Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence:

Contribution to performance or managerial fad?

Peter J. Jordan
Lecturer
School of Management
Griffith University
Nathan, Queensland, 4111
Australia
Telephone number: 61 7 3875 3717
Facsimile number: 61 7 3875 3887

Manuscript submitted to the

Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference,
ANZAM 2000
Sydney, December, 2000

A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence:

Contribution to performance or managerial fad?

Page 0

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 1

Abstract
A number of recent books have focussed on the contribution of emotional
intelligence to management in organizational. As a result of this popularisation, there are
an increasing number of management consultants promoting emotional intelligence
interventions in organizations. The popularity of emotional intelligence however has
proved a two edged sword. While raising awareness of emotional intelligence and its
potential to contribute to predicting and understanding human behavior, the popularity of
the term has resulted in some academics suggesting that emotional intelligence is a fad.
Researchers who are sceptical about the emotional intelligence construct point to the
diverse number of constructs and exaggerated claims of the contribution of emotional
intelligence to success and performance. This paper examines academic and popular
writings on the topic of emotional intelligence and identifies common themes and points of
divergence. The paper concludes with some observations on the potential of emotional
intelligence for contributing to the practice of management in organizations.
Introduction
A number of recent books have focussed on the contribution of emotional
intelligence to management in organizational settings (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman,
1995, 1998; Weisinger, 1998). As a result of this popularisation, there are an increasing
number of management consultants promoting emotional intelligence interventions in
organizations (http//:www.sixseconds.org; http//:www.eiorg.com). While its popularity
has raised awareness of emotional intelligence and its potential to contribute to improving
performance in organizations, some researchers question the validity the emotional
intelligence construct. Researchers who reject the emotional intelligence construct point to
the plethora of constructs that use the nomenclature of emotional intelligence and maintain
that it has all the hallmarks of a fad (Davies, Stankov & Roberts, 1999). Secondly, critics
of emotional intelligence suggest that it may be redundant with some constructs of
personality (Ciarrochi, Chan & Caputi, 2000). Finally, critics point to the exaggerated
claims of authors on the contribution of emotional intelligence to success and performance
and are sceptical about the claims (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, in press; Mayer,
Salovey & Caruso, in press). The purpose of this paper is to examine academic and
popular writings on the topic of emotional intelligence and to identify common themes and
points of divergence. These themes will then be assessed for their relationship to criteria
that determine both intelligence and emotions. The paper concludes with some
observations on the current constructs of emotional intelligence and the ability of emotional
intelligence to make a unique contribution to the field of management.
Emotional intelligence was initially proposed by Salovey & Mayer (1990) as set of
social skills and abilities akin to, but distinct from intellectual intelligence. Since then,
interest in emotional intelligence has increased dramatically, with several popular books
being written on the topic, most notably that by Goleman (1995).
The emotional intelligence construct however is being questioned both by
academics working outside the field (Davies, et al. 1998, Stankov, 1999) and even from
those promoting emotional intelligence (Mayer, et al. in press). The most obvious problem
has been the lack of a single widely accepted construct for emotional intelligence (Mayer

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 2

et al , in press, Ciarocchi, et al, 2000). Finally, the propensity for the authors and
consultants who promote emotional intelligence in organizations to make exaggerated
claims about the contribution of emotional intelligence to performance and success (e.g.
Goleman, 1995) has also produced its share of critics (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). If
emotional intelligence is to become a broadly accepted and well-researched construct, then
the construct must be stable or research into its ability to predict performance will be
meaningless. The aim of this paper is to identify the components that will form that
construct. To begin this exploration it is appropriate to gain a better understanding of the
concept of intelligence.
Intelligence
Sternberg (1985) offers some insights into the development of the concept of
intelligence. He contends that intelligence is a concept that focusses on predicting
individual performance and notes that critics of intelligence point to the fact that often
intelligence constructs refer to tasks or abilities that are valued by a specific culture.
Finally, Sternberg (1985) argues that the most valuable contributions in the field of
intelligence are those that outline the link between mental functioning and situational
performance. Sternbergs point here is that intelligence needs to be able to be applied and
be useful in practical situations. Certainly emotional intelligence has the potential to fit
into this framework because it involves a link between cognitive activity and emotional
perceptions and reactions, a process that every individual working in an organization faces
every day.
Sternberg (1985) suggests that three criteria determine the existence of intelligence.
First, he suggests that intelligence should reflect behavior in the real world, relevant to the
culture the individual lives in. Second, it should be purposive or directed towards goals.
Third, it should involve either adaptation to the environment (fluid intelligence) or the
automatization of high level processes (crystallized ability). Thus, with even critics of
concept of emotional intelligence acknowledging its potential as a crystallized ability
(Stankov, 1999), it appears tenable that emotional intelligence can be considered as
intelligence and could contribute to predicting performance in organizations. But to do this
a link between emotions and intellgience needs to be established. A closer examination of
emotions research will determine those factors that need to be present for the emotional
intelligence construct to contribute a better understanding in the field of emotions.
Emotion
The question of a definition of emotion has been posed in a number of papers about
emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, Mayer, et al. in press). None of these
papers, however, have considered what is not an emotion. This question appears to be
equally important. I have already suggested that one of the debilitating features of the
emotional intelligence paradigm is the diversity of constructs. Closer examination of these
constructs suggests that one distinguishing feature of many of these constructs is that they
include factors that are not normally considered emotions. For example, Cooper and
Sawaf (1997) identify integrity and responsibility as factors of emotional intelligence
while Goleman (1995) includes factors such as trustworthiness and conscientiousness. I
will elaborate on this issue later in this paper. In the meantime, it is important to determine
what constitutes an emotion.
Frijda (1986) points out that emotions are inextricably linked to behaviour. She
notes that emotions provide an explanation for behaviour that has no other external purpose

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 3

or reason. Ortony, Clore and Collins (1988) advance this position by stating that emotions
are one of the most common aspects of experience that can both enrich and dramatically
disrupt that experience. They consider that strongly effect judgement and performance, a
point that is supported by other authors (Janis & Mann, 1979). Frijda (1986) and Ortony et
al. (1988) suggest that emotions are produced by significant events and are therefore a
result of cognitive processes.
Much of the non-functionality ascribed to emotion does not issue from emotion per
se, but rather from concerns that underlie emotions (Frijda, 1986). This was noted by
Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) who argue that emotions contribute to workplace
performance and provided an insight into organizational behaviour. Frijda (1986) notes
that emotional processes are not discrete events, but rather the result of perceptions that are
continuously updated as a result of experience. Certainly within a business environment
workers are continuously faced with changing perceptions as a result of new experiences.
To summarize so far, while intelligence research in general has been focussed on
predicting success and performance potential, emotions research has focussed on
predicting or explaining behavior. Clearly there is a link between individual behaviours
and success in that specific behaviour will lead to success. Therefore emotional
intelligence has to the potential to contribute to improved performance in organizations.
The link between intelligence and emotions
Forgas (1995) contends that the processes linking affect to thinking and judgments
remain incompletely understood. He notes that most of the existing research has focussed
on the effect of emotion on judgments. In comparison, intelligence is most commonly used
to address the question of how effectively a person is behaving in relation to internally or
externally defined criteria (Ford, 1994). Ford (1994) argues that there is a need for
theories and constructs that link the processes of human behavior with effectiveness
criteria. In a business environment emotional intelligence appears to have the potential to
provide one of those links. An examination of current constructs of emotional intelligence
will reveal if this link has already been made.

Construct Definition of Emotional intelligence

Since Salovey and Mayer first coined the term emotional intelligence, however,
subsequent writers such as Cooper and Sawaf (1997), Goleman (1995, 1998), and
Weisinger (1998) have espoused their own constructs of emotional intelligence. An
examination the constructs of emotional intelligence provided by Mayer and Salovey
(1997), Goleman (1995) and Cooper and Sawaf (1997) will reveal if these
conceptualizations of emotional intelligence are able to contribute to organizational
behaviour.
Mayer and Salovey
Salovey and Mayers (1990) original construct of emotional intelligence included
the ability to deal with ones own and others emotions and to use this information to assist
individuals in problem solving and decision making. Mayer and Saloveys (1997) most
recent construct for emotional intelligence is operationalised on four factors: (1) verbal
and non-verbal appraisal and expression of emotion; (2) regulation of emotion in the self
and in others; (3) emotional knowledge designed to promote intellectual and emotional

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 4

growth; and (4) ability to generate emotions to assist problem solving. Mayer and Salovey
(1997) emphasize that emotional intelligence is a multi-dimensional construct and that
these steps are iterative, rather than linear. Therefore, each of the factors can be
considered independently. Each of these factors appears to have the potential to contribute
to a better understanding of organizational behaviour across a broad range of issues.
Goleman
Goleman (1998) outlines five components of emotional intelligence: self awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. While three of these
factors, self-awareness self-regulation and social skills, broadly interpreted, fit within
Mayer and Saloveys framework for emotional intelligence, I would argue that motivation
and empathy, while related to emotional intelligence should not be part of the construct.
Goleman (1998) states that empathy is the dominant factor of emotional intelligence,
because it is most often associated with the construct. The interpretation of empathy that
Goleman suggests is thoughtfully considering employees feelings (1998:100). This
description of empathy contains a number of vague factors including being aware of others
emotions and managing them. The combination of these factors may produce empathy, a
higher level skill that, as Mayer, et al. (in press) suggest, is not a part of the construct, but a
product of it. Golemans empathy construct also appears not to conform with mainstream
formulations of empathy that include factors ranging from empathetic concern and
perspective taking to personal distress and fantasising (Davis, 1994).
Goleman (1998) also infers that individuals with high emotional intelligence will
be highly self-motivated. The link between emotions and motivation is supported by
another group of writers including Roseman (1979) and Lazarus (1982) who argue that an
emotion cannot be generated without a goal or a personal stake in the interaction. I argue
that self-motivation should not be considered an emotion. While there may be a correlation
between self-motivation and need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), there are a range
of existing constructs in the area of personality and motivational theory that deal with the
need for achievement (McClelland, 1961).
Frijda (1986) clearly distinguishes between emotions and motivation. She sees
motivation as a combination of desire and enjoyment, and argues that, whereas proper
emotion involves a change in attitude towards others or a situation (Frijda, 1986, 460),
motivation involves the initiation and maintenance of new courses of action designed to
achieving goals.
Golemans (1998) detailed descriptions of both self-regulation and social skills
also include factors that do not fit the emotional intelligence construct. He incorporates in
self-regulation trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability and innovation.
Trustworthiness and conscientiousness both involve values that are not linked intelligence
or emotions. While some correlation may exist between empathy and trustworthiness and
conscientiousness this does not mean that they are dependent on emotions. Again
adaptability and innovation could be correlated with high emotional intelligence, but it is
doubtful that they are emotional in nature. Additionally, these last four factors are included
in existing constructs and corresponding measures in the personality literature (Costa &
McRae, 1985).
While contributing to the identification of skills involved in human competence, it
appears that Golemans construct for emotional intelligence reaches too far to be confined

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 5

by the emotional intelligence framework. This is highlighted by Goleman (1995) when he

infers that emotional intelligence is another word for character. In essence, Goleman
(1995, 1998) fails to make the crucial connection between cognitive processing and the
emotions, seemingly a prerequisite for an emotional intelligence construct.
Cooper and Sawaf
Cooper and Sawaf (1997) propose an emotional intelligence construct that consists
of four factors: emotional alchemy, emotional literacy, emotional depth, and emotional
fitness. Emotional alchemy involves intuition and fluid intelligence; emotional literacy, is
a combination of self-awareness, respect and responsibility; emotional depth includes core
character integrity and purpose; and finally, encompasses resilience and building
relationships. While some factors in Cooper and Sawafs (1997) construct could
contribute to emotional intelligence, there are a number of factors that are outside the
emotional intelligence framework. Steiner & Perry (1997) explain the concept of
emotional literacy and suggest that emotional awareness ranges from numbness, where
there is no emotional awareness, to interactivity where you are sensitive to the ebb and
flow of emotions around you. This infers a linear relationship between the extent to which
emotions are experienced and high emotional intelligence. This argument, however may
not be sustainable because research suggests that an over experience of emotions could be
more debilitating than a paucity of emotions (Davis, 1994).
Again, following Golemans (1995, 1998) lead, Cooper and Sawaf (1997) include
factors such as respect, responsibility, integrity and purpose that are attitudinal, rather than
factors of emotional intelligence. While a factor such as resilience may be broadly
interpreted to involve emotional repair, or the ability to overcome negative emotional
feelings, there is no clear link made between emotional repair and cognitive activity.
Therefore, these factors have little to do with explicating the emotional intelligence
construct. The fluid intelligence referred to by Cooper and Sawaf (1997) appears to
parallel Spearmans (1927) description of cognitive intelligence, but the link between this
and emotions is not clear other than being alluded to as some sort of alchemy.
For instance, Cooper and Sawaf (1997) suggest that responsibility is a core factor
in emotional intelligence. I would argue that emotionally intelligent individuals may or
may not be responsible since this involves a set of moral judgement or ethical values that
are not emotional in nature. This framework does not appear to be conducive to explicating
the construct of emotional intelligence.
In summary, Cooper and Sawaf (1997) conceptualization of emotional intelligence
appears to have raised some good issues in relation to whether it is a crystallized ability or
a fluid ability. Unfortunately, their overall conceptualization of emotional intelligence
appears to be based on an ideal that they see as conforming to the desirable employee,
rather than having any basis in theory. Similar to Goleman, they fail to make the vital link
between emotions and cognition that may prove a new contribution to the field of
organizational behaviour.
Links to Performance
Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (in press) attempt to clarify the plethora of definitions
of emotional intelligence and suggest that there are mixed models and mental ability
models. Mixed models encompass social and emotional competencies (eg. Goleman, 1995;

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 6

Cooper & Sawaf, 1997) that have an affinity with personality measures, while mental
ability models link emotions to cognitive processes. Popular constructs of emotional
intelligence share a common failing in trying to make emotional intelligence an allencompassing construct. Linked to this, these writers have generally tried to establish the
significance of emotional intelligence by making outlandish claims about the impact of
emotional intelligence on individuals lives. For example Goleman (1995 alluded to the
fact that emotional intelligence could contribute up to 80 percent of success, clearly a bold
claim. Since this time, other writers have claimed a 1000 percent return on investment for
organizations investing in emotional intelligence (HayGroup/ McBer, 2000).
Despite these claims, emotional intelligence may contribute to performance in
organizations. Recent research by Jordan, et al. (in press) and Schutte, Malouff, Hall,
Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dornheim (1998) using the Mayer and Salovey construct of
emotional intelligence have shown a correlation between emotional intelligence and
performance at a much more modest level. If this is the case, it appears that selfimprovement books need to incorporate factors beyond emotional intelligence to make a
major contribution to individuals lives, but the inclusion of these factors extends the
constructs beyond what could reasonably be considered emotional intelligence.
Summary
I opened with the argument that the plethora of constructs for emotional intelligence
at one stage enabled this exploration but it now appears that the plethora of constructs may
be actually a hindrance to further research in the area. By linking emotional and cognitive
interactions, Mayer and Salovey (1997) have opened up an area that is worthy of
exploration and one that may contribute to improving performance.
This paper has identified the lack of coherent constructs as a source of contention
regarding the emotional intelligence construct. I have resolved this contention by
producing a synthesis of this work and by creating a category for each of the
conceptualizations and explaining their foundation. From this work, the Mayer and
Salovey (1997) construct appears to be the framework most likely to produce a construct
of emotional intelligence as it addresses emotion and intelligence criteria.
References
Ashforth, B. E. & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.
Human Relations,48, 97 - 125.
Ciarrochi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C., & Caputi, P. 2000. A critical evaluation of the emotional
intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Difference 28: 539-561.
Cooper, R.K., & Sawaf, A. 1997. Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations. New York: Grossett/Putnam.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Davis, M.H. 1994. Empathy: A social psychological approach. Dubuque, IA: Brown and
Benchmark.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. 1998. Emotional intelligence: In search of an
elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989 1015.

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 7

Ford, M.E. 1994. A living systems approach to the integration of personality and
intelligence. In Robert J.Sternberg, and Patricia Ruzgis, (Eds) Personality and
intelligence. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University pp. 188-217.
Forgas, J. P. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
Bulletin, 117: 39-66.
Frijda, N.H. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:
Bantam.
Goleman, D. 1998, November-December. What makes a leader? Harvard Business
Review,76, 93-102.
HayGroup / McBer. 2000. Emotional intelligence: Optimising Human Performance in the
workplace. Conference London May 15 17, 2000.
Janis, I. J. & Mann, L. 1979. Decision-making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict,
Choice, and Commitment. The Free Press, New York.
Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J., & Hooper, G. in press. Workgroup
emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process
effectiveness and goal focus, Human Resource Management Review.
Lam, L.T. & Kirby, S.L. 1999. Does emotional intelligence give you an edge? An
exploration of the impact of EQ and IQ on individual performance. Poster session at
59th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago August, 1999.
Lazarus, R.S. 1982. Thoughts on the relations between cognition. American Psychologist,
37, 1019 1024.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter
(Eds.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators
(pp 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. 1997. The emotional IQ test. (CD ROM).
Needham, MA: Virtual Entertainment.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D.R. in press. Competing Models of Emotional
Intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of Human Intelligence. New York:
Cambridge.
McClelland, D. C. 1961. The Achieving Society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L. & Collins, A. 1988. The cognitive structure of emotions. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Roseman, I.J. 1979. Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory. In P. Shaver.
Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Emotions, Relationships and Health,
London: Sage Publications.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
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.
Spearman C. 1927. The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and Measurement. New York:
Macmillan.
Stankov, L. 1999. Mining on the No Mans Land between intelligence and personality.
In P. Ackerman, P.C. Kyllonen & R. D. Roberts (eds) Learning and Individual
Differences, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Emotional intelligence A Managerial Fad?

Page 8

Steiner, C. & Perry, P. 1997. Achieving Emotional Literacy: A Program to increase your
emotional intelligence. New York: Avon.
Sternberg, R.J. 1985. Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Weisinger, H. 1998. Emotional intelligence at work. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass.