Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Emotional Intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the
trait EI model, a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of
one's self, of others, and of groups.[1] Different models have been proposed for the
definition of EI and disagreement exists as to how the term should be used.[2] Despite
these disagreements, which are often highly technical, the ability EI and trait EI models
(but not the mixed models) enjoy support in the literature and have successful
applications in different domains.
Contents
[hide]
• 8 External links
[edit] Origins of the concept
The earliest roots of emotional intelligence can be traced to Darwin’s work on the
importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation.[3] In the 1900s,
even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as
memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of
study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance,
as early as 1920, E. L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of
understanding and managing other people.[4]
The first use of the term "Emotional Intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's
doctoral thesis, A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence from 1985.[7]
However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966).
Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990),
and Goleman (1995).
• Ability EI models
• Mixed models of EI
• Trait EI model
Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the
standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial
definition of EI was revised to: "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to
facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal
growth."
The ability based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to
make sense of and navigate the social environment.[11] The model proposes that
individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their
ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest
itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model proposes that EI includes 4 types of
abilities:
The ability-based model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive
validity in the workplace. [12]
Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the
assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers
agree that they tap slightly different constructs. The current measure of Mayer and
Salovey’s model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items.[11] Consistent
with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based
IQ tests. By testing a person’s abilities on each of the four branches of emotional
intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score.
Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms.
Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating
higher overlap between an individual’s answers and those provided by a worldwide
sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of
overlap is calculated between an individual’s answers and those provided by a group of
21 emotion researchers.[11]
Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that
its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus
scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a
minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed
emotionally 'intelligent' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and
other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI
as a genuine intelligence.
In a study by Føllesdal [13] the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were
compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that there were
no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she was rated by the
employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader effectiveness.
Føllesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi-Health Systems, which administers
the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing the
test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems
to remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring, but without stating this officially.
1. Self-awareness — the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact
while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
2. Self-management — involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and
adapting to changing circumstances.
3. Social awareness — the ability to sense, understand, and react to others' emotions
while comprehending social networks.
4. Relationship management — the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others
while managing conflict.
1) The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999 and the
Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), which was created in 2007.
2) The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can be
taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment[16].
Petrides and colleagues [19] (see also Petrides, 2009) proposed a conceptual distinction
between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI.[20] Trait EI is "a
constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions located at the lower levels of
personality". In lay terms, trait EI refers to an individual's self-perceptions of their
emotional abilities. This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self
perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model
which refers to actual abilities, which have proven highly resistant to scientific
measurement. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework.[21] An
alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy.
The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed
above. The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies
outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as
much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and
hypotheses that are formulated about it.[20]
There are many self-report measures of EI, including the EQi, the Swinburne University
Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT),the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test
(SSEIT), a measure by Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005). From the perspective of the trait EI
model, none of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim),
but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional intelligence (Petrides, Furnham, &
Mavroveli, 2007). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is an open-
access measure that was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively
and is currently available in 15 languages.
The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides and colleagues' model that
conceptualizes EI in terms of personality.[22] The test encompasses 15 subscales organized
under four factors: Well-Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The
psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a study on a French-
Speaking Population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally
distributed and reliable.[23]
The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning
(Raven’s matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI
(as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively
related to some of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness,
conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others(alexithymia, neuroticism). A
number of quantitative genetic studies have been carried out within the trait EI model,
which have revealed significant genetic effects and heritabilities for all trait EI scores .[24].
[edit] Alexithymia and EI
Alexithymia from the Greek words λέξις and θυμός (literally "lack of words for
emotions") is a term coined by Peter Sifneos in 1973 [25][26] to describe people who
appeared to have deficiencies in understanding, processing, or describing their emotions.
Viewed as a spectrum between high and low EI, the alexithymia construct is strongly
inversely related to EI, representing its lower range.[27] The individual's level of
alexithymia can be measured with self-scored questionnaires such as the Toronto
Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) or the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)
[28]
or by observer rated measures such as the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS).
One of the arguments against the theoretical soundness of the concept suggests that the
constant changing and broadening of its definition- which has come to encompass many
unrelated elements — had rendered it an unintelligible concept.
Arguing that EI is an invalid concept, Locke (2005) asked: "What is the common or
integrating element in a concept that includes: introspection about emotions, Emotional
expression, non-verbal communication with others, empathy, self-regulation, planning,
creative thinking and the direction of attention?" He answered by saying: "There is none."
[29]
Commenting on the multiple factors that have been included in the definition, Locke
asked rhetorically: "What does EI not include?" [29]
Other critics[30] mention that without some stabilization of the concepts and the
measurement instruments, meta-analyses are difficult to implement, and the theory
coherence is likely to be adversely impacted by this instability.
Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a
type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000) writes that Goleman's description of EI contains
assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what
researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:
"Goleman exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency
to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define
'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated;
Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot
measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on
quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis".
Similarly, Locke (2005) [29] claims that the concept of EI is in itself a misinterpretation of
the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another
form or type of intelligence, but intelligence—the ability to grasp abstractions--applied to
a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and
referred to as a skill.
The essence of this criticism is that scientific inquiry depends on valid and consistent
construct utilization, and that in advance of the introduction of the term EI, psychologists
had established theoretical distinctions between factors such as abilities and
achievements, skills and habits, attitudes and values, and personality traits and emotional
states. [31] The term EI is viewed by some as having merged and conflated accepted
concepts and definitions.
Landy (2005)[30] has claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI
have demonstrated that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some
common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy proposes that the
reason some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is in fact a
methodological fallacy — incomplete consideration of alternative explanations:
"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a
personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic
intelligence." Landy (2005)
In accordance with this suggestion, other researchers have raised concerns about the
extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions.
Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge
because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the
self-report form.[32] Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that
stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extraversion. In particular,
neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively,
individuals scoring high on neuroticism, are likely to score low on self-report EI
measures.[32]
One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et al.
(2001),[36] which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be
measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based
assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed
(meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with
high EI).
[edit] Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)
Further criticism has been offered by Brody (2004),[37] who claimed that unlike tests of
cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the
ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main
argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an emotionally
laden situation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he could actually carry out the reported
behavior.
More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as a
response pattern in which test-takers systematically represent themselves with an
excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate
responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000;
Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), acting as a
mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997;
Gangster et al., 1983).
It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a
situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is
contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering
the contexts some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the
problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).
Landy [30] distinguishes between the 'commercial wing' and 'the academic wing' of the EI
movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by the
two currents. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied
value of EI, while the later is trying to warn users against these claims. As an example.
Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they
all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence.
...emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast, Mayer (1999)
cautions "the popular literature’s implication—that highly emotionally intelligent people
possess an unqualified advantage in life—appears overly enthusiastic at present and
unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards."
Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these claims
are based are held in ‘proprietary databases', which means they are unavailable to
independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification.[30] Thus, the credibility
of the findings cannot be substantiated in a scientific manner, unless those datasets are
made public and available for independent analysis.
Research of EI and job performance show mixed results: a positive relation has been
found in some of the studies, in others there was no relation or an inconsistent one. This
led researchers Cote and Miners (2006)[38] to offer a compensatory model between EI and
IQ, that posits that the association between EI and job performance becomes more
positive as cognitive intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of
academic performance (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the
former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get higher task
performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, the
higher their EI(Emotional Intelligence).
• Collaborative intelligence
• Consensus based assessment (CBA)
• Creativity
• Cultural Intelligence
• Cyberflora
• Dispositional Affect
• Emotional bias
• Emotional capital
• Emotion work
• Emotional contagion
• Emotional labor
• Emotions in Decision Making
• Empathy
• Human fit
• Intelligence quotient
• Intercultural competence
• List of emotions
• Motivation
• People skills
• Positive psychology
• Psychological mindedness
• Theory of multiple intelligences
• Perception management
• Scheler's Stratification of Emotional Life
• Waldorf education
2)
VOLUME 29 , NUMBER 7 -July 1998
By Bridget Murray
Monitor staff
P eople who rise to the top of their field?whether it?s psychology, law, medicine,
engineering or banking?aren?t just good at their jobs. They?re affable, resilient and
optimistic, suggests a growing store of studies on professional leaders.
Goleman is the keynote speaker for the APA Annual Convention Opening Session,
Friday, Aug. 14, at 5 p.m. in the Marriott Hotel, Yerba Buena Salon 9.
At issue for many of the theory?s critics is the way Goleman defines emotional
intelligence. John Mayer, PhD, a University of New Hampshire psychologist, who was
one of the first to coin the term defines it more narrowly than Goleman. For Mayer,
emotional intelligence is the ability to understand how others? emotions work and to
control one?s own emotions. By comparison, Goleman defines emotional intelligence
more broadly, also including such competencies as optimism, conscientiousness,
motivation, empathy and social competence.
Responding to such charges, Goleman says cognitive skill 'gets you in the door' of a
company, but emotional skill helps you thrive once you?re hired. To illustrate
Goleman?s point, psychologist Steven Stein, PhD, a marketer of tests that assess
employees? emotional intelligence quotient (EQ), cites the example of a Harvard
business graduate who received numerous job offers from companies clamoring to
hire her. However, due to a lack of emotional intelligence, the woman continually
sparred with her employers and couldn?t keep any of the jobs.
Studies of close to 500 organizations worldwide, reviewed by Goleman in his book,
indicate that people who score highest on EQ measures rise to the top of
corporations. 'Star' employees possess more interpersonal skills and confidence, for
example, than 'regular' employees who receive less glowing performance reviews.
EQ at work
Bosses and leaders, in particular, need high EQ because they represent the
organization to the public, they interact with the highest number of people within
and outside the organization and they set the tone for employee morale, says
Goleman. Leaders with empathy are able to understand their employees? needs and
provide them with constructive feedback, he says.
Different jobs also call for different types of emotional intelligence, Goleman says.
For example, success in sales requires the empathic ability to gauge a customer?s
mood and the interpersonal skill to decide when to pitch a product and when to keep
quiet. By comparison, success in painting or professional tennis requires a more
individual form of self-discipline and motivation.
And there are gender differences in emotional intelligence as well, says Stein. After
administering EQ assessments to 4,500 men and 3,200 women, his organization
found that women score higher than men on measures of empathy and social
responsibility, but men outperform women on stress tolerance and self-confidence
measures. In other words, says Stein, women and men are equally as intelligent
emotionally, but they?re strong in different areas.
Patterns of emotional intelligence are not fixed, however. So men and women can
boost their all-round EQ by building their emotional abilities where they lack them,
claims Stein.
Working with psychologists and executive coaches, for example, women can hone
their assertiveness skills and learn such stress-management techniques as
meditation, yoga and jogging, says Stein. Men can learn the importance of listening
to co-workers and customers, reading their moods and winning their trust?all
increasingly important aspects of leadership, teamwork and customer and co-worker
relations, says Stein.
Indeed, notes Goleman, the real value of the growing work on emotional intelligence
is its implications for workplace training.
'IQ is relatively stable throughout life but much of emotional skill is learned,' says
Goleman. 'There?s a huge market for psychologists as executive coaches, helping
people in the workplace build their emotional competencies.'
Goleman predicts companies will increasingly opt for EQ training as they realize that
it raises job productivity and customer satisfaction. His book explores models and
guidelines for such training.
'Emotional intelligence affects just about everything you do at work,' says Goleman.
'Even when you work in a solitary setting, how well you work has a lot to do with
how well you discipline and motivate yourself.'
ABSTRACT
Professional salespeople are often placed in situations where role conflict and ambiguity are
prevalent. They are generally expected to sell a firm's products and services to generate
immediate profits, while simultaneously building customer satisfaction and promoting lifetime
customers and the long-term economic viability of the firm. The concept of customer-oriented
selling illustrates the conflict, as salespeople are required to forgo immediate benefits in lieu of
long-term rewards. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships existing between
customer-oriented selling, emotional intelligence, and organizational commitment. The results
indicate that a salesperson's customer orientation level is significantly related to emotional
intelligence. Implications of the findings indicate that managers should consider using emotional
intelligence as a selection and human-resource development tool, as improvements in emotional
intelligence are correlated with greater levels of customer orientation. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc.
Article Request:
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE
WORKPLACE: EXPLORING ITS EFFECTS ON
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT
Go
Article Information:
Title:
Author(s):
Journal:
Year:
2002
Volume:
10
Issue:
Page:
327 - 342
ISSN:
1055-3185
DOI:
10.1108/eb028956
Publisher:
MCB UP Ltd
Document Access:
Existing customers:
Abstract:
Keywords:
Article Type:
General review
Article URL:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/eb028956
Articles that form part of the Emerald Backfiles have been created through digital
scanning. Whilst all efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, Emerald will not
be held responsible for any inaccuracies. If you require further clarification please
contact backfiles@emeraldinsight.com.
Article Request:
The relationship between emotional intelligence
and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An
examination among senior managers
Go
Article Information:
Title:
Author(s):
Abraham Carmeli
Journal:
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Year:
2003
Volume:
18
Issue:
Page:
788 - 813
ISSN:
0268-3946
DOI:
10.1108/02683940310511881
Publisher:
MCB UP Ltd
Document Access:
Existing customers:
Abstract:
Keywords:
Article Type:
Research paper
Article URL:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02683940310511881