Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 409–410 (2005)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.316

Point/ Introduction: emotional intelligence

Counterpoint
PAUL E. SPECTOR*

Few topics in both organizational research and psychology have been as controversial as emotional
intelligence (EI), typically defined as abilities concerning the recognition and regulation of emotion
in the self and others. Debate rages about the definition and nature, measurement, and application of
EI. Controversy exists not only between EI researchers and their critics who doubt the value of the
concept, but also among EI researchers themselves, who take quite different views of the nature of
EI. Exaggerated claims for the importance of EI in job performance, leadership, and other areas of
organizational life have helped fuel opponents of the entire idea.
Our current point/counterpoint exchange brings together five leading scholars who have very differ-
ent views of EI. Frank J. Landy traces early failed attempts to assess social intelligence and notes that
more modern research on EI is in many cases either suspect or inadequately reported in the scientific
literature. Edwin A. Locke makes his case that EI does not meet the requirements to be considered an
intelligence at all as he draws distinctions between cognition and emotion. Jeffrey M. Conte limits his
critique to existing measures, focusing on four of the most popular. He concludes that all are lacking,
although some are more promising than others. Neal M. Ashkanasy and Catherine S. Daus address a
number of points raised by each of the three critiques. Although agreeing on several issues, they note
that much of the criticism applies only to certain models/scales of EI and does not apply to the more
serious scientific work on the Salovey and Mayer (1990) model of EI. In a second paper Daus and
Ashkanasy review literature showing promising findings supporting the viability of the Salovey and
Mayer conception of EI. As a group, these five papers present diverging views about EI, representing
those who question its value with those who believe in its worth. If there is any common ground it is
perhaps that they would agree much work remains to achieve consensus in the field one way or the
other about the viability of the EI concept, and the construct validity of EI measures.

Author biography

Paul E. Spector is a professor of I/O psychology and the I/O doctoral program director at the
University of South Florida. His work has appeared in many journals, including Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior,

* Correspondence to: Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, U.S.A.
E-mail: spector@shell.cas.usf.edu

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 5 January 2005
410 INTRODUCTION

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, and Psychological
Bulletin. At present he is an associate editor for Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and the
Point/Counterpoint editor for Journal of Organizational Behavior, and is on the editorial boards of
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Organizational Research Methods, and
Personnel Psychology. In 1991 the Institute For Scientific Information listed him as one of the 50
highest-impact contemporary researchers (out of over 102,000) in psychology worldwide.

Reference

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 409–410 (2005)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.