you go with your gut?
• Do you use your feelings as a guide?
• Are you good at influencing others?
• Do your decisions end well?
• Do you provide sound, psychologically-minded advice to others?
Your score in this area means that you are very good at resolving conflict and
that you can handle emotions, rather than be scared by them. You have an
important technical skill that you can apply to working and relating to others,
and managing your own emotions to enhance the quality of your life.
This ability may mean that at times your perspective is different from others.
You realize the informational value of emotion, and this can make the process
205
of decision making more complex and more difficult, even though the decisions
themselves are probably right on target.
More About Managing With Emotion
Managing with emotions means you feel your feelings, and then use them in a
judicious way, rather than acting on them without thinking.
For instance, anger, like many emotions, is a misunderstood emotion. Anger is
not necessarily a bad thing to feel. In fact, it is anger which helps us to
overcome adversity, bias and injustice. Anger arises when we feel frustrated,
cheated or taken advantage of. Yet, anger, if left to itself, can blind us and
cause us to act in negative, or antisocial ways.
Managing With Emotions measures your ability to feel the emotion, no matter
what the emotion may be, but to then combine thinking with this emotion in
order to make the best possible decisions and take the most effective actions.
This ability works with the emotion of anger, but also with all other emotions.
206
How To Use Your MSCEIT Results
Emotional intelligence can be defined and measured as an intelligence, or as a
set of abilities. The MSCEIT provides you with an estimate of these emotional
skills. Tests like the MSCEIT are designed to help people learn more about
themselves and to better understand their strengths.
Remember that emotional intelligence is just one part of who you are, and that
there are many other parts of your personality that are perhaps just as
important, or more important, than emotional intelligence.
Leverage Your Emotional Abilities - We hope that we made it clear that the
MSCEIT is an ability test, and that it measures your emotional skill or ability.
Your results indicate that you have a high level of such skill.
You might be aware of this ability, or you might not. But either way, look for
situations in which you have had an accurate insight into people or complex
interactions. Think of times when your read of a situation was right on target.
Find ways to leverage this emotional ability.
Leverage Your Emotional Vision - You have 20/20 vision when it comes to
accurately identifying emotions. Remember that this is not the same as
emotional awareness - we're talking about being aware but also being correct.
The information that you can gain from your interactions with other people is of
great value and you should generally trust your emotional 'read' of others.
Leverage Your Ability To Feel Emotions - Emotions direct our attention
toward important events. Emotions also help us to think, decide, plan and act.
This is one of your strengths, and you should look for ways to make use of your
emotional ability. Is there a way that you can leverage your skill to help you
with idea generation, creative pursuits, or to utilize your emotional insight?
Your empathy for people, to feel what others feel, offers you a unique look into
what makes people, and yourself, tick. Of course you don’t always have to
207
apply this ability, but you should be aware of this emotional potential and use it
wisely and to better assist you.
Leverage Your Emotional Knowledge - It looks like you can manage with
emotions effectively. As long as your emotional data source is accurate, then
you should certainly go with your decisions as you are able to integrate
emotions and thinking in a very constructive manner.
208
APPENDIX D
APPLYING UTILITY ANALYSIS TO AN ABILITY-BASED MEASURE OF
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELECTION
Utility analysis provides a method to evaluate how well a particular
psychological test performs when used to make decisions. It is particularly
used in the area of personnel selection and recruitment (De-Corte, 1996;
Murphy and Davidshofer, 1988; Russell, Colella and Bobko, 1993).
Specifically, utility theory provides a method for estimating in dollar
terms the gross gain per year in productivity that would result if a valid test is
used during the personnel selection process (Murphy and Davidshofer, 1988).
The principal equation is aimed at comparing the dollar production of those
hired by a particular psychological test with the dollar production of the same
number of workers hired randomly. The difference is known as the (marginal)
utility of the selection process (Hunter and Hunter, 1984). The formula for
Total Utility (ie, gain in productivity) is estimated by:
U = N T rxy SDy Zxs (Hunter and Hunter, 1984) where,
N = number of persons to be hired
T = average term for those hired
rxy = correlation between predictor scores and job performance
SDy = standard deviation of the criterion in dollar terms
Zxs = the standard score on the test
209
Murphy and Davidshofer (1988) suggest that several factors will affect the
overall quality of decisions made using utility analysis. Firstly, the validity of the
test (rxy), low validity can sometimes have higher utility than tests of high
validity. Secondly, the standard deviation of the criterion (SDy), that is, the
larger the standard deviation the lower the potential gain associated with the
use of the psychological tests. The reason for this is that a large standard
deviation indicates substantial differences in criterion scores. While a small
standard deviation indicates that everyone performs at a similar level.
Therefore, if individuals’ difference in performance is large, the quality of the
selection decisions will make a great deal of difference. Finally, the average
test among those selected (Zxs) will also affect utility.
For these studies we obtain the following values.
N = 1 (example of a recent selection campaign)
T = 1 year
rxy = .50 (highest correlation between EI and job performance obtained)
SDy = A$ 52,000 (based on the notion that those rated as superior are in fact
performing 40% more efficiently. Average salary package being A$
130,000)
Zxs = 12.82 (Taken directly from the results obtain on the MSCEIT)
Returning to our utility analysis, U = N T rxy SDy Zxs (Hunter and Hunter,
1984), U = 12 *1 * .50 * $52,000 * 12.82 = A$ 3,999,840.
210
Thus, the productivity gain for one year due to hiring on the basis of the
EI measure rather then at random is 4 million Australian dollars. In reality, we
would not select potential candidates at random but would use a combination
of methods and clearly the results of these studies show that the ability-base EI
would add significant value in a selection process within this environment.
Also, our results show that the average tenure is 15 years, this will in effect
increase the overall magnitude of the potential savings one could make by
implementing an ability-EI measure into the selection of senior executives.
top related