Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mccleskey 2014
Mccleskey 2014
Mccleskey 2014
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
IJOA
22,1 Emotional intelligence
and leadership
A review of the progress, controversy,
76 and criticism
Received 20 March 2012 Jim McCleskey
Revised 20 March 2012 Organization and Management, Capella University,
Accepted 2 April 2012 Spring, Texas, USA
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – In 1990, Salovey and Mayer presented a framework for emotional intelligence (EI). This
marked the beginning of 20 years of academic research, development, and debate on the subject of EI.
A significant amount of previous research has attempted to draw out the relationship between EI and
leadership performance. EI has been a uniquely controversial area of the social sciences. EI is based on
three simple yet fundamental premises. This manuscript reviews the definitions and models in the
field of EI with special emphasis on the Mayer ability model and the connection between EI and
leadership. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper takes the form of a literature review.
Findings – EI appears to have a foothold in both our popular vernacular and our academic lexicon.
However, it is not entirely clear what future form it will take.
Originality/value – This manuscript explores the current relationship between EI and leadership,
discusses the various instruments and scales used to measure the construct, and examines the
controversy and criticism surrounding EI. Finally, it illuminates some areas for additional research.
Keywords Leadership, Emotional intelligence, Organizational behaviour
Paper type Literature review
exhibits (Glynn and Rafelli, 2010). This theoretical pluralism poses both benefits and
challenges to an academic field (p. 361). However, the fundamental premises behind EI
are simple enough. As Cherniss (2010b) indicates, the concept of EI is based on these
three premises. Emotions play an important role in daily life; people may vary in their
ability to perceive, understand, use, and manage emotions; and these variances may
affect individual adaptation in a variety of different contexts, including the workplace
(2010, p. 110). These basic premises are intuitive and difficult to refute; however, the
complete concept of EI requires additional clarification.
What is EI? How can we define it? What models currently represent the construct?
What does the research tell us about those models? What is the relationship between EI
and leadership effectiveness? What instruments measure EI? Are they valid? What are
the criticisms of EI, its definitions, and its measurement? Why is EI so popular with the
press, the practitioner, and the public? What gaps exist in the current research? What
are the future directions for research on EI? This manuscript will attempt to address
these questions.
here for reference. The first group of researchers defines EI as ability and therefore
shares similarities with Mayer et al. Gignac (2010) proposes a definition in keeping
with his seven-factor model of EI and defines EI as “the ability to purposively adapt,
shape, and select environments through the use of emotionally relevant processes”
(Gignac, 2010, p. 131). Ciarrochi and Godsell (Schulze and Roberts, 2005, pp. 71-72)
define EI as the “ability to act effectively in the context of emotions and emotionally
charged thoughts, and use emotions as information” and refer to their concept of EI as
“internally-focused” EI.
Another group of researchers defines EI in terms of emotional and/or social
competencies and skills rather than as ability. The first of these, Bar-On (1988), views
EI as a collection of competencies and skills and defines what he calls “emotional-social
intelligence” (ESI) as a:
[. . .] cross section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that
determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and
relate with them, and cope with daily demands (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14).
Boyatzis (2009) views EI in terms of competencies and skills and offers several definitions
related to the construct. He defines an EI competency as an “ability to recognize,
understand, and use emotional information about oneself that leads to or causes effective
or superior performance” (2009, p. 757). Additionally, Boyatzis (2009, p. 757) defines a
social intelligence competency as “the ability to recognize, understand and use emotional
information about others that leads to or causes effective or superior performance”. Some
critics of EI also offer a competency based definition, describing EI as “a generic
competence in perceiving emotions (both in oneself in another’s) which also helps us
regulate emotions and cope effectively with emotive situations” (Zeider et al., 2009, p. 3).
In sharp contrast to the previous approaches, Kaplan et al. (2010, p. 175) subscribe to no
particular definition of EI at all while calling for a process of study and inquiry which is
designed to reveal the “socio-emotional variables” which are operationalized as
knowledge, skills, abilities, and other factors (KSAOs) that allow leaders to influence
organizational outcomes. Their conceptual model is addressed later in the paper.
Still other researchers take a different view of EI, neither conceptualizing it as
ability or as a set of skills and competencies, but rather as a type of trait (Petrides et al.,
2007; Schutte et al., 1998). Petrides et al. (2007) view EI as a personality trait. Petrides
identifies it within the factors of personality and defines it as a “constellation of
emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies and
measured via the trait EI questionnaire” (Petrides, 2010, p. 137; Petrides et al., 2007, Emotional
p. 288). The lack of a consistent definition of the construct of EI has led some intelligence and
researchers to call for a consolidation around a single construct model and definition
(Cherniss, 2010b; Jordan et al., 2010; Matthews et al. in Murphy, 2006, p. 6; Roberts et al., leadership
2010a, b). While others are content to give the fledgling construct more time to explore
its boundaries (Van Rooy et al., 2010). Ultimately, the multitude of definitions of EI and
the sincere academic disagreement about what the construct does or should represent 79
have contributed to an environment of criticism and controversy that swirls around the
academic field of EI research.
The models of EI
A number of different conceptual approaches to modeling the construct of EI exist.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
Broadly, these include ability models; mixed-models – sometimes called emotional and
social competence models; trait models; and other models. The Mayer ability model is
the most commonly accepted model of EI. It is based on a four-branch approach to EI
and includes the four basic abilities of emotion perception; emotion facilitation; emotion
understanding; and emotion regulation (Caruso and Salovey, 2004). Jordan et al. (2010,
p. 145) describe the Mayer ability model and definition as the “gold standard” for
defining EI. A plethora of studies has been conducted using the Mayer ability model as
well as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as an
instrument. Testing and specific instruments are discussed later in the manuscript;
however, it is worth noting all of the major theoretical models of EI include the use of a
test instrument that was developed in conjunction with the model.
The Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP) was developed as a context
specific (workplace teams), self-report test of EI following the ability model. A study by
Jordan et al. (2002) provided evidence that the WEIP scale has convergent validity with
respect to existing scales relating to the EI construct. The authors also found that team
EI predicted team performance. High EI teams operated at high levels of performance
while low EI teams initially performed at a low level (Jordan et al., 2002, p. 209).
Additional EI models based on ability exist. One such model starts with the
four-branch ability model, ranks the abilities in a hierarchical structure, and then
describes the abilities as a cascading model (Newman et al., 2010, p. 161). Specifically,
Newman et al. (2010, p. 160) call their model a “facet-level process model of EI and job
performance”. Developed in part using meta-analytical evidence from previous EI
research, the cascading model shows strong statistical support for both fit and
construct validity ( Joseph and Newman, 2010, pp. 65-66). The cascading model is a
relatively new construct and one area where additional research is needed. Complete
recommendations for additional research are presented later in the manuscript.
The second major category of EI models are emotional and social competencies
(ESCs) or, more commonly known mixed-models of EI. This manuscript will use these
two terms interchangeably. Bar-On’s doctoral dissertation, competed in 1988 and
unpublished, described the first mixed-model of EI. Bar-On’s (2006, p. 14) model of
competencies and skills included:
[. . .] the ability to be aware of, to understand, and to express oneself; the ability to be aware of,
to understand and relate to others; the ability to deal with strong emotions and control one’s
impulses; and the ability to adapt to change and to solve problems of a personal or social
nature.
IJOA Bar-On’s model, which he later named the Bar-On model of ESI, includes the components
22,1 of interpersonal skills, interpersonal skills, adaptability, stress management, and general
mood (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14). Bar-On’s model, considered one of the four major EI models,
is frequently referenced and cited (Cherniss, 2010b, p. 111).
Goleman and Boyatzis developed another mixed-model approach to EI. Goleman’s
1995 bestseller, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ created a
80 wave of popularity around the concept of EI and became the touchstone for many of
the controversial issues that continue in the academic field of EI to the present day.
This book and the discussions that centered on its claims are considered further later
in the manuscript in both the discussion on popularity of EI and on criticisms of EI.
The Boyatzis-Goleman model was partially inspired by the Mayer ability model. Goleman
cited the earlier work of Salovey and Mayer (1990) in his blockbuster book (Goleman,
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
1995, pp. 42-43). However, Boyatzis and Goleman expanded the scope of their model to
encompass social and emotional competencies linked to effective performance in the
workplace. These included a number of competencies sorted into four “clusters” including
self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management
(Boyatzis, 2009; Cherniss, 2010b; Goleman et al., 2002; Goleman, 1995, 1998).
A third category of EI model is the trait model. Trait EI consists of four components:
well-being (self-confidence, happiness, and optimism); sociability (social competence,
assertiveness, and emotion management of others); self-control (stress management,
emotion regulation, and low impulses in this); and emotionality (emotional perception
of self and others, emotion expression, and empathy) (Petrides et al., 2007, pp. 274-275).
Petrides (2010, p. 137) describes trait EI as “the only operational definition in the field
that recognizes the inherent subjectivity of emotional experience”. Trait EI is a domain
comprised of numerous facets including adaptability, assertiveness, emotion
expression, emotion management, emotion regulation, impulsiveness, relationships,
self-esteem, self-motivation, social awareness, stress management, trait empathy, trait
happiness, and trait optimism (Petrides, 2010, p. 137).
In an attempt to clarify the concept of EI and to eliminate some of the confusion
surrounding the various models, Cherniss (2010b) recommends drawing a bright line
distinction between EI and ESC. If EI models (Mayer ability and cascading) and ESC
models (ESI and Boyatzis-Goleman) represent two distinct constructs, it is not necessary
to debate the legitimacy of the various models, and some of the “heated and unproductive
controversies in the field” of EI should be eliminated (Cherniss, 2010b, p. 122).
The measurement of EI
Varieties of different instruments are currently used to measure EI. The most common
82 are listed here along with a brief explanation of each. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT v2.0) is an ability-based test of EI using four
scales with each corresponding to one branch of the Mayer ability model. The test
comprises 141 items and has “adequate internal consistency and reliability” (Conte and
Dean in Murphy, 2006, p. 60). Mayer et al. (2003) and Brackett and Salovey (2006)
provide additional support for the validity of the MSCEIT. The Multifactor Emotional
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
Intelligence Scale (MEIS) is also an ability-based test of EI using four scales, with each
corresponding to one branch of the Mayer ability model. The test comprises 402 items,
has “adequate internal consistency and reliability”, and shows discriminant and
incremental validity above the Big 5 personality traits and IQ (Conte and Dean in Murphy,
2006, p. 60). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) was designed by Bar-On and in its
current format is a multirater instrument (360 degree feedback). The test comprises
133 items but has shown some limitations with discriminant validity (Conte and Dean in
Murphy, 2006, p. 60). The EQ-I came under negative scrutiny when studies revealed that
the test was susceptible to faking and showed test-retest reliability challenges (Grubb and
McDaniel, 2007; Whitman et al., 2008). The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) is used
primarily with the Boyatzis-Goleman mixed-model. The test is comprised of 72 items and
is both a self-report and multirater instrument. The evidence has shown low to moderate
discriminant and predictive validity in studies (Conte and Dean in Murphy, 2006, p. 60).
The Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) is a self-report measure of EI
comprised of 16 items. The instrument has shown adequate internal consistency and
reliability as well as some construct validity, and evidence of incremental validity above
the Big 5 (Conte and Dean in Murphy, 2006, p. 60). The Genos Emotional Intelligence
Inventory (Genos EI) is a 70 item self-report measure based on the seven-factor model of EI.
Although a relatively new instrument, a significant study using multifactor statistical
analysis has shown promising validity for the test (Gignac, 2010). Palmer et al. (2010,
p. 103) note that the Genos EI does not measure EI, rather it measures how often the subject
demonstrates 70 emotionally intelligent workplace behaviors. The test has demonstrated
respectable reliability and validity to date (Palmer et al., 2010). The Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) comes in two versions, a long and short form. The test
is a self-report questionnaire of 153 items (30 items in the short form) published since
2003. The test has shown some incremental validity to predict “emotional reactivity” over
and above social desirability, alexithymia, and the Big 5 model of personality
(Mikolajczak et al., 2007). Petrides (2010, p. 138), the author of the test, claims that Trait EI
is “not tied to specific proprietary tests” describing it as a platform for the interpretation
of data from any test of EI.
Conte and Dean (2006) note some of the issues related to the various measures of
EI by stating that “existing validity measures of EI range from weak to moderate,”
and that “attempts to measure EI have been varied and have varied in their success.”
Additionally, they note that “most EI measures also lack convergent and discriminant
validity evidence”, and finally that “these EI measures are lacking in
discriminant validity” (Conte and Dean in Murphy, 2006, p. 71). The need for effective Emotional
measurement of the EI construct is clearly an important criticism and is echoed by intelligence and
several scholars (Cherniss, 2010b, p. 116; Conte, 2005; Côté, 2010, p. 128; Gignac, 2010,
p. 132). EI’s strongest critics have pointed to the lack of effective and valid leadership
measurement repeatedly throughout its 20 year history, and despite improvements in
this area, this criticism continues to be leveled at EI today (Antonakis et al., 2009, p. 249;
Antonakis and Dietz, 2010, p. 166, 2011). The most vehement criticism against the 83
measurement of EI is the claim that test subjects can fake self-report measures of EI
(Grubb and McDaniel, 2007; Whitman et al., 2008). The criticisms of the measurement
instruments used in the study of EI are not the only controversies in the field.
The criticisms of EI
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
From its beginnings, EI has drawn a lot of criticism in the academic community,
and scholars have lined up on all sides of the issue. As mentioned previously, some
researchers (Spector and Johnson in Murphy, 2006) stated, “There is perhaps no
construct in the social sciences that has produced more controversy in recent years”
than EI (p. 325). In fact, several books exist on the subject of EI’s shortcomings
(Murphy, 2006; Zeider et al., 2009). Cherniss (2010b, p. 111) outlines the three major foci
of criticism: conflicting models and definitions; the need for better assessment and
measurement (discussed previously in this manuscript); and the significance of EI as a
predictor of important organizational outcomes such as leader effectiveness. With
regard to the problems of models and definitions, Cherniss (2010b) suggests an elegant
solution. Many of the researchers in the field have lined up behind the ability model
or the mixed-models. Therefore, Cherniss suggests that the two concepts (EI and ESC)
be separated and that we continue to study both (p. 186). As for the need for better
assessments of EI, there appears to be consensus on both sides of the EI debate.
As Van Rooy et al. (2010, p. 151) pointed out “The bottom line is that more tests
assessing the demonstration of emotional ability are needed”.
As to the third criticism, evidence of a link between EI and important organizational
outcomes continues to mount; the meta-analytical work of O’Boyle et al. (2011) is one
recent example. Additional studies which provide this evidence include: Côté and
Miners (2006), Lopes et al. (2006), Newman et al. (2010) and Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005).
So far, the evidence of EI’s relevance for specific work performance outcomes has not
slowed down its critics.
Locke (2005, p. 430) might be EI’s staunchest critic. Locke points out how:
.
multiple definitions exist and each definition of EI is constantly changing;
.
most EI definitions are so all-inclusive as to make the concept unintelligible;
.
one definition in particular (reasoning with emotion) involves an inherent
contradiction; and
.
there is no such thing as actual EI – the term itself is oxymoronic since the very
definition of intelligence involves rational, dispassionate thought.
Locke does at least concede the possibility that intelligence can be applied to emotions
(emphasis added) as well as to other life domains. He describes the highest possible
definition of EI as the idea that individuals may be more or less intelligent about
(emphasis by author) emotions. However, this is not a new form of intelligence,
IJOA but rather it is intelligence applied to a particular domain, in this case emotions. There
22,1 is already a term for mastering intelligence of a specific domain and that term is skill.
Therefore, EI is a mislabeled skill (p. 427). Ultimately, Locke calls for the replacement
of EI with the concept of introspective skills or to be redefined, as a personality trait
although, he admits that it is not completely clear what that trait would entail or what
it should be called (p. 430).
84 More recently, in a published series of interchanges between Antonakis on one side
of the debate and Antonakis et al. (2009) on the other, Antonakis writes, “It is now close
to 20 years since Salovey and Mayer (1990) wrote their groundbreaking piece” and
based on the data we now have and the correct statistical analysis conducted on that
data, either “EI researchers are using the wrong measures or the wrong methodology,
or EI does not matter for leadership” (Antonakis et al., 2009, p. 248). Landy (2005), as
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
Essentially, they have advised the research community to “do it our way”; and many of
them have, as evidenced by the fact that the four-branch ability model and the related
instruments and methodologies have become the dominant paradigm in EI research.
Even EI’s critics admit, “If there is a future for EI, we see it in the ability model of Emotional
Mayer, Salovey, and associates” (Antonakis and Dietz, 2010, p. 165). Other scholars in intelligence and
the field also support the ability model as the conceptualization of EI with the most
promising future for further research and advancement of the field (Antonakis et al., leadership
2009; Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005; Daus and Ashkanasy, 2005; Zeider et al., 2009).
The popularity of EI 85
Part of the explanation of the controversy and criticism surrounding EI comes from the
popularity of the construct itself. Since the publication of Goleman’s best-selling book in
1995 and a Time Magazine cover story in the same year (Gibbs and Epperson, 1995, p. 60)
which announced to the world that “research suggests that emotions, not IQ, maybe the
true measure of human intelligence”, EI (and the more populist term EQ) have become
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
household words. A Google search for the terms “EI” conducted at the time of this
writing returns around 8,170,000 results. A search for the term at Amazon reveals
1,356 books, recordings and other products. Zeider et al. (2009, p. 3) commented on this
phenomenon, noting that EI is all around us, and educators, business people, gurus, and
the average man are consumed by the notion that what people need for success in today’s
modern world is “emotional awareness, heightened sensitivity, and street smarts”.
Why has the construct of EI become so popular? Furnham (2006) provided some
potential answers to this question. Furnham related three signs of the popularity of EI.
These included the volume of information about EI on the internet; the use of the term by
human resource professionals in organizational settings and their comfort level with its
meaning; and the anchoring of the concept in popular language (Murphy, 2006, p. 142).
Furnham explained that the dramatic rise of popularity of EI relates to three factors.
First, EI is essentially an effective repackaging of an old idea that dates back to
Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People and carries on a time-honored
interest in interpersonal skills. Second, EI is both positive and optimistic, offering
important, relevant, and learnable skills. Finally, part of the enthusiasm for EI reflects
skepticism of IQ by the average person. Since IQ is viewed as a relatively stable
characteristic, those with average or low IQ reject the notion that IQ is highly correlated
with success in life. EI, on the other hand, is viewed as a set of skills (more correctly
mixed-model EI is a set of skills or competencies) that the average person feels they may
have, or at least can improve upon (Murphy, 2006, p. 156). The intuitive appeal of the EI
construct, its popularity with the average person, and its antithetical skepticism of IQ
may have helped make EI a prominent and enduring target for academic criticism.
Newman, 2010, p. 69). In effect, jobs that require better emotional skills, abilities and
effectiveness in order to perform well will show stronger positive correlations between
high EI scores and performance. However, jobs with lower emotional labor components
(computer programmers, accountants, technical specialists) will not show a positive
correlation between high EI scores and workplace performance, and may even show a
negative correlation to EI scores. Based on their results, Joseph and Newman (2010,
p. 54) concluded that EI positively predicted performance for high emotional labor jobs
and negatively predicted performance for low emotional labor jobs. This new finding
in the field of EI was exciting and may have far-reaching implications for future
research. EI may be a better predictor of workplace performance and outcomes than
previous research indicated; however, its efficacy is contextual and the emotional labor
content of the task, specialty, or organization plays a significant role in the outcome.
This theory may have additional implications for leadership, sales, marketing,
psychology, sociology, and a host of other fields. Ashkanasy and Humphrey (2011)
discuss the idea of “leading with emotional labor” as originally proposed by Humphrey
(2005, 2006, 2008; Humphrey et al., 2008). Ashkanasy and Humphrey (2011, p. 375)
suggest that additional research is needed in the areas of emotional labor and EI’s
emotional regulation concept. Emotional labor could be the single most promising area
for additional research on EI.
tests, the situational test of emotional understanding (STEU) and the situational test of
emotion management (STEM). The initial reliability and validity of these tests offers
promise and the characteristics of the STEM were “experimentally manipulated to
disentangle test effects from construct effects” (MacCann and Roberts, 2008, p. 540).
These new tests offer the ability to look at each branch of the four-branch ability model
individually, and should offer a wealth of new research opportunities. These three
areas, emotional labor, SJTs, and the dark side of EI represent significant and exciting
areas for additional research.
Conclusion
Nohria and Khurana (2010) point out that many scholars who study leadership focus
on the “knowing” dimension of becoming a leader. They further state that knowing
highlights the essential cognitive capabilities of the leader. These are the cognitive
abilities, also known as the multiple intelligences that the effective leader must possess.
These include analytical intelligence; practical intelligence; social intelligence; EI; and
contextual intelligence (2010, p. 21). Despite the popularity and importance of EI, there
is widespread disagreement about the EI construct and its importance in the academic
setting. For example, some have argued that EI is more important than IQ as an
indicator of individual and organizational effectiveness (Goleman, 1995). While many
critics argue that EI is merely a new “shiny new package of ideas and constructs” that
have been around for decades and that make little difference for a person’s success in
life or in organizations (Cherniss, 2010b, p. 110). A wide range of definitions,
constructs, and models are present in the field of EI, and the study of the EI borders on
theoretical pluralism. With regard to the significance of EI for important organizational
outcomes such as leadership effectiveness and job performance, there exists a growing
body of research suggesting that EI does play a role in work-related processes
(Cherniss, 2010b). EI and its related competencies may possess the kind of predictive
validity for leadership effectiveness that has often eluded researchers in the past. For
that reason, there is value in a proper understanding of current and previous research
in the field of EI, along with a review of the future implications for research in this area.
Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) aptly noted that “EI research will continue to be a central
plank of organizational behavior research for the foreseeable future” and there is no
reason to doubt the validity of that claim today.
This manuscript reviewed the definitions and models in the field of EI with special
emphasis on the Mayer ability model. It explored the relationship between EI and
IJOA leadership, discussed the various instruments and scales used to measure the
22,1 construct, and examined the controversy and criticism surrounding EI. The popularity
of EI was considered, and numerous possible avenues for additional research were
presented with particular emphasis on the idea of emotional labor as a moderator of EI
in important outcomes and the dark side of high EI individuals in organizational
contexts. As noted previously, EI rests on three basic fundamental premises: our
88 emotions play an important role in our daily lives; people vary in their ability to
perceive, understand, use, and manage these emotions; and these variances affect
individual capability in a variety of contexts, including organizational leadership. This
simple and intuitive set of premises help guide a dynamic, growing, and sometimes
controversial field of academic inquiry and should continue to do so.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
References
Antonakis, J. and Dietz, J. (2010), “Emotional intelligence: on definitions, neuroscience, and
marshmallows”, Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 165-170.
Antonakis, J. and Dietz, J. (2011), “Looking for validity or testing it? The perils of stepwise
regression, extreme-scores analysis, heteroscedasticity, and measurement error”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 409-415.
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Dasborough, M.T. (2009), “Does leadership need emotional
intelligence?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 247-261.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2005), “Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in
organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 26, pp. 441-452.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Humphrey, R.H. (2011), “A multi-level view of leadership and emotions:
leading with emotional labor”, in Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B. and
Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds), Sage Handbook of Leadership, Sage, London, pp. 363-377.
Austin, E.J., Farrelly, D., Black, C. and Moore, H. (2007), “Emotional intelligence,
Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: does EI have a dark side?”, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 179-189.
Bar-On, R. (1988), “The development of a concept of psychological well-being”, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Rhodes University, Johannesburg.
Bar-On, R. (2006), “The bar-on model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI)”, Psicothema, Vol. 18,
pp. 13-25.
Boyatzis, R. (2009), “Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence”,
The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 749-770.
Brackett, M.A. and Salovey, P. (2006), “Measuring emotional intelligence with the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT)”, Psicothema, Vol. 18,
Special, pp. 34-41.
Burke, R.J. (2006), “Why leaders fail: exploring the darkside”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 91-100.
Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (2004), The Emotionally Intelligent Manager: How to Develop and Use
the Four Key Emotional Skills of Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Cherniss, C. (2010a), “Emotional intelligence: new insights and further clarifications”, Industrial
& Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 183-191.
Cherniss, C. (2010b), “Emotional intelligence: toward clarification of a concept”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 110-126.
Conte, J.M. (2005), “A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures”, Journal of Emotional
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 433-440.
intelligence and
Conte, J.M. and Dean, M.A. (2006), “Can emotional intelligence be measured?”, in Murphy,
K.R. (Ed.), A Critique of Emotional Intelligence: What are the Problems and How Can They leadership
Be Fixed?, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 59-78.
Côté, S. (2010), “Taking the ‘intelligence’ in emotional intelligence seriously”,
Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 127-130. 89
Côté, S. and Miners, C.T.H. (2006), “Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job
performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-28, available at: http://
ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/
login.aspx?direct¼true&db¼bth&AN¼20607511&site¼ehost-live&scope¼site
Côté, S., Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Miners, C.T.H. (2010), “Emotional intelligence and
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
Riggio, R.E., Murphy, S.E. and Pirozzolo, F.J. (Eds) (2002), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G. and Zeidner, M. (2010a), “Emotional intelligence: muddling
through theory and measurement”, Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 140-144.
Roberts, R.D., MacCann, C., Matthews, G. and Zeidner, M. (2010b), “Emotional intelligence:
towards a consensus of models, measures, and applications”, Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, Vol. 10, pp. 821-840.
Rosete, D. and Ciarrochi, J. (2005), “Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace
performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 388-399.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Salovey, P., Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (Eds) (2007), Emotional Intelligence: Key Readings on
the Mayer and Salovey Model, 2nd ed., Dude Publishing, Port Chester, NY.
Schulze, R. and Roberts, R.D. (Eds) (2005), Emotional Intelligence: An International Handbook,
Hogrefe, Cambridge, MA.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T. and Golden, C.J. (1998),
“Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 25, pp. 167-177.
Spector, P.E. (2005), “Introduction: emotional intelligence”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 409-410.
Van Rooy, D.L., Whitman, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (2010), “Emotional intelligence: additional
questions still unanswered”, Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 149-153.
Walter, F., Cole, M.S. and Humphrey, R.H. (2011), “Emotional intelligence: sine qua non of
leadership or folderol?”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-59,
available at: http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com.
library.capella.edu/login.aspx?direct¼true&db¼bth&AN¼59198449&site¼ehost-live&
scope¼site
Whitman, D.S., Rooy, D.L., Viswesvaran, C. and Alonso, A. (2008), “The susceptibility of a mixed
model measure of emotional intelligence to faking: a Solomon four-group design”,
Psychology Science, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 44-63, available at: http://search.proquest.com.
library.capella.edu/docview/212206994?accountid¼27965
Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T. and Druskat, V.U. (2002), “Emotional intelligence as the basis of Emotional
leadership emergence in self-managing teams”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 505-522. intelligence and
Wong, C. and Law, K.S. (2002), “The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on leadership
performance and attitude: an exploratory study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 243-274.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2002), “Organizational leadership and social intelligence”, in Riggio, R.E., Murphy, 93
S.E. and Pirozzolo, F.J. (Eds), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 29-54.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2007), “Trait-based perspectives of leadership”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 6-16.
Zeider, M., Matthews, G. and Roberts, R.D. (2009), What We Know About Emotional Intelligence:
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
How It Affects Learning, Work, Relationships, and Our Mental Health, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Further reading
Fernandez-Berrocal, P. and Extremera, N. (2006), “Emotional intelligence: a theoretical and
empirical review of its first 15 years of history”, Psicothema, Vol. 18, pp. 7-12.
Gignac, G.E. (2010), “Seven-factor model of emotional intelligence as measured by Genos EI:
a confirmatory factor analytic investigation based on self- and rater-report data”,
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 309-316.
Harms, P.D. and Crede, M. (2010), “Remaining issues in emotional intelligence research: construct
overlap, method artifacts, and lack of incremental validity”, Industrial & Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 154-158.
Murphy, K.R. (Ed.) (2009), A Critique of Emotional Intelligence: What Are the Problems and How
Can They Be Fixed?, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004), “Emotional intelligence: a meta-analytic investigation
of predictive validity and nomological net”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 1,
pp. 71-95.
Corresponding author
Jim McCleskey can be contacted at: jim.mccleskey@hotmail.com
1. Neal M. Ashkanasy, Ashlea C. Troth, Sandra A. Lawrence, Peter J. Jordan. Emotions and Emotional
Regulation in HRM: A Multi-Level Perspective 1-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
2. BelfantiCharmaine, Charmaine Belfanti. 2017. Emotional capacity in the public sector – an Australian
review. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30:5, 429-446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. MaamariBassem E., Bassem E. Maamari, MajdalaniJoelle F., Joelle F. Majdalani. 2017. Emotional
intelligence, leadership style and organizational climate. International Journal of Organizational Analysis
25:2, 327-345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. TognazzoAlessandra, Alessandra Tognazzo, GubittaPaolo, Paolo Gubitta, GerliFabrizio, Fabrizio Gerli.
2017. Fostering performance through leaders’ behavioral competencies. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis 25:2, 295-311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 04:19 09 October 2017 (PT)
5. Marlene Dippenaar, Pieter Schaap. 2017. The impact of coaching on the emotional and social intelligence
competencies of leaders. South African Journal of Economic and management Sciences 20:1. . [Crossref]
6. AlferaihAdel, Adel Alferaih. 2017. Conceptual model for measuring Saudi banking managers’ job
performance based on their emotional intelligence (EI). International Journal of Organizational Analysis
25:1, 123-145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. John Lee West. 2016. An Analysis of Emotional Intelligence Training and Pastoral Job Satisfaction.
Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling: Advancing theory and professional practice through scholarly and
reflective publications 70:4, 228-243. [Crossref]
8. Eric Lee Buschlen, Jonathan Reusch. 2016. The Assessment of Service Through the Lens of Social
Change Leadership: A Phenomenological Approach. Journal of College and Character 17:2, 82-100.
[Crossref]
9. Jim A. McCleskey. The Current State of the Stream One Ability Model (SOAM) of Emotional
Intelligence (EI) and the Future of EI 271-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
10. Erin C. Gallagher, Alicia K. Mazur, Neal M. Ashkanasy. 2015. Rallying the Troops or Beating the Horses?
How Project-Related Demands Can Lead to Either High-Performance or Abusive Supervision. Project
Management Journal 46:3, 10-24. [Crossref]