Emotional Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies Kaylene Ascough University of Queensland Princess Alexandra Hospital Hello, my name is Kaylene Ascough, I’m currently an honours student and a Senior Research Assistant at the University of QLD, as well as at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Today I wish to discuss the facts and fallacies revolving around EI. The concept of EI has such intuitive appeal and face validity that in a short period of time it has captured the attention of social scientists and organizational practitioners around the world (Druskat et al, 2006)

Overview The EI explosion – some history. Variations of EI – the 2 approaches to EI research The critics Applying EI to the work place EI training programs In this presentation, I will outline a brief history EI research, discussing the differing models of EI, along with a guide to navigating the myriad of claims to the benefits of EI in the workplace. The aim is to assist managers to understand the true value of EI as it applies to their organisation

Some History Peter Salovey and Jack Mayer (1990) “Emotional Intelligence”, in Imagination, Cognition, and Personality. The ability to perceive emotion in self and others, to understand emotion, and then to manage emotion in self and others. Daniel Goleman (1995) “Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.” Mayer and Salovey’s MEIS (1997) Reuven Bar-On (1997) developed the EQ-i, Goleman (2002) – the Emotional Competency Index. Other developments by Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel, and Hooper (2002); Schutte et al. (1998); and Wong and Law (2002). Essentially an article by Mayer and Salovey in 1990 is considered to be the seminal publication on EI They defined EI as an individual’s ability to perceive emotion in the self and others, to understand emotion, and then to manage emotion in self and others. Lots of other scholars researching in this area. Dan Goleman’s book became a best seller and brought EI into public attention. Stuff about how these mile stones were reached

Two approaches to EI Becoming the more accepted model of EI. Ability model vs personality/mixed model Ability model: Based on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four-branch abilities model. Perception of emotion (in self and others); Assimilation of emotion to facilitate thought; Understanding of emotion; Managing and regulating emotion in self and others. Becoming the more accepted model of EI. Like IQ, it is the capacity to which an individual can develop. References on separation of ability vs mixed

Two approaches to EI (contd.) Mixed/Personality Models: Argued as not representative of EI (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). Some common ground with Mayer and Salovey model. Overlap with traditional measures of personality. Examples include Bar-on’s (1997) EQ-i, Goleman, et al’s (2002) ECI. Maybe useful to the organisation, however, they are too broad in scope and do not differ markedly from personality models. Goleman – ‘Emotional competency’ Bar-on – ‘Emotional-Social Intelligence’

The critics Daus and Ashkansy (2005) address 3 main points of criticism. Emotional intelligence is dominated by opportunistic ‘academics-turned-consultants’ who have amassed much fame and fortune based on a concept that is shabby science at best. The measurement of emotional intelligence is grounded in unstable (they change all the time), psychometrically flawed instruments, which have not demonstrated appropriate validity to warrant their use; and There is no (or weak) empirical evidence that emotional intelligence is related to anything of importance in organisations. This is somewhat true in some cases. There are a number of mixed/personality models that are not much more than a re-packaging of interpersonal measurements. However, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso ability model of EI has demonstrated that it meets the standards set for something to be called an intelligence. These standards include: EI is distinct from, but positively related to, other intelligences. EI is an individual difference, wehre some people are more endowed than others. EI develops over a person’s life span and can be enhanced by training. EI involves a person’s abilities to identify and to perceived emotion (in self and others), as well as possession of the skills to understand and to manage those emotions successfully. (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005) Most of the reports that have come to this conclusion have lumped together abilities based models with personality/mixed models. However, examining the evidence for the Mayer, Salovey model separately provides quite solid evidence that EI is distinct from both cognitive ability and personality. Though the current Mayer-Salovey-Carusso model has undergone a revision in its measurement from MEIS to the MSCEIT, this change reflects the development process that any good measure must undergo. The following discussion will outline three areas of application that have garnered the most research attention today and will demonstrate the falsity of this claim.

Application of EI Leadership Job performance/Emotional labour EI predicts leader emergence and is related to transformational leadership. Job performance/Emotional labour ‘Emotional Labour’ - Defined as ‘managing emotion for remuneration’. In jobs requiring high emotional labour, an individual’s EI predicted better performance. EI skills are critical for effective team leadership, specifically, EI has a compelling relationship with transformational leadership. There have been a number of studies based on the abilities model of EI that provide strong evidence to support the relationship between EI and leadership.

Application of EI (Contd.) Positive organisational behaviour Those actions in the workplace that benefit working relationships and contribute to a positive working climate. High EI indicates increased commitment, organisational citizenship and improved morale. Working with others Better relationships in the workplace: interpersonal sensitivity and prosocial tendencies. Indicates better team performance. Conflict resolution Individuals with higher levels of EI are more able to engage in collaborative conflict resolution.

EI Training Programs Is there value in training? What to look for in EI training programs. What are you seeking to achieve? Individual performance Team performance Enhancing leadership skills Enhancing Interpersonal skills Managing conflict Though EI itself cannot be trained, it is the level of an individual’s capacity to learn and develop emotional skills. It is these emotional skills that provide a benefit to the organisation. Thus, it is important to understand the level of EI in an individual, the same way that it is important to understand an individual’s level of cognitive intelligence.

Conclusion What does EI mean to an organisation? Know the pitfalls of EI claims. Look for abilities based EI models. Seek training and development programs that show an understanding of all aspects of emotional intelligence and the role of emotions in the work place in general.

Questions? References Ashkanasy, N. M., Dasborough, M. & Ascough, K. W. (in press). Addressing the emotional dimensions of leadership: Teaching leadership with heart. In S. J. Armstrong & C. Fukami (Eds). The Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development , Sage. Ashkanasy, N. M. & Daus, C. S. 2002. Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 76. Ashkanasy, N. M. & Daus, C. S. 2005. Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4): 441. Bar-On, R. 1997. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems. Bar-On, R.; The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI); http://www.eiconsortium.org/index.html; 23 June 2005, 2005. Daus, C. S. & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2005. The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4): 453. Druskat, V.U., Sala, F., & Mount, G. (Eds) 2006. Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Emmerling, R. J. & Goleman, D.; Emotional Intelligence: Issues and common misunderstandings; http://www.eiconsortium.org/index.html; 23 June 2005, 2005. Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Jordan, P. J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2006. Evaluating the claims: Emotional intelligence in the workplace. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed? Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ascough, K. W. In press. Emotional intelligence in organizational behavior and industrial-organizational psychology. In G. Matthews & M. Zeidner & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Science of emotional intelligence: knowns and unknowns: Oxford University Press. Lopes, P. N., Côté, S., & Salovey, P. 2006. An ability model of emotional intelligence: Implications for assessment and training. In F. Sala & V. U. Druskat & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work : current research evidence with individuals and groups: xlvii, 292 p. :. Mahwah, N.J. :: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,. Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications: 3-31. New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. 2003. Measuring Emotional Intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1): 97-105. Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. 2004. Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: A Critical Review. Applied Psychology, 53(3): 371