The Effect of Personality and Emotional Intelligence On Workplace Performance

The Effect of Personality and Emotional Intelligence on Workplace Performance: An
Investigation of Hong Kong managers
by
Reuben Darrell Shaffer
Presented to the Faculty of the International Graduate School of Management
The University of South Australia in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
The University of South Australia at Adelaide, Australia
October 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
ABSTRACT v
DECLARATION vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii
Chapter
INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
What is Emotional Intelligence 8
Key Research Issues Involving El 9
Research Purpose and Objectives 10
Overview of this Study 11
LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Emotional Intelligence: An Historical Perspective 13
Empirical Studies 16
Conceptualizations of Emotional Intelligence 17
Summary 43
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 45
Socioanalytic Theory 45
A Model of Personality, El, and Workplace Performance 48
Moderating Effects of Emotional Intelligence 69
1
METHOD 72
Research Strategy and Design 72
Data Collection 74
DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 88
Analytical Procedures 88
Data Quality 89
Descriptive Statistics 95
Hypothesis Tests 96
DISCUSSION 106
Key Research Findings 106
Limitations of the Research 118
Strengths of the Research 120
Contributions to the Literature 121
Implications of the Results for Organizations 122
Suggestions for Future Research 126
Conclusion 128
REFERENCES 130
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 Theoretical Framework 49
5.1 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on Task

Performance 102
5.2 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on

Contextual Performance 102

Innovative Performance 103
5.4 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Intellectance on

Innovative Performance 103

Overall Performance 104
5.6 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Conscientiousness on

Relationship Disruptive Behaviors 104
5.7 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Stability on

Relationship Disruptive Behaviors 105
111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 Borman and Motowidlo's (1997) Taxonomy of Contextual

Performance 4
1.2 Validity Coefficients for Commonly Used Selection Tests 6
2.1 Comparison of Three El Models 18
2.2 Comparison of Major El Measures 25
2.3 The Four-Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence 28
3.1 The Big Five Personality Dimensions 54
4.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents 79
4.2 Items to Assess Performance and Personality 81
4.3 Sample Items from the MSCEIT 84
5.1 Factor Loadings of Independent Variables 92
5.2 Factor Loadings of Dependent Variables 93
5.3 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations and Cronbach's Alphas 98
5.4 Regression Results for the Direct Effects of Personality and

El Abilities on Performance 100
5.5 Regression Results for the Moderator Effects of Emotional Intelligence 101
iv
ABSTRACT
The extant literature on emotional intelligence (El) is replete with claims that
El is an important antecedent (higher than IQ in many cases) of job performance and
success (e.g., Goleman, 1995). Additionally, the El literature continues to debate its
scope and relationship with personality factors (e.g., McCrae, 2000). To clarify these
major issues, I drew upon socioanalytic theory (Hogan & Shelton, 1998a) to develop
a model predicting the direct effects of both the Big Five personality traits and El on
multiple forms of performance (i.e., task, contextual, and innovative performance as
well as relationship supportive and disruptive behaviors) and the moderating effects
of El (conceptualized as a social skill) on the relationship between the Big Five and
performance.
The proposed model was tested with two on-line instruments completed by
116 Hong Kong managers. One instrument was an abilities test of emotional
intelligence (MSCEIT 2.0: Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). The other was a survey
of self-reported personality and workplace behavioral data. Multiple hierarchical
(moderator) regression was used to analyze the data.
Hypotheses in the proposed model were generally supported. Extraversion was
a significant positive predictor of relationship supportive behaviors. Agreeableness
had a positive influence on contextual performance and relationship supportive
behaviors; it was a negative predictor of relationship disruptive behaviors.
Conscientiousness was positively associated with task performance, and emotional
stability was a negative influence on relationship disruptive behaviors. Except for
Branch Three (understanding emotions) of El, all branches were significant in
predicting various forms of performance. Branch One (perceiving emotions) had a
negative effect on contextual and relationship disruptive behaviors. Branch Two

(facilitating emotions) was a negative predictor of relationship disruptive behaviors.
Branch Four (managing emotions) had a negative influence on relationship supportive
behaviors. The effects of El on contextual performance and relationship supportive
behaviors were in the opposite direction hypothesized.
Several interactions of El and personality were significant in predicting all
except relationship supportive behaviors. Agreeableness was involved in three
influential interactions with El; for those with high El scores, relationships between
agreeableness and task, contextual, and innovative performance were enhanced.
Intellectance interacted with El to predict innovative performance; in this case, El had
a suppressive effect. For relationship disruptive behaviors, El interacted with both
conscientiousness and emotional stability to counteract the negative effects of those
personality traits.
This study has made several important contributions to the literature. First, it
has clarified the (joint) roles of El and personality on performance. Second, it has
expanded the performance criterion space beyond the traditional focus on task and
contextual performance by including measures of innovative performance as well as
relationship supportive and disruptive behaviors. Third, it has provided an explicit
test of socioanalytic theory by conceptualizing El as a social skill that interacts with
personality to predict performance. Finally, these findings have significant practical
value to the selection and assessment of managers.
vi
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis presents work carried out by myself and does not
incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree
or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my knowledge it does not contain
any materials previously published or written by another person except where due
reference is made in the text.
IcZe
Reuben Da 1 S '.er
1 October 2004
Date
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PhD process can be a lonely, solitary march or, as in my case, a social and
emotional climb. The experience of developing this research made me recognize far
more than in any other former endeavor, the value of teamwork. I am indebted to
many individuals for their support, both directly and indirectly, in making this project
a reality.
First, I would like to thank my two formal advisors. I am grateful to Dr.
Barry Elsey for his patience, understanding and support as I grappled with several
peripheral topics and areas of study before discovering the central themes of the work.
Secondly, I am indebted to Dr. David Harrison for his readiness to act as a principle
supervisor from thousands of miles away. He has reaffirmed that when it comes to
the discourse of ideas, distance and time can be overcome and even leveraged.
I am grateful to many support individuals, in particular, Ms Rebecca Lui for
her assistance in navigating the administrative waters of the project. Her dedication to
service helped to make the process a great deal easier. The help of Mr. W.M. Fu in
web design and administration was invaluable in the data collection as was Ms
Shirley Liu in assisting with the data input. The solid introduction to El testing
provided by Dr. David Caruso and Mr. Charles Wolfe is sincerely appreciated.
Likewise, the able assistance in El testing provided by the support staff of Multiple
Health Systems is acknowledged.
Of course, the research could not have been completed without the
cooperation of the many Hong Kong managers who volunteered to be respondents.
The very act of taking several hours from their busy schedules for the sake of
academic enquiry and to gain greater self-awareness demonstrates that they are the
type of people that today's learning organizations require.
viii
I am indebted to a host of individuals I have traveled with over the last fifty
years that confirmed for me the power that emotions and personality have in
influencing many of the social outcomes of life. While these individuals are too many
to enumerate here, one individual stands highest in this group, Dr. Margaret Shaffer.
After thirty years of marriage and the sharing of life's full range of emotional
peaks and valleys, I think she is the best-demonstrated practice of the power of
emotional management and how it relates to the myriad of life outcomes. As my
"life-partner" she has fulfilled the role of "supporting spouse" far beyond what I
probably deserved or hoped for. However, beyond this conventional role, she served
as an on-going mentor and advisor in this research, sharing her considerable
experience and skills. She has shown what can be done when the right elements of
personality, emotional intelligence abilities and love (of me and academic inquiry) are
focused. Ten years ago she dedicated her PhD thesis to me and I am delighted to
finally reciprocate.
For what is a scholarly and meaningful contribution to the field I am very
indebted to all of the above. For the many errors and omissions, I take personal
responsibility and ask the reader to charge it to my learning account.
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
A central philosophical and religious question that has historically divided
groups of people is: What is the better part of the human self, its head or its heart?
(Smith, 1991) The question is age-old and relates to the entire range of human
enterprises. However, it is only recently that management researchers have seriously
considered the question in the context of the workplace.
This interest is peaked by a desire of most organizations to improve employee
performance. The research community reflects this search for efficiency by the
attention it has given job performance in recent years: Bommer, Johnson, Rich,
Podsakoff & MacKenzie (1995) observed that job performance is the most
extensively researched criterion variable in both the organizational behavior and the
human resource management literatures. Driving this interest is a need for
organizations to gain an advantage in an increasingly global and competitive economy
(Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998). According to Lawler (1986), such widely used
initiatives as total quality management, employee involvement, job enrichment, skill-
based pay, autonomous work teams, and gain sharing, have a common goal of
influencing employees' work behavior, level of responsibility acceptance, and
participation in achieving group-based and organizational objectives.
Underlying the challenge of managing performance are changes in the nature
and structure of work. For example, with the shift to a service economy,
organizations have increasingly focused on relationship marketing concepts and
interpersonal skills as ways to enhance service quality (Kotler & Armstrong, 2001).
This new perspective of the relationship that service providers have with their clients
1
has required that many organizations change how work is structured. In particular,
more work is now being accomplished through teams. As organizations have seen the
benefits of diverse perspectives, skills, and knowledge conveyed through enhanced
innovation and improved decision-making, they have increasingly turned to
organizing in teams (Lawler, 1998). The extent of this shift to a team orientation was
reported by Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1995) where 79 percent of Fortune 1000
firms reported that they used self-managed work teams, while 91 percent reported the
use of employee work groups. This emphasis on teams, as a way to organize work,
has motivated researchers to become more interested in investigating team processes
such as cooperation and cohesion, as well as team results (Druskat & Wolff, 2001).
With more cross-functional teams and team based knowledge workers making more
complex, important decisions, it becomes more important to learn how to better
facilitate group effectiveness.
Concurrent with changes in the nature and structure of work is the recognition
that performance is more than the execution and completion of well-defined tasks
(Bommer et al., 1995; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). During the last twenty-five
years, still other streams of research have emerged that move the focus beyond task
performance to consider other forms of employee performance. These include
organizational citizenship behaviors (Konovsky & Organ, 1996), contextual
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), prosocial organizational behavior (Brief
& Motowidlo, 1986), and extrarole behavior (Scholl, Cooper, & McKenna, 1987).
Each of these lines of inquiry have made contributions in raising awareness about
what contributes to overall performance in the workplace.
Delineating the distinction between task and contextual performance more
clearly, Van Scotter, Motowidlo and Cross (2000) characterize task performance as
2
patterns of behavior employees exhibit in the production of goods and delivery of
services or more specifically, those activities that contribute indirectly to supporting
the organization's core technical processes. They contend that a more complete
picture of employee performance is gained with the inclusion of contextual
performance behaviors, which are defined as patterns of behavior that support the
social and psychological context in which the tasks are performed. In developing their
taxonomy of contextual performance (Table 1.1) they note that they drew heavily on
work previously done in the areas of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB:
Organ, 1988) and prosocial organizational behavior (POB: Brief & Motowidlo,
1986). Borman and Motowidlo (1997) advanced the argument that contextual
performance and task performance are different in three ways. Whereas task activities
are variable from job to job, contextual activities are seen to be more stable across
jobs. Further, task behaviors, more so than contextual behaviors, tend to be role
prescribed. Finally, task performance is related more directly to cognitive abilities
whereas contextual performance is related more to personality variables. They further
contend that personnel selection can be made more successful by including contextual
performance and, thereby, personality variables.
Other researchers have recently drawn further attention to the practicality of
this extended definition of work performance. For example, Ashforth and Humphrey
(1993) focused on the importance of expressing desirable emotions in the context of
service transactions, referring to such acts as "employee affective delivery" (EAD).
Brown and Sulzer-Azaroff (1994) reported that friendlier service results in higher
levels of customer satisfaction. Pugh (2001) demonstrated a link between EAD and
ratings of service quality and Tsai (2001) showed that displayed emotions result in an
increased willingness for customers to return and to refer others. However, while
3
evidence continues to build as to its importance, the job analysis function typically
does not take non-job-related behavior into account. This leads to problems for
organizations wishing to reward behaviors (such as extraordinary customer service)
that do not fit the traditional task performance definition (We'bourne et al., 1998).
Table 1.1: Borman and Motowidlo's (1997) Taxonomy of Contextual Performance
Persisting with enthusiasm and extra effort as necessary to complete own task
activities successfully.
Perseverance and conscientiousness (Borman et. al., 1985)
Extra effort on the job (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Katz & Kahm, 1978)
Volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of own job.
Suggesting organizational improvements (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Katz &
Kahn, 1978)
Initiative and taking on extra responsibility (Borman et. al., 1985; Brief &
Motowidlo, 1986; Katz & Kahn, 1978)
Making constructive suggestions (George & Brief, 1992)
Developing oneself (George & Brief, 1992)
Helping and cooperating with others.
Assisting/helping coworkers (Borman et al., 1985; Brief & Motowidlo, 1986;
Katz & Kahn, 1978)
Assisting/helping customers (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986)
Organizational courtesy (Organ, 1988)
Sportsmanship (Organ, 1988)
Altruism (Smith et al., 1983)
Helping coworkers (George & Brief, 1992)
Following organizational rules and procedures.
Following orders and regulations and respect for authority (Borman et al.,
1985)
Complying with organizational values and policies (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986)
Conscientiousness (Smith et al., 1983)
Meeting deadlines (Katz & Kahn, 1978)
Civic virtue (Graham, 1986)
Endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives
Organizational loyalty (Graham, 1986)
Concern for unit objectives (Borman et al., 1985)
Staying with the organization during hard times and representing the
organization favorably to outsiders (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986)
Protecting the organization (George & Brief, 1992)
Source: Borman and Motowidlo, 1997, p.102
A central issue in expanding the definition of employee performance is the
need to clearly understand its antecedents. The last century saw a great body of
research that demonstrated antecedents of individual task performance. As a result,
4
much more is known about what makes for high levels of workplace task performance
than is known about antecedents of contextual performance. For example, a common
measure considered is an individual's general intelligence. This is referred to in the
literature as General Mental Ability (GMA) or (g) and its roots go back a century ago
when Spearman (1904) first introduced the term. Hernstein and Murrray (1994)
reflected how widely accepted the construct of a general intelligence has become and
how it is commonly measured by stating:
Among the experts, it is now beyond much technical dispute that there is such
a thing as a general factor of cognitive ability on which human beings differ
and that this general factor is measured reasonably well by a variety of
standardized tests, best of all by IQ tests designed for that purpose. (p.35)
Others agree that IQ testing, as a measure of individual differences, has proven
useful in predicting performance across a number of domains (Schmidt & Hunter,
1998). Gottfredson (1998) contends that, "Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the
single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the
job" (p. 24). One possible reason for its effectiveness in predicting performance is
that general intelligence can reflect an individual's ability to learn new cognitive
tasks.
In reviewing tests commonly used for selection, Howard and Howard (2001)
listed the wide range of instruments firms have traditionally used to predict
performance along with the average predictive validity of each (see Table 1.2). It is
interesting to note that the highest average predictive validity of all the measures
reported was mental and psychomotor tests at .53. Other measures of note are job
knowledge tests (.50), skill tests (.44), Big Five tests with job analysis (.44),
biographical information forms (.35), and structured interviews (.34). Other measures
commonly used with lower average predictive validities include education, reference
checks and age.
5
However, noticeably absent in this litany of measures are instruments that
attempt to directly assess areas of contextual performance potential. Indeed, there is
no evidence that general intelligence or other psychometric tests are predictive of
contextual performance. That is, an employee may possess a very high GMA and be
very capable of performing required "tasks" but still unable to deliver high "affective"
service.
Table 1.2: Validity Coefficients for Commonly Used Selection Tests
Selection Test or Procedure Average Predictive Validity

Mental and psychomotor tests .53
Job knowledge tests .50
Skill tests .44
Big Five test with job analysis .40
Biographical information forms .35
Structured interviews .35
Assessment centers .25
Personality tests (pre-Big Five) .24
Class rank .21
Experience .18
Traditional interviews .17
Reference checks .13
College grades .13
Vocational interest tests .10
Amount of education .10
Handwriting analysis .00
Projective personality tests .00
Age .00
Source: Howard and Howard, 2001, p. 177
Recent studies (Bommer et al., 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van
Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) have indicated that contextual performance accounts for
substantial variance in supervisory performance ratings. However the influence it
may exert on other outcomes important for employees has not been tested. "Little is
known about the extent to which contextual performance influences employees' job-
related rewards and career advancement over time." (Van Scotter et al., 2000, p. 526).
Research in areas such as personality has proven helpful in identifying
individual differences that offer the hope of better predicting workplace performance
6
in both task and contextual areas (Howard & Howard, 2001). Additionally, and
representative of the diverse range of interest in uncovering antecedents to
performance, investigations in the area of GMA are continuing. This has at times
become very controversial as witnessed by the recent publication of the Bell Curve
argument for the importance of social class and race as a significant determinant
(Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). It is evident that much more needs to be done to
delineate the complexity of performance antecedents. Thus, two research questions
drive this current research:
What individual differences or traits might predict multiple forms of
performance beyond the current established measures?
Do measures of those individual differences or traits exist that have
good psychometric properties and utility in HR selection?
One possible stream of research that has emerged in recent years that has been
associated with the study of effective performance is Emotional Intelligence (El: Bar-
On, 1997b; Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Insofar as the management of
social behavior involves the management of emotions (Hochschild, 1983), Emotional
Intelligence has the potential to be a strong predictor of more contextual and
interpersonal behaviors. As Goleman (1995) notes: " . . . imagine the consequences
for a working group when someone is unable to keep from exploding in anger or has
no sensitivity about what the people around him are feeling. ...When emotionally
upset, people cannot remember, attend, learn, or make decisions clearly" (p.170).
Linking El with the appropriate criterion (e.g., contextual performance) may help to
clarify a controversy in respect to the relative contributions of personality and El to
employee performance and provide organizations with a valid alternative for selecting
and assessing employees.
7
What is Emotional Intelligence?
Typical of the early stages of research with a new construct, there is a lack of
consensus about what constitutes El. Although most constitutive definitions
appearing in the literature share some common themes, most fail to distinguish
between the construct and its consequences adequately. The first investigators to use
the term in the literature, Salovey and Mayer (1990), offered a definition that most
other theoretical researchers accept (and expand on): "Emotional intelligence is the
ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions...to assist thought, to
understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions
so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth"(p.186).
Remarking on the complexity and the many definitions that have emerged for
the term, Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000b) examined how emotional intelligence
has come to be used in the last decade. They identify three popular meanings of the
term: zeitgeist, a group of personality traits, and a set of abilities.
Viewed as a zeitgeist, El reflects the tension between emotion and reason in
Western thought. As one of many cultural trends, it reflects a greater recognition of
the importance of emotions both culturally and politically. Mayer et al. (2000b)
acknowledged that it may be a passing fad but also suggested that it could be an
historical movement of a similar import as the historical stoic, classical, and romantic
movements.
These original theorists have been particularly uncomfortable in characterizing
El as personality, pointing out that much of what appears in the El literature does not
belong and should remain the province of personality psychology. By re-labeling
areas of personality as "emotional intelligence" the definition of El becomes confused
8
and undermines long-term research efforts in both emotional intelligence and
personality.
Lastly, the authors have argued that emotional intelligence should be viewed
as a set of abilities that are part of an individual's intelligence system. This system is
characterized in terms of its capacity to identify and process information with both
immediate symbol manipulation and reference to expert knowledge. With this
conceptualization, emotional intelligence can be seen to operate across both the
cognitive and emotional systems (Mayer et al., 2000b). Mayer and his colleagues
also contend that by conceptualizing it as a set of abilities, El meets the requirements
of a standard dimension of intelligence. In other words, emotional intelligence is not
to be viewed as the opposite of cognitive ability "heart versus head". Rather, it is the
combination of cognition and affect; it is cognitive processing of affective
information. This perspective is embodied in their formal definition of the term:
"the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotions; the ability
to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to
understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate
emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth" (Mayer & Salovey,
1997, p. 10)
Key Research Issues Involving El
The lack of consensus regarding the definition of El has generated several
research issues that need to be resolved. One issue has to do with the
operationalization of El. Three major theoretical approaches to El have emerged in
recent years and each has proffered unique instrumentation (Gowing, 2001). Using
cognitive psychology as a theoretical base, Mayer and Salovey (1997) developed an
assessment instrument called the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS).
9
The original work of Goleman (1995) started with a theory of work
performance in the world of work and resulted in the Emotional Competence
Inventory (Ed). The work of Bar-On (1997a), which appears to have been built on
both personality and performance in the workplace, attempts to measure emotional
and social intelligence with the Bar-On EQ-i (Emotional Quotient Inventory). The
introduction of these various instruments has resulted in an emphasis in the literature
on construct validation, thus obfuscating our understanding of El in relation to other
constructs.
A second issue has to do with the predictive utility of El. Over the last ten
years many claims for the predictive power of Emotional Intelligence have been made
in the popular press. Speculations have been made that El is twice as important as IQ
to career success (Gibbs & Epperson, 1995; Goleman, 1995). However little rigorous
empirical evidence has been offered to support such claims. There is also limited
research investigating the influence of El on performance (Lam & Kirby, 2002).
Furthermore, making comparisons or comparing findings is hampered by differences
in operationalizations of both El and performance across studies.
A third issue has to do with the distinction between El and personality. Some
researchers seem to use El and personality as interchangeable terms (see McCrae,
2000). However, Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000c) contend that El refers to a set
of mental abilities rather than stable traits such as personality. According to them,
mental abilities represent characteristics of individuals who can successfully perform
to a desired standard.
Research Purpose and Objectives
Many organizational researchers have recently called for more focus on the
role of emotions at work. For example, Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) argued that
10
emotions are an integral and inseparable part of organizational life and more attention
should be given to the employee's emotional experience and the relationship between
rationality and emotionality in the organizational context. The interplay of emotional
and rational forces in the workplace is manifested in various organizational outcomes
such as performance.
In this study, I move beyond what has thus far been largely a narrow focus on
construct validation to examine the relationships among El, personality and employee
performance. Specifically, my objectives are to:
Consider the direct effects of El and the Big Five personality traits
on several performance constructs, including task, contextual, and
innovative performance, as well as relationship supportive (RSB)
and relationship disruptive (RDB) behaviors,
Examine how El interacts with the Big Five personality factors to
influence the various domains of employee performance, and
Discuss the relevance of these results for improving the selection
and assessment of employees.
The target population for this study was Hong Kong managers at various
management levels from a diverse range of industries. This group was chosen
because of the inherent social nature of being a manager. Also, by surveying
managers from a wide range of industries, generalizability of the findings will be
enhanced.
Overview of this Study
This investigation is based on an integration of the job performance literature
emotional intelligence literature, and the personality literature. In Chapter 2, I
provide an in-depth review of the El literature, noting in particular emotional
11
intelligence research involving personality and job performance. Building on this
literature and socioanalytic theory (Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Hogan & Shelton,
1998a), I develop a model and testable hypotheses of the direct effects of personality
and El on employee performance and the moderating effects of El abilities on
relationships between personality and performance. This model is presented in
Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides details about how I collected the data and the measures
used. In Chapter 5, I present analytical procedures and the results of the study. In
Chapter 6, I conclude with a discussion of the results and a description of the
contributions, limitations and suggestions for future research directions.
12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter I review both the theoretical and empirical literatures of
Emotional Intelligence (El). The review reflects the field's early stage of conceptual
development and the confusion that exists due to the lack of a common understanding
of the term Emotional Intelligence, including how encompassing it should be.
Therefore, I first provide constitutive definitions of the construct from an historical
perspective. Then I discuss key variables proposed to be associated with emotional
intelligence. Finally, I specify various limitations and gaps in the extant literature.
Emotional Intelligence: An Historical Perspective
Contemporary El theorists owe a great deal to early thinkers in this area. For
example, over eighty years ago Thomdike (1920a) introduced the term social
intelligences to explain individual outcome measures beyond what may have been
accounted for by IQ. According to Thomdike, social intelligences are aspects of a
person's general intelligence; they reflect an ability to relate well with others. Despite
his belief of the importance of this ability, Thomdike was unable to develop
satisfactory laboratory tests to measure it. He concluded that it could not be
accurately measured other than in an individual's "real world" interactions. He found
little acceptance of this broader view of intelligence from other theorists and
researchers in the field of intelligence at the time; thus it was not pursued as a serious
stream of scientific inquiry.
The recognition that GMA measures (including IQ tests) do not account for
enough of the variance in individual performance continued to frustrate intelligence
theorists for decades. For example, Wechsler (1940) commented that "individuals
with identical IQs may differ very markedly in regard to their effective ability to cope
13
with the environment" (p.444). Indeed, most attempts to measure the phenomena
were failures, perhaps because of the complexity of the abilities, social habits, and
attitudes it involves (see Cherniss & Goleman, 2001 for reviews of the history of
social intelligence research; Goleman, 1995).
In the 1940s, some researchers began to consider the importance of this type
of intelligence in management studies. For example, in 1945, leadership studies done
at Ohio State University identified two dimensions of leadership: structure and
consideration. In conceptualizing a manager's performance as being composed of
concern for task performance and concern for people, the importance of a wider range
of requisite management abilities and skills beyond those that simply 'get the task
done' was recognized. A manager high in consideration was seen to be sensitive to
people's feelings and effective in establishing trust, respect and rapport with his or her
group (Fleishman & Harris, 1962). It is interesting to note that these are common
elements to several contemporary emotional intelligence theorists' models (e.g.,
Goleman, Boyatzis, & Mckee, 2002b). Additionally, recent research in the area of
leadership has demonstrated a link between El and the performance of leaders (Wong
& Law, 2002).
Further evidence of some early acceptance of an extended view of
intelligence is reported by Gowing (2001). In the late 1940s, the U.S Office of
Strategic Services developed a whole person assessment process, which included a
measurement of both cognitive and noncognitive abilities based on the earlier work of
Murray (1938). This was the beginning of what we now know as assessment centers,
used widely by government and business organizations today.
In the 1980s, renewed attention was given to intelligence measures that strive
to go beyond the widely accepted intelligence quotient (IQ) when Gardner (1983)
14
outlined his framework of multiple intelligences. In exploring his proposed seven
"intelligences", he found no significant relationships with IQ measures. According to
Dulewicz and Higgs (2000), this demonstrated that Gardner's "other" intelligences
were not the same construct as IQ. Two of Gardner's suggested seven types of
intelligence are of particular interest with respect to the construct of emotional
intelligence. Reminiscent of Thorndike's (1920b) idea of social intelligence, Gardner
broke down what he termed personal intelligences into interpersonal and intrapersonal
dimensions. The interpersonal intelligence dimension reflects an individual's ability
to understand others; intrapersonal intelligence reflects an understanding of one's self.
This is also mirrored in a later definition offered by Marlowe (1986). For him, social
intelligence is the "...ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of
persons, including oneself, in interpersonal situations and to act appropriately upon
that understanding" (p.52). However, Gardner (1993) has more recently modified his
position of how personal intelligences relate to emotions. Goleman (1995) reports
that while Gardner (1993) originally viewed emotions as a central component of the
intrapersonal intelligence model, in practice his theory of multiple intelligences
evolved to focus on metacognitions. Such cognitions represent awareness of mental
processes rather than particular emotional abilities.
In the 1990's, immediate interest in emotional intelligence arose after Salovey
and Mayer (1990), building on the work of Gardner and others, introduced the term
emotional intelligence to the research community. According to Mayer, Salovey, and
Caruso (2002), Gardner's definition.. ."described emotional abilities but failed to
admit explicitly the possibility of a separate emotional intelligence" (p.5). To
delineate emotional intelligence as a subset of general intelligence, it is critical to both
describe and measure emotional intelligence as ability. Using the work of Salovey
15
and Mayer (1990) and Gardner (1983) as a foundation, Goleman (1995) wrote the
best-selling book, Emotional Intelligence, creating unprecedented popular interest in
emotional or social intelligence research. As businesspersons and researchers debated
the value of early theories, new and similar views of what the construct should mean
emerged. For example, the concepts of Emotional Literacy (Steiner, 1997);
Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997a); EQ Map (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997);
Emotional Competence (Goleman, 1998); and Emotional Competence Inventory
(Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000) have all been offered as alternative means of
capturing the essence of emotional intelligence.
Empirical Studies
Owing to its short history, the empirical literature of El is somewhat limited.
However, that which has been done has contributed to clarifying the relationship El
may have with personality and performance. For example, Higgs (2001) investigated
the relationship between El and the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) profiles in a
sample population of 177 mangers. Confirming his hypothesis, he found that the
dominant MBTI function of Intuition was significantly and positively correlated with
high El. Contrary to expectations, no significant relationship was found between high
Feeling scores and El. However, this may have been due to methodological
limitations and an under representation of "feeling' subjects.
Rozell, Pettijohn and Parker (2001) developed a comprehensive scale to
measure El in a sample of 295 undergraduate business majors. Factor analysis
revealed five factors emerging. As might have been expected, whereas accounting
majors rated lowest on El when compared to other majors, membership in Greek
organizations and organized sports predicted higher El scores. International students
16
had lower El measures than domestic students and several of the scale factors showed
a relationship with cumulative GPA and university-specific GPA.
In a recent study of dyadic relations, student interactions were videotaped and
their behaviors coded (Berry & Sherman Hansen, 2000). Among other factors, they
reported that agreeableness was related to greater visual attention and less frequent
negative facial expressions. One might refer to negative emotions as psychic "noise"
in the communications channel that can obscure the manager's message and result in
ineffective communications and low subordinate task performance.
A more extensive review of literature bases closely associated with El reveals
some of the area's breadth and depth. For example, the work of Jung (1921) in
respect to the function of feelings is still widely referenced today. More recently,
nonverbal perception has received considerable attention (Buck, 1984; Rosenthal,
Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979). Still more contemporary are the
investigations into empathic accuracy (Ickes, 1997), emotional competence (Saarni,
1997), emotional creativity (Averill & Nunley, 1992), personal intelligence (Gardner,
1993), and social intelligence (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987).
Conceptualizations of Emotional Intelligence
While much seems to divide the leading El theorists in respect to definitions,
there are also many areas of commonality and overlap. The following is a review of
the two current major schools of thought: the cognitive or abilities perspective
represented by Mayer and Salovey (1993; 1997; 1990) and the competencies
perspective represented by Bar-On (1997b; 2000), Boyatzis (1982), and Goleman
(1995; 1996; 2001a). Gowing (2001) offered a summary of these models that I will
address throughout the discussion (see Table 2.1). A comparison of how the various
17
Table 2.1: Comparison of Three El Models
(Adapted from Gowing, 2001, pp. 95-97 and 109-111
Model/ The Emotional Competence Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Bar-On EQ-I (Emotional Quotient
Attributes Framework (Goleman, 1998) Scale (MEIS) (Mayer & Salovey, Inventory) (Bar-On, 1997a)
1997)
Focus Personal Competence. How we Reflectively Regulating Emotions. Intrapersonal Scales. Self
mange ourselves. To promote emotional and Management
intellectual growth.
Related Components Accurate Self-Assessment. Self-Regard. The ability to be
Knowing one's strengths and aware of, understand, accept, and
limits. respect oneself.
Self-Confidence. A strong sense Self-Regard.
of one's self-worth and
capabilities.
Self-Regulation. Managing one's Ability to manage emotion. In Impulse control. The ability to
internal states, impulses, and oneself and others by moderating control one's emotions and resist
resources negative emotions and enhancing or delay an impulse, drive, or
pleasant ones, without repressing temptation to act.
or exaggerating information they
may convey.
Self-Control. Keeping disruptive Ability to manage emotion Impulse control.

emotions and impulses in check.
Trustworthiness. Maintaining Social Responsibility. The ability
standards of honesty and integrity. to demonstrate oneself as a
cooperative, contributing, and
constructive member of one's
social group.
18
1997)
Conscientiousness. Taking Social Responsibility
responsibility for personal
performance.
Adaptability. Flexibility in Adaptability EQ. The ability to
handling change. realistically and flexibly adjust to
change and to effectively solve
problems as they arise.
Flexibility. The ability to adjust
one's feelings, thoughts, and
behavior to changing situations
and conditions.
Innovation. Being comfortable Facilitating Thought. Ability Problem Solving. Ability to
with novel ideas, approaches, and inductive reasoning and creativity effectively and constructively
new information. through emotions. solve problems.
Motivation. Emotional tendencies General Mood EQ. The ability to

that guide or facilitate reaching be optimistic and positive as well
goals. as to enjoy life; this contributes to
the emotional energy and self-
motivation required to cope with
daily environmental demands and
pressures.
Achievement Drive. Striving to Self-actualization. The ability to
improve or meet a standard of realize one's potential and to do
excellence. what one wants to do, enjoys
doing, and can do.
Commitment. Aligning with the Social Responsibility
goals of the group or organization.
The Emotional Competence Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Bar-On EQ-I (Emotional Quotient
Framework (Goleman, 1998) Scale (MEIS) (Mayer & Salovey, Inventory) (Bar-On, 1997a)
1997)
Initiative. Readiness to act on Independence. The ability to be
opportunities. self-directed and self-reliant in
one's thinking and actions and to
be free of emotional dependency.
Optimism. Persistence in pursuing Emotional mood swings can Optimism. The ability to look at
goals despite obstacles and change the individual's the brighter side of life and to
setbacks. perspective from optimistic to maintain a positive attitude, even
pessimistic, fosters consideration in the face of adversity.
of multiple points of view.
Social Competence. How Reflectively Regulating Emotions Interpersonal Scales. Managing

relationships are handled relationships.
Empathy. Awareness of others' Ability to identify emotions in Empathy. The ability to be aware
feelings, needs, and concerns. other people, designs, artwork, and of, understand, and appreciate the
so forth, through language, sound, feelings of others.
appearance and behavior.
Understanding Others. Sensing Ability to stay open to feelings.

others' feelings and perspectives, Both pleasant and unpleasant.
and taking an active interest in
their concerns.
Developing Others. Sensing

others' development needs, and
bolstering their abilities.
Service Orientation. Anticipating, Empathy
recognizing, and meeting
customers' needs.
1997)
Leveraging Diversity. Cultivating
opportunities through different
kinds of people.
Social Skills. Adeptness at Interpersonal EQ. The ability to
inducing desirable responses in understand and appreciate the
others. feelings of others as well as to
establish and maintain mutually
satisfying interpersonal relations.
Influence. Welding effective Assertiveness. The ability to

tactics for persuasion. express one's feelings, beliefs, and
thoughts and to defend one's
rights in a nondestructive manner.
Communication. Listening openly Ability to express emotions Empathy

and sending convincing messages.
Assertiveness. The ability to
express one's feelings, beliefs, and
thoughts and to defend one's
rights in a nondestructive manner.
Conflict Management. Ability to stay open to feelings

Negotiating and resolving
disagreements.
Ability to reflectively monitor
emotions in relation to oneself and
others, such as recognizing how
clear, typical influential, or
1997)
reasonable they are.
Leadership. Inspiring and guiding

individuals and groups.
Change Catalyst. Initiating or Adaptability EQ
managing change.
Flexibility
Building Bonds. Nurturing Interpersonal Relationship.

instrumental relationships.
Collaboration and Cooperation. Social Responsibility
Working with others toward
shared goals.
Team Capabilities. Creating
group synergy in pursuing
collective goals.
Assimilating Emotion in Thought.
Emotional facilitation of thinking.
Understanding Emotions.
Understanding and analyzing
emotions; employing emotional
knowledge.
Ability to discriminate between

accurate and inaccurate or honest
and dishonest expressions of
feeling.
1997)
Emotions prioritize thinking by
directing attention to important
information.
Emotions are sufficiently vivid

and available that they can be
generated as aids to judgment and
memory concerning feelings.
Ability to interpret the meanings

that emotions convey regarding
relationships, such as that sadness
often accompanies a loss.
Ability to understand complex

feelings such as simultaneous
feelings of love and hate or blends
such as awe as a combination of
fear and surprise.
Ability to recognize likely

transitions among emotions, such
as the transition from anger to
satisfaction or from anger to
shame.
Ability to reflectively engage or

detach from an emotion depending
1997)
upon its judged informativeness or
utility.
Reality Testing. The ability to

validate one's feelings and
thoughts by assessing the
correspondence between what is
internally and subjectively
experienced and what externally
and objectively exists.
Stress Management. EQ
Stress Tolerance. The ability to

manage strong emotions, adverse
events, and stressful conditions
without "falling apart" by actively
and positively coping with the
immediate situation.
Happiness. The ability to feel

satisfied with one's life, to enjoy
oneself and others, and to have fun
and express positive emotions.
models are operationalized also will facilitate a better understanding of their
respective merits (see Table 2.2).
Table 2.2: Comparison of Major El Measures
Test Instrument/ Emotional Multifactor BarOn Eqi

Attributes Competence Emotional (Bar-On, 1997)
Inventory (ECI) Intelligence Scale
(Boyatzis, Goleman, (MSCEIT V2)
& Hay/McBer, (Mayer, Salovey, &
1999) Caruso, 1997/1999)
Method Informant Ability Self-Report
Areas Measured Self-Awareness Emotional Intrapersonal

Social Awareness Perception
Self-Management Emotional Interpersonal

Facilitation
Stress Management
Social Skills Emotional Adaptability

Understanding
Emotional General Mood

Management
Emotional Intelligence As an Ability: Mayer and Salovey
Salovey and Mayer (1990) were the first to attempt a formal definition of
emotional intelligence. Their initial work proposed that much of the research in
aesthetics, brain research, intelligence measurement, artificial intelligence, and
clinical psychology shared a common focus on a form of intelligence that had not
been previously examined. They defined emotional intelligence (El) as "...the subset
of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others'
feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to
guide one's thinking and actions" (p.189). This is consistent with Gardner and
Hatch's (1989) concepts of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences.
Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to judge and respond properly to the
25
motivations, desires, moods, and temperaments of others; intrapersonal intelligence is
the ability to access one's own feelings, discriminate among them and to use them to
guide one's behavior. Goleman (2001b) characterized Salovey and Mayer's model as
having a distinctively cognitive emphasis that stresses the importance of measuring
the process of "thinking about feeling". This is in contrast to other models, which
only account for perceiving and regulating feelings. In accord with this, Matthews,
Zeidner, and Roberts (2002) characterize this abilities approach as being more
sophisticated theoretically than others and having its roots in cognitive psychology.
As has been noted, there is an ongoing debate in the El literature, emanating
from the lack of common definitions, as to whether or not El can be distinguished
from personality (see McCrae, 2000). Just as emotional intelligence has been
confused with performance, some researchers have also blended emotional
intelligence and personality to form what Mayer and his colleagues (e.g., Mayer et al.,
2000c) refer to as "mixed models". However, from its conception and on through
limited empirical research, the abilities approach has clearly demarcated emotional
intelligence from other well-tested constructs of personality. McCrae (2000)
highlights the importance of "breaking out" individual personality variables from a
global construct of El (counter to the competency frameworks) as being both practical
and scientifically sound. He further observed that the distinction between the El
abilities (as described by Mayer and his colleagues) and personality traits may be
difficult to discern at times but it can be seen. He illustrates this by suggesting that a
person can be an optimist owing to a cheerful disposition and this does not necessitate
intelligence of any kind. However, a person can display a form of El abilities by
deliberate cognitions, i.e., manipulating his or her emotional state to create an
optimistic assessment.
26
Mayer, DiPaolo, and Salovey (1990) operationalized their El construct with
the development of the first abilities scale designed to measure these elements of
emotional intelligence. The scale's objective was to test emotional intelligence in a
similar manner as IQ is measured by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales
(Wechsler, 1958). As a subset of social intelligence, and thereby general intelligence,
Mayer and his colleagues see significant commonalities with IQ. For example, Wolfe
and Caruso (2002) stress that, like IQ, El is fairly static, changing only marginally as
a person matures after his or her formative years. An individual may, however, learn
to compensate for lower "areas" of emotional intelligence by employing strategies
that take advantage of their areas of strength.
The early administration of the scale generated data that allowed Mayer and
his colleagues to better identify the abilities involved with El and to refine their
model. The result was the "Four-Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence" (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997) and a revised definition: "the ability to perceive accurately, appraise,
and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate
thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability
to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth" (p.10). In
essence, the framework organizes the various abilities involved in the adaptive
processing of emotionally relevant information (Hedlund & Sternberg, 2000). Mayer,
Salovey, and Caruso (2002, p.7) provide a current overview of the Four Branches
Model and the skills involved in each branch (see Table 2.3).
In their review of the empirical El research, Ciarrochi et al. (2001a) compare
and contrast the two main measurement methods developed thus far (self-report
instruments and performance instruments) in terms of their ability to discriminate
between El and personality. They observe that self-report measures of El show
27
Table 2.3: The Four-Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence
Branch Skills
1 Perceiving Emotions Perceiving emotions in self, others,

objects, art, stories, music, and other
stimuli. With emotions being sensed, an
automatic influence is generated on
cognition.
2 Facilitating Thought To generate, use, and feel emotion to
communicate feelings, or in other
cognitive processes. In short, emotions
and emotion-related information is
attended to.
3 Understanding Emotions Understanding information that emotions
convey, how they come together and
move through relationship transactions,
and understand their meanings. The
implications of emotions, their feelings
and their meanings are processed
4 Managing Emotions Being open to one's feelings, managing
them in self and others to promote
personal understanding and growth both
psychologically and intellectually.
Management of emotions promotes
further openness to feelings
Source: Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2002, p. 7)
moderate to strong overlap with temperament. Because two major components of
temperament related to the Big Five personality factors are neuroticism and
extroversion, they suggest that this overlap indicates that self-report measures are
perhaps measuring aspects of personality. However, they also report that ability-
based measures of El, such as the MEIS, do not generally overlap with temperament
but do reflect a small to medium overlap with traditional measures of intelligence.
Indeed, the ability of the MEIS to achieve high levels of distinctiveness is perhaps one
of its greatest strengths (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000). Further, a recent critique
of the MEIS reported that correlations with broad personality traits generally are less
than .30 and that it correlates positively but modestly as would be expected with
cognitive-ability measures (Matthews et al., 2002). This is consistent with the view
28
that El is a mental ability and should be set apart from traditional conceptualizations
of personality.
Measures of El as Ability
The Multibranch Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) was developed Mayer,
Salovey, and Caruso (1997) to test their model of El. It and its successor, the
MSCEIT, render a range of scores: Total El, two area scores (experiential and
strategic), a score for each of the four branches, and two subscale scores for each
branch.
The MEIS was normed on a general population sample of 5000 North
American respondents and provided empirical evidence to support their theory and
the capacity of the test to measure emotional intelligence abilities (Mayer et al.,
2002). The researchers also tested the scale with expert opinion, and targeted
approaches to score emotional intelligence. The findings showed that all three
methods were related, with the general population approach being the highest in
predictive value. Mayer et al. (2002) reported that emotional intelligence emerged as
a unified intelligence with three distinct sub factors: emotional perception, emotional
understanding, and emotional management. These correspond with the first, third,
and fourth branches. Limited evidence was found for "Integrating Emotions,"
representing the second branch of the model. The findings also showed that the test
results, while related to both general intelligence and self-reported empathy, were still
fairly independent. This supported the researchers' view that measures of emotional
intelligence as ability can measure qualities not covered by other tests.
Recognizing limitations of length (402 items) and its weakness in measuring
Branch Two subfactors, Mayer et al. (2002) modified the test and renamed it. The
29
current version is the Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).
With 141 items, most respondents can complete it in 30 to 45 minutes.
In reviewing the tests, Gowing (2001) states "They predict, with empirical
justification, that ...internal abilities have external consequences" (p.93). This
appraisal is supported by more recent empirical research. Mayer et al., (1999) report
that the MSCEIT achieved reasonable levels of reliability and a confirmatory factor
analysis supported the theoretical model. After administering the test to 503 adults
and 229 adolescents, they found that performance across 12 diverse tasks was highly
positively correlated across samples. Additionally, a factor analysis of those tasks
gave support for defining them as one general factor as well as indications that they
could each fall into three or four subgroups of skills that generally match the branch
model of El. Finally, evidence was found indicating that El ability increases from
childhood to adulthood.
Basing their work on that of Salovey and Mayer (1990), Schutte et al. (1998)
developed a 33 item, self-report measure that purported to assess El. Significant
correlations were demonstrated with eight theoretically related constructs, which
include awareness of emotion, outlook on life, mood, ability to regulate emotions, and
impulsivity. Other results also add general support for the abilities model: (1) group
differences were demonstrated where they would have been expected, i.e., men and
women, psychotherapists and prisoners; (2) El scores predicted end-of-year GPA for
college freshmen but did not correlate with SAT or ACT scores; (3) with respect to
personality, they found that of the Big Five personality traits, only openness to
experience was related significantly to El (Hedlund & Sternberg, 2000).
To investigate the possible linkages between El, personality and general
cognitive ability, Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) conducted three separate
30
studies. These included both self-report scales and objective tests, which included
recognition of emotions in faces, colors and music. Their findings revealed that verbal
ability and personality factors such as neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness
were inclined to load on self-reported measures of El. However, they also found that
the emotional perception factor of El was unrelated to personality or cognitive
abilities. Thus, challenging whether El should be considered in the same manner as
other cognitive abilities, they argue for a more limited definition of El that
encompasses only the ability to perceive emotional information. However, in
commenting on this research, McCrae (2000) notes that this study employed measures
developed before 1990 and that more recent measures (e.g., the MEIS and the
MSCEIT) are more reliable and valid.
Mayer and his colleagues take a measured view as to the potential for El and
the abilities model to predict performance. For example, Mayer (1999) suggests that
El may be able to predict important life outcomes but probably at about the same
level of other personality variables. This may be from 2 to 25 percent of the variance
explained-- much lower than some popular writers have advanced and which have yet
to be substantiated by systematic and rigorous scientific approaches. Mayer sees the
common goal of both the popular and scientific treatments of El to be a broadened
understanding of what intelligence means, and this should be accomplished without
expanded definitions or sensational claims.
In his review of El and its relationship to personality dimensions, McCrae
(2000) observes that the Salovey and Mayer (1990) construct is so appealing that
many researchers have extended it to include motivational, interpersonal, and
intrapsychic attributes that look more like personality traits than abilities. By arguing
for broader notions of "intelligence" and highlighting the adaptive values of flexible
31
planning, social adroitness, and interpersonal considerateness, a theoretical license
was granted to theorists such as Goleman (1995) and others ..."who in effect argued
that any beneficial noncognitive trait might be construed as emotional intelligence"
(p.264). This movement prompted Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000c) to clarify the
construct and to distinguish between ability models and mixed models. McCrae and
John (1992) point out that most of the traits that are included in the research of
emotional intelligence can be found in a comprehensive taxonomy of personality
traits, i.e. the five-factor model (FFM: Digman, 1990). Of the Big Five traits,
openness to experience seems to be most directly related to the original ability
conception of El (McCrae, 2000, p.263).
Continuing his review, McCrae (2000) examined the more recent work of
Mayer, et al., (2000c), and commented that the conceptually related abilities under
their model are distinct (although sometimes in subtle ways) from personality traits.
For example, the personality trait of optimism can be simply the result of a cheerful
disposition, requiring no intelligence. However, individuals with psychological
mindedness (as conceived under the Salovey & Mayer model) can purposefully set
out to change their emotional state by changing their mind set or gaining social
support from others. He concludes by suggesting that while the abilities approach to
evaluating emotional intelligence is promising, much more research is required to
understand it well.
Emotional Intelligence as a Competence
Between 1994 and 1997 the term emotional intelligence was popularized by
Daniel Goleman (1995; 1996; 1997). The foundation for this school of thinking was a
theory of performance in the workplace; the goal is to identify what El
"competencies" lead to high performing employees. However, Gowing (2001), in her
32
review of the conceptual underpinnings of the El domain, cautions that a distinction
must be made between emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and
emotional competence (Bar-On, 1997a; Cooper, 1997; Goleman, 1997). On one
hand, emotional intelligence as outlined by Mayer and his colleagues, deals with
abilities to perceive, express, assimilate, understand, reason, and regulate emotions in
self and others. On the other hand, emotional competence for Goleman and his
contemporaries is focused more on outcomes in the workplace.
Goleman's (1995; 1996) first influential books cite many stories and research
studies from the field of education that demonstrate the importance of emotional
intelligence as a competence. Indeed, much of the early work of intelligence testing
has been with children. Contemporary investigations in this sphere support the view
that children generally learn content and how to value their work, social skills of
relating to their peers and how they feel about others (H8pfl & Linstead, 1997).
Dulewicz and Higgs (2000) suggest such studies demonstrate that successful learning
and performance results from both rational and emotional development.
This is consistent with Goleman's (1996) observation that: "IQ and
emotional intelligence are not opposing competencies, but rather separate ones. We
all mix intellect and emotional acuity; people with a high IQ, but low emotional
intelligence (or a low IQ and high emotional intelligence) are, despite the stereotypes,
relatively rare "(p. 44). Thus, he argues that individuals with a mix of high emotional
intelligence and high IQ will generally be more successful in their careers than
individuals with high IQ and low EQ. He further contends that IQ levels tend to be a
threshold to entry for many professions and EQ will then become more salient,
distinguishing those with high levels after entering. For example, a reasonably high
IQ is required to enter the field of law. However, once on the job, advancement and
33
other measures of success are more a matter of emotional intelligence than general
cognitive ability.
Goleman (1998) calls for a "new yardstick" to be used in measuring
employees when making hiring, retention, and promotion decisions. His reasoning
carries a degree of face validity, "...today's workforce is being judge by a new
yardstick.. .we are being judged.. .not just by how smart we are, or by our training and
expertise, but also by how well we handle ourselves and each other" (p.1). The
breadth of his framework is also revealed when he comments: "In a time with no
guarantees of job security, when the very concept of a 'job' is rapidly being replaced
by 'portable skills', these are prime qualities that make and keep us employable.
Talked about loosely for decades under a variety of names, from 'character' and
'personality' to 'soft skills' and 'competence,' there is at last a more precise
understanding of these human talents, and a new name for them: emotional
intelligence" (p.4).
Offering a descriptive definition, Goleman and his colleagues state that El is:
"...observed when a person demonstrates the competencies that constitute self-
awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills at appropriate times
and ways in sufficient frequency to be effective in the situation" (Boyatzis et al.,
2000, p.344). Goleman's (1998) emotional intelligence framework suggests that an
individual's potential competencies can be measured across four areas: self-
awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. After
reviewing nearly three hundred different company-sponsored studies, encompassing a
wide-range of jobs, he concluded that the importance of emotional competencies over
cognitive abilities in making a "star performer" is clear. Admittedly, IQ remains an
important predictor of performance. However, star performers also possess important
34
emotional intelligence competencies that set them apart from others. He argues that
such competencies as persuasion, drive to achieve and inner discipline can play a
critical role in performance outcomes for professionals as diverse as salespersons,
technicians and scientists (Goleman, 1998). Thus, a cornerstone of his model is
emotional competence, which is based on emotional intelligence that results in
outstanding performance at work. By basing his model on competencies, Goleman is
open to critical challenges from those that believe that competencies are difficult to
define and differentiate from more established constructs of ability, skills and
personality (see Matthews et al., 2002, pp. 10-15).
In Goleman's (2001a) most recent model, he identified clusters or behavioral
groups of desired competencies. According to Boyatzis et al. (2000), this is a
practical approach because: "They (clusters) are often linked conceptually and
defined by a 'theory' as a convenient way to describe which competencies are
associated with others. Clustering provides parsimony" (p.349). In her review,
Gowing (2001) offers useful definitions of each of these clusters and their constituent
components. Personal competence, or how we manage ourselves, is made up of the
self-awareness, and self-management clusters. The self-awareness cluster is
composed of three distinct competencies: emotional self-awareness - the ability to
identify one's emotions and their effects; accurate self-assessment having a sense of
ones strengths and limitations; and self-confidence a sense of one's self-worth and
capabilities. The self-management cluster is a set of five competencies: self-control
controlling emotions or impulses that are disruptive; trustworthiness showing
integrity and honesty; conscientiousness displaying responsibility in self-
management; adaptability being able to adapt to the changing environment;
35
achievement orientation drive to meet a personal standard of excellence; and
initiative one's readiness to act.
What Goleman (2001a) terms as social competence is made up of two main
clusters: social awareness and relationship management. The social awareness cluster
includes: empathy understanding others and having a genuine interest in their
concerns; service orientation seeing and meeting the customers' needs; and
organizational awareness empathizing at the organizational level. The last group of
competencies, relationship management, reflects a modification to Goleman's (1995)
original conceptualization.
Boyatzis et al. (2000) reports that the need for the modification was
demonstrated through the analyses of data collected from nearly six hundred
corporate managers and professionals as well as engineering, management, and social
work graduate students. The original model was collapsed and much of what was
grouped in the "social skills" domain was placed under the relationship management
cluster. The relationship management cluster now includes the following social
competencies: developing others perceiving the developmental needs of others and
supporting the growth of their abilities; influence using interpersonal influence
tactics; communication transmitting unambiguous and persuasive messages; conflict
management resolving disagreements; visionary leadership inspiring and guiding
groups; catalyzing change managing or initiating change; build bonds nurturing
instrumental relationships; teamwork and collaboration creating a shared vision; and
synergy in teamwork working with others toward shared goals.
This conceptualization has drawn intense criticism from many scholars.
According to Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000b), many of the listed traits are, to a
large degree, the product of genetic, biological or early-learning. Thus, they are not
36
readily amenable to training or change. Goleman (1998), however, contends that
emotional competencies are skills related to the job, which employees can and must
learn. Unlike the relatively stable IQ, emotional intelligence can improve with
maturity. More pointedly, he suggests that "...maturity itself describes this process of
becoming more intelligent about our emotions and our relationships." (p. 240)
The Goleman Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI)
Boyatzis et al. (2000) chronicles how the Emotional Competency Inventory
(ECI) was developed to operationalize Goleman's (1998) model. They report that
while many instruments were available to assess competencies in their clusters
through simulations, assessment centers, and behavioral event interviews, these
methods were not easy to implement, desirable in 360-degree applications,
comprehensive enough, or high in validity. As a basis for the ECI, they used an
assessment questionnaire developed earlier by Boyatzis. This had demonstrated good
validity in testing for competencies against performance in hundreds of previous
studies of North American managers, executives and leaders. About 60 percent of the
inventory consisted of new items, which were added to test for a broader set of
competencies applicable across all jobs and life settings. The instrument was
designed for use as a developmental tool only and includes a 360-degree assessment
instrument administered to self, subordinate, peer and supervisory respondents. Using
a 6-point scale, it calls for respondents to describe self or another person on each
competency. With 110 items, it can be completed in about thirty-five minutes
(Gowing, 2001).
Reviews of the instrument are generally mixed. For example, Gowing (2001)
reports that it ..."is supported by construct validity evidence, content validity
evidence, and validity generalization evidence from its predecessor instrument, the
37
self-Assessment Questionnaire At present, there is no evidence of convergent or
discriminant validity with measures of similar or different constructs" (p.92). Further,
Hedlund and Sternberg (2000) are also critical, saying that the validity evidence
Goleman advances does not support his definition of El and its ability to account for
variance in education or job performance beyond IQ. The major weakness of the
work for them is that it is based primarily on anecdotal evidence.
Many challenge the assertion that this approach to measuring an individual's
competencies represents a "new yardstick". For example, Sternberg (1999) comments
that for Goleman to suggest that how well people handled themselves in the past had
little bearing on hiring decisions or performance evaluations is certainly inaccurate.
He also notes that the breadth of Goleman's framework includes a combination of
abilities, personality traits, motivations, and emotional characteristics that stretches
the definition of intelligence to include anything that is not IQ. Indeed, some
"clusters" of the model may even include what have traditionally been considered
aspects of IQ measurement (Sternberg, 1999). Mayer (1999), in addressing the
accuracy of the "popular versions" of El, echoes this by saying:" ...the meaning of
emotional intelligence has been stretched. Emotional intelligence is now defined by
popular authors in dozens of waystypically as a list of personality characteristics,
such as empathy, motivation, persistence, warmth and social skills" (p.2). Because
these models blend many diverse parts of personality, he refers to them as mixed. His
point is that many of the variables contained in these models go beyond what is meant
by "emotion" or "intelligence" and are simply new ways to sell personality research
and prediction.
In his review of Goleman's (1998) book Working with Emotional
Intelligence, O'Shaugnessy (1999) observes that Goleman's claims are the same that
38
humanistic psychologists made in the 1950's and 1960's. Further, Gowing (2001)
refers to several researchers over the last fifty years who were advocates of
measurement approaches similar to Goleman's. For example, she notes that four
decades ago Katz (1955) advanced the idea that an effective administrator needs three
sets of fundamental skills: technical, conceptual, and human.
McCrae (2000), in evaluating "mixed models" of emotional intelligence
(Goleman's and others), draws attention to how many aspects of the Goleman model
"overlap" a widely used operationalization of the Five Factor Model (FFM) -- the
revised NE0 Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R: Costa & McCrae, 1992b). As he
sees it, the mixed models are attractive to many because they bring together the
evaluatively positive extremes of each of the five factors. Thus, a high El evaluation
would be characterized by high scores for four factors i.e., extraversion, openness,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and low scores for neuroticism. He continues
his argument by suggesting that if El is simply a combination of personality traits,
decades of personality research can be drawn from to better define the domain and
that measures of each of the five personality factors should be used. Along this line,
other researchers have simply suggested that emotional intelligence is little more than
a set of personality variables and, as such, good measures have already been
developed (Davies et al., 1998).
If El is learned, or as malleable as Goleman (1998) suggests, then it would not
be genetically based. However, research in personality traits shows the importance of
genetics in their formation (Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997). Additionally,
traits appear to be fairly stable in adulthood (Costa & McCrae, 1997). This does not
add support to Goleman's and other proponents of mixed models in respect to the
developmental potential of El. For example, in a recent interview, Goleman
39
contended that "people can change from being pessimists to being optimists in a
matter of weeks" (Toms, 1998, P. 115). This is contrary to empirical research,
indicating that while specific attitudes, behaviors, and organizational polices can be
changed, changes in personality are more problematic (Costa & McCrae, 1986).
What can be said about personality trait development is characterized by
recent research that suggests maturational trends (McCrae et al., 1999). In early
adulthood (late adolescence to age thirty) there is a decline in neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness and an increase in agreeableness and conscientiousness.
Even after age thirty, the changes appear to be in the same direction, albeit much
slower. With a decrease in neuroticism and increased agreeableness and
conscientiousness, the maturing process should reflect a higher El. However,
Sapolsky (1998) points out that with age extraversion and agreeableness decline,
suggesting the older one grows, the lower his or her El. McCrae (2000) suggests that
this may be a matter of being emotionally intelligent in different ways at different
ages. For example, where young persons may be more optimistic and more aware of
their emotions, they may be less effective in areas of persistence and impulse control.
This points out the need for differentiating between traits rather than relying on one
unified construct, such as a global measure of El.
In their comprehensive review of Goleman's work, Matthews et al., (2002)
summarized the views of other academics by saying that his "...model of El simply
represents a journalist distilling scientific information for the consumption of the
populist, rather than a legitimate scientific theory" (p.14). However, they did note
that the work has had value as a source of ideas that may prove to be of worth if they
can be developed and tested empirically.
40
Bar-On: Emotional Intelligence as Personality and Performance
A major theorist aligned, in part, with Goleman is Bar-On (2000). He began
his work in 1983 with a focus on emotional and social intelligence, which he defined
as: ..."an array of emotional, personal, and social abilities that effect one's overall
ability to effectively cope with daily demands and pressures; this ability is apparently
based on a core capacity to be aware of, understand, control, and express emotions
effectively." Drawing from both personality theory and work performance theory,
Bar-On (1997b) developed the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) as a measure as
of emotional and social intelligence. Like Goleman and his colleagues, he contends
that non-cognitive intelligence is more important for life success. His theoretical
framework is based on five conceptual components encompassing fifteen factors. The
conceptual components and their associated factors are: intrapersonal EQ, including
emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-regard, self-actualization, and
independence; interpersonal EQ, including empathy, social responsibility, and
interpersonal relationship; adaptability EQ, including reality testing, flexibility, and
problem solving; stress management EQ, including stress tolerance and impulse
control; and general mood EQ, including optimism and happiness (Bar-On, 1997b).
Gowing (2001) draws attention to the similarities between Goleman's
emotional competence framework and the Bar-On EQ-i scales and subscales (see
Table 2.1). Bar-On's Intrapersonal scales are similar to Goleman's Personal
Competence. Similarly, emotional self-awareness relates to emotional awareness;
self-regard to accurate self-assessment and self-confidence; impulse control to self-
regulation and self-control; social responsibility to trustworthiness, conscientiousness,
and collaboration and cooperation; flexibility to adaptability; problem solving to
innovation; self-actualization is not unlike achievement drive; and optimism is much
41
the same as optimism. The interpersonal skills map generated from the EQ-i is very
similar to social competence. Empathy is a direct match with empathy; interpersonal
relationship is akin to building bonds. However, not included under Goleman's
framework are Bar-On's competencies of reality testing, stress tolerance, and
happiness.
Bar-On: The EQ-i
The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) uses a self-assessment method to
measure emotional and social competent behaviors. Bar-On (2000) stresses that the
instrument was developed to measure emotional and social intelligence and not traits
or cognitive capacity. It has 133 items and uses a five-point Likert scale where
respondents rate their own behavior from "very seldom or not true of me" to "very
often true of me or true of me." The scores of the inventory are expressed as a total
EQ score and five EQ composite scale scores that comprise fifteen subscale scores.
Bar-On (2000) relates the EQ-i's effectiveness based on several years of
implementation and analysis. The findings obtained to date suggest that the total EQ
scale score correlates with various other measures that are thought to tap this
construct as well as closely related aspects of it. In detailing research conducted over
twelve years with over 6,300 respondents, Bar-On (1997b) reports reasonably high
internal consistency on the fifteen subscales. The average coefficient alphas ranged
from .69 to .86 across samples. While Bar-on asserts that the instrument has been
validated with many other measures such as personality inventories, his research has
not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Hedlund and Sternberg (2000)
comment that while exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses point to a good fit
of the model, its internal consistency is uncertain. This is important to know, given
42
the number of factors included in the EQ-i. They wonder if all fifteen factors are
adequately represented under the single general construct.
Summary
A recent review of the literature relating to "nonacademic intelligences"
highlights that while research on social intelligence enjoys some breadth, empirical
research on emotional intelligence is still very limited (Hedlund & Sternberg, 2000).
The empirical El literature has been dominated by attempts to validate the
operationalizations developed by various researchers. The acceptance of the construct
by the academic community has generally been weak. As one set of reviewers noted,
"Indeed, with the possible exception of Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and colleagues, the
intelligence component of El receives short shrift in leading reviews and empirical
research devoted to the topic" (Matthews et al., 2002, p. 82). Although there is a
small but growing body of research that has investigated outcomes of El (e.g., (Law,
Song, & Wong, 2002; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Wong & Law, 2002), more
research in this area is needed. A general critique of much of the research is its lack
of transparency. For example much of Goleman's work has relied on studies
conducted by businesses and commercial organizations that (for competitive reasons)
are reluctant to readily share research findings. This lack of peer review retards the
exploration process greatly. Additionally, much of the research relies heavily on
atheoretical or anecdotal evidence (see (Matthews et al., 2002). There is a lingering
debate about the definitional distinctions between personality and what some consider
a new construct of El, or whether such a distinction is necessary. A final limitation is
the narrow focus, thus far, on developing antecedents, correlates and consequences of
El.
43
In the next chapter I develop a definition and model that attempts to address
some of these limitations. By considering El as ability (Mayer & Salovey, 1997),
1997), I construct hypotheses about the possible direct influence of El on a range of
performance dimensions. Additionally, the model posits how El abilities may
influence the personality-performance relationship.
44
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this chapter, I develop a conceptual model of workplace performance and
individual differences based on the socioanalytic theory of Hogan and colleagues
(Hogan, 1983; Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Hogan & Shelton, 1998a). After describing
this theory and clarifying the performance construct, I introduce the Big Five
personality taxonomy and an abilities perspective of El (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) to
focus the discussion. In conjunction with this, and drawing upon previous research
findings, I develop hypotheses for the direct effects of both personality (the Big Five)
and El on workplace performance. Finally, conceptualizing El as a social skill, I
hypothesize the moderating influence of El ability on the personality-performance
relationship.
Socioanalytic Theory
The effects of personality on job performance have been consistently
confirmed with meta-analyses (Barrick & Mount, 1991a; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000;
Salgado & Rumbo, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Most research in this
area, however, has been data-driven and motivated largely by practical objectives of
identifying specific individual differences with performance in selected jobs (Tett &
Burnett, 2003). Despite the strong empirical evidence for the effects of individual
differences such as personality on performance, it is only recently that researchers
have begun to move beyond this descriptive approach to consider the theoretical bases
of personality trait-performance linkages (Adler, 1996; Barchard & Hakstian, 2004;
Chatman, Caldwell, & 0-Reilly, 1999; Hogan & Shelton, 1998a; Motowidlo,
Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Warr, 1999). Initial conceptualizations (Borman, White,
Pulakos, & Oppler, 1991) relegated personality traits to a distal or indirect role in
45
explaining performance. However, more recently Hogan and colleagues (Hogan &
Roberts, 2000; Hogan & Shelton, 1998a) have accorded personality traits a more
direct influence on work behaviors.
Socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1983, 1991, 1996) has its base in interpersonal
psychology (Carson, 1969; Leary, 1957; Sullivan, 1953; Wiggins, 1979) and was
originally used to explain the role individual differences play in an individual's career
success. Adopting a socioanalytical perspective, Hogan and colleagues (Hogan &
Roberts, 2000; Hogan & Shelton, 1998a) noted the theory's link to organizational
behavior through two generalizations: individuals are social beings who live (work)
with others and social relationships are always structured in terms of status
hierarchies. They contend that behavior is a function of a person's personality and the
situation (i.e., the roles and agendas relevant to interactions involving the person).
Personality is defined in terms of both identity (from the actor's perspective) and
reputation (from the observer's perspective). Reputation characterizes how
individuals behave in public; thus it is useful in predicting public behaviors.
Situations create social expectations and individuals will comply with those
expectations if that compliance is consistent with their personality. Conversely, if
individuals are unclear about the roles, agendas and expectations of a situation, the
connection between compliance and personality will be obscured and they will
experience distress.
Similar arguments can be made for emotional intelligence and performance.
As a socially-oriented ability, El also characterizes how individuals behave in public,
and it facilitates a more accurate assessment of social situations. Consequently, it
should also be useful in determining how employees perform.
46
According to Hogan and colleagues (e.g., Hogan & Shelton, 1998b),
compliance with social expectations is motivated by three basic human needs: the
need for status and power (achievement), the need to be accepted and liked (getting
along), and the need for predictability and order (finding meaning). Various
dimensions of personality, as well as El, are related to individual differences in efforts
to attain these goals, and these efforts are reflected in behaviors. For example,
agreeableness will influence the performance of individuals whose jobs require them
to get along with others. Those who are more agreeable will be more socially
sensitive and will generally be perceived to be more pleasant and helpful. Similarly,
those with greater levels of El will be more sensitive to social expectations and will
put more effort into getting along with others.
A recent attempt by Hogan and Holland (2003b) to empirically align
personality with performance criteria on the basis of socioanalytic theory did lead to
better prediction of performance outcomes. This investigation, however, was limited
in two ways. First, it only considered two forms of performance (task and contextual
performance) and their corresponding underlying motivational goals of achievement
and getting along. In line with the growing recognition that performance is a multi-
faceted construct, I expand the criterion space to include a broader range of
effectiveness outcomes, one of which is also related to the third motivational force
(i.e., finding meaning). The second limitation of the Hogan and Holland (2003a)
investigation is that it did not examine the potential moderating influence of social
skills.
In addition to positing a direct link between personality and performance,
Hogan and colleagues also contend that social skills will interact with personality to
influence performance. For positive personality traits, social skills will have an
47
enhancing or strengthening effect. For example, conscientiousness should have a
stronger relationship with performance for individuals with higher levels of social
skill. Insofar as El is a socially-oriented ability, I believe that it will also interact with
positive personality traits to enhance performance.
In summary, the main arguments of socioanalytic theorists are that (1)
individual differences such as personality have a direct, rather than indirect influence
on performance and (2) social skill will moderate the personality-performance
linkage. By conceptualizing El as another individual difference variable and a form of
social skill, I explore the potential interactive effects of this construct on the
personality-performance relationship.
A Model of Personality, El and Workplace Performance
Applying socioanalytic theory (Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Hogan & Shelton,
1998a) to explicate the relationship between individual differences and managerial
performance, I propose the model presented in Figure 1. According to this model, the
Big Five personality traits and El will have direct effects on performance.
Furthermore, because of the strong social nature of El, I expect it to interact with
positive personality traits in such a way that the relationship between personality and
performance will be strengthened.
The dependent variable is workplace performance, which is manifested
through five constructs: task, contextual and innovative performance as well as
relationship supportive behaviors (RSB) and relationship disruptive behaviors (RDB).
The independent variables are personality, as represented by the Big Five personality
constructs (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and
openness) and El abilities, which are operationalized in terms of the four branches
48
(perceiving, facilitating, understanding, and managing of emotions) of emotional
intelligence (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000a).
As discussed in the following sections, differential relationships between
personality and the various forms of performance are expected because of previous
empirical findings (see numbers in parentheses denoting specific relationships with
performance dimensions in Figure 3.1). Given the lack of research on the links
between El and performance, however, these hypotheses (both direct and moderating)
are exploratory in nature.
Emotional Intelligence
Perceiving Emotions
Facilitating Emotions
Understanding
Emotions
Managing Emotions
Performance
Personality Task
Extraversion (1) Contextual
Agreeableness (2, 4, 5) 3 Innovative
Conscientiousness (1-5 Relationship
Emotional Stability (1-5) Supportive Behaviors
Intellectance (3) Relationship
Disruptive Behaviors
Figure 3.1. Theoretical Framework
Workplace Performance
During the first 80 years of nearly 100 years of theory and evidence about the
nature of job performance (see Austin & Villanova, 1992, for a review), researchers
focused on task performance, especially in terms of the number or quality of
identifiable products -- or supervisor evaluations of the same -- as individual criteria.
49
However, theory about the content (both contstitutive and operational) of performance
has been slowly evolving. In the last 20 years, a consensus has developed about one
set of dimensions that deal with what is often referred to as contextual performance
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
Some of the more relevant and commonly studied construct domains include
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB: Organ, 1988), the interpersonal
facilitation facet of contextual performance (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), and
prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Organizational
citizenship behaviors are actions that contribute to the social and psychological
context and that support task performance at work (Organ, 1997). Interpersonal
facilitation refers to a set of interpersonal and volitional actions that support the social
and motivational context in which organizational work is accomplished. Prosocial
organizational behaviors are actions of organization members that are directed toward
others with whom they interact while carrying out their organizational roles. They are
performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of the individual, group, or
organization to whom the actions are directed (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). According
to these definitions, the theoretical focus of this research has remained on how such
behaviors might facilitate task or organizational goals, through the support of "the
organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the technical core
must function" (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 73).
Recognizing the multiple roles associated with employee performance,
Welbourne, et al., (1998) introduced a theory-based measure of employee
performance labeled the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS). This alternative
measure of performance in the workplace draws on role theory and identity theory
extensively. The authors suggest that employees play out many roles beyond that of a
50
jobholder (role theory). Further, identity theory comes into play as a means of
understanding the importance of these roles from an organizational perspective
especially as they relate to employee performance assessment. These roles include the
job role, the organization role, the career role, the team role, and the innovator role.
The job and organization roles correspond with what is generally referred to as task
and contextual performance, respectively. Of particular interest to this study is the
innovator role. Employee innovativeness has long been raised as a major competitive
advantage for contemporary organizations (Schein, 1980). Accordingly, I have
selected it as one of the significant measure of performance for this study.
Despite the progress that has been made with expanding the performance
criterion space, Sin, Harrison, Shaffer, and Lau (2004) argue that existing
performance constructs are limited in their scope. In particular, the interpersonal
actions that facilitate or disrupt social networks are under-explored and in need of
greater research attention (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Another limitation is that the focus
of most research has been only on actions that are positive or supportive of
relationships. It is possible that both positive and negative aspects of interpersonal
behaviors are conceptually and empirically distinct, as opposed to being bipolar ends
of a unitary continuum (Bobko, 1985). That is, if someone is low on the positive
aspect of interpersonal behaviors, it does not imply that he or she is hurting or
disrupting (but perhaps only neglecting) existing social ties. Someone who does not
engage in behaviors that would disrupt or terminate existing relationships is, in turn,
not necessarily a frequent relationship builder or creator.
Sin et al. (2004) make this distinction in their formal definition: "...we define
relationship supportive behaviors (RSB) and relationship disruptive behaviors (RDB)
as actions employees take to cultivate or damage social ties, both within (e.g.,
51
coworkers, supervisors, subordinates) and across organizational boundaries (e.g.,
customers, suppliers, strategic partners). Defined in this way, RSB and RDB include
behaviors that can be either in-role or extra-role; they are not necessarily aimed at
influencing organizational performance"(p.8). How this differs from other, well
researched and similar constructs, is apparent. For example, interpersonal facilitation
is conceptualized as the type of interpersonal volitional actions that underlie the social
and motivational context in which organizational work is done. These actions are
internally focused, implying a lateral exchange between coworkers or an upward
exchange, the results of which benefit the entire organization. Existing measures that
emphasize frequency or intensity of interpersonal behaviors do not allow a separate
dimension of behavioral favorability or tone. Addressing these limitations of
performance research, Sin and colleagues (2004) developed and validated scales to
measure both relationship supportive and relationship disruptive behaviors.
Based on this review of the performance literature, I have selected five types
of performance that are especially relevant to managers and that correspond with the
fundamental motivations posited in socioanalytic theory. Task performance refers to
behaviors that are directly linked with completion of the job. This form of
performance is linked with the motivation to get ahead or achieve. Contextual
performance is more closely aligned with the motivation to get along, but the
interpersonal behaviors comprising this form of performance have to do with actions
that benefit the organization. Innovative performance refers to behaviors that are
creative in nature; such actions are aimed at finding meaning. Relationship
supportive behaviors (RSB) and relationship disruptive behaviors (RDB) are social
behaviors and thus, they correspond with the motivation to get along.
Personality and Workplace Performance
52
The term personality has taken on many varied definitions across the spectrum
of social sciences. Even in the restricted area of personality psychology many
different definitions may be found (Phares & Chaplin, 1997). Generally, the
definitions acknowledge that personality can be seen as the totality of an individual's
behavioral and emotional tendencies, or what distinguishes an individual in terms of
character traits, attitudes, or habits. To investigate the role that personality may play
in influencing individual performance, a definition that focuses on personality traits is
in order. Tell and Guterman (2000) conceived personality traits to be both
intraindividual consistencies and interindividual uniquenessses whereby individuals
are inclined to behave in identifiable ways that are appropriate in the context of
situational demands.
For three decades before the 1990s, personality tests were held in low regard
as a selection tool (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Predictive validities for personality
measures were seen to be lower than other types of tests for performance (Guion &
Gottier, 1965; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). This has been attributed to
the transparency of some of the instruments, the breadth of the dimensions used and
the fact that few jobs called for only one personality type for success (Fisher,
Schoenfeldt, & Shaw, 2003). However, in recent years, interest in using personality
testing as a selection technique has been rekindled with the recognition that earlier
studies lacked a common framework to classify traits, which masked the true
validities (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). The five-factor model of personality offered this
missing framework (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; John, 1990). Table 3.1 provides
a description of the five dimensions originally postulated. These are now generally
referred to as extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and
intellectance (or openness to experience).
53
Table 3.1: The Big Five Personality Dimensions
Extraversion Introversion
Friendliness, agreeableness Hostility, noncompliance
Neuroticism Emotional Stability

High conscientiousness, high Low conscientiousness,
dependability, high self- low dependability, low
control self-control
High intellect, high openness Low intellect, low

to experience and new ideas openness to experience
and new ideas
Source: Digman, 1990, Figure 1, P. 421
Two meta-analyses done in 1991 provided preliminary support for the
taxonomy's utility in selection (Barrick & Mount, 1991a; Tett et al., 1991). For
example, the Barrick and Mount (1991a) analysis found corrected mean validities for
at least two dimensions (Conscientiousness with p= .22 and Extraversion withp =
.13) suggesting they were predictors of overall job performance. Tett et.al. (1991)
reported job performance rating validities for Extraversion (p = .16) and
Agreeableness (p = .33). Further meta-analyses (Mount & Barrick, 1995; Salgado &
Rumbo, 1997) added support for the Big Five's (particularly conscientiousness)
predictive abilities. A recent claim by Behling (1998) echoes this view, suggesting
that Conscientiousness is only second to general intelligence as a valid predictor of
performance in most jobs. Drawing upon these and other empirical findings, as well
as socioanalytic theory (Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Hogan & Shelton, 1998a), I develop
hypotheses for the effects of each of the Big Five personality traits on various forms
of performance.
Extraversion. Extraversion or "surgency" refers to how individuals express
themselves verbally and behaviorally. Individuals high on this trait tend to be
assertive and expressive; they enjoy interacting with others (Costa & McCrae, 1992a).
From the socioanalytic perspective (Hogan & Shelton, 1998b), this trait will facilitate
54
efforts to get along with others. Barrick and Mount (1991,1993) found that
extraversion predicted (although modestly) success for people in management and
sales, although not for those in other professions. Sin et al. (2004) argued that
extraverted individuals will seek out interpersonal situations and they will be
comfortable in such contexts. This is supported by others such as Furnham and
Heaven (1999) who advanced that extroverts engage more in social activity and
appear to thrive in social settings. For example, extraversion is commonly thought to
be an important trait for sales professionals because they are generally charged with
the responsibility of meeting new clients and keeping existing clients satisfied. Thus,
extraversion is likely to be important in the establishment and maintenance of social
ties and this will be manifested in a propensity to engage in relationship supportive
behaviors. Therefore, I propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: Extraversion is a positive predictor of relationship supportive
behaviors.
Agreeableness. Agreeableness is the tendency to get along well with others in
interpersonal settings. Persons high on this trait are more sympathetic toward others,
more cooperative, more trusting and more accepting of social circumstances (Costa &
McCrae, 1992a). From a socioanalytic perspective (Hogan & Shelton, 1998b),
agreeableness should be especially relevant to efforts to get along with others. The
qualities associated with this trait generally facilitate effective communication and
relationships with others. Agreeable employees are also more likely to be altruistic
and to assist colleagues in completing tasks (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997). Meta-
analyses by Barrick and Mount (1991a) and Hurtz and Donovan (2000) indicate that
agreeableness is an important predictor of performance, especially that which is more
interpersonal in nature. In his review of the Big Five framework, Robbins (2000)
55
echoed this, describing a highly agreeable person as one that values harmony more
than getting his/her own way. This cooperative and trusting inclination will be
manifested in behaviors that are supportive of interpersonal relationships and that
contribute to the social context of the organization. Conversely, those who are low on
this trait tend to be hostile and noncompliant and such qualities will damage social
ties. Hence, I predict the following:
Hypotheses 2a-c: Agreeableness is a positive predictor of (a) contextual
performance, (b) relationship supportive behaviors, and a negative predictor of
(c) relationship disruptive behaviors.
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness refers to the extent to which
individuals are careful, diligent, self-disciplined, and dependable (Costa & McCrae,
1992a). Evidence of the ability and range of conscientiousness to predict job
performance was reported by Mount, Barrick and Strauss (1994). They noted that
"The preponderance of evidence shows that individuals who are dependable, reliable,
careful, thorough, able to plan, organized, hardworking, persistent, and achievement-
oriented tend to have higher job performance in most if not all occupations" (p.272).
Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) reported that integrity tests significantly
predict a supervisor's ratings of job performance across an number of settings
(estimated operational validity =0.41). Integrity tests can be considered to be made
up of facets of the Big Five dimensions of conscientiousness and (low) neuroticism.
Such qualities should enable employees to fulfill all the basic needs (i.e.,
achievement, getting along, and finding meaning) postulated by Hogan and
colleagues. Motivated to achieve, conscientious employees will be more likely to
spend more time on tasks and to meet job expectations even in the face of obstacles or
personal problems (Schmidt & Hunter, 1992). Such task-oriented behaviors should
56
result in better task performance. Motivated to get along with others, conscientious
employees will also be more predictable (Hough, 1992) and more likely to engage in
extra-role behaviors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). These activities will facilitate
interpersonal relationships (reflected in relationship supportive behaviors) and lead to
higher levels of contextual performance. When motivated to find meaning,
conscientious individuals may have better perceptual-questioning skills that will
facilitate their ability to be innovative. Thus, I propose the following:
Hypotheses 3a-e: Conscientiousness is a positive predictor of (a) task
performance, (b) contextual performance, (c) innovative performance, (d)
relationship supportive behaviors, and a negative predictor of (e) relationship
disruptive behaviors.
Emotional stability. Emotional stability is the tendency to experience positive
emotional states and to respond calmly to stressful events (Costa & McCrae, 1992a);
it is fundamental to the regulation of feelings or affective and perceptual
consequences of one's experiences. I expect it to play a vital role in employees' efforts
to achieve, to get along, and to find meaning (Hogan & Shelton, 1998b). Insofar as
emotionally stable individuals are confident and positive, they are more likely to be
successful in meeting work expectations and in getting along with others (Hogan &
Holland, 2003b). Able to tolerate stress, emotionally stable individuals will also be
less susceptible to unpleasant surprises, more likely to make sense out of their lives,
and freer to be creative. Motivated to get along with others, they would have a
predisposition to display relationship supportive behaviors and not relationship
disruptive behaviors. Therefore, I believe emotional stability will enable employees to
effectively perform all aspects (task and contextual) of their jobs. Indeed, in meta-
analyses of personality and performance, (Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon, 1999)
57
emotional stability emerged as a strong predictor of both task and contextual
performance. Thus, I predict the following:
Hypotheses 4a-e: Emotional stability is a positive predictor of (a) task
performance, (b) contextual performance, (c) innovative performance, (d)
relationship supportive behaviors, and a negative predictor of (e) relationship
Intellectance. Intellectance, which is also referred to as openness to
experience, describes individuals in terms of their being original, innovative, willing
to take risks (Costa & McCrae, 1992a), and flexible (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997).
Individuals high on this dimension are fascinated by novelty and innovation, they tend
to be intellectual, imaginative and artistically sensitive (Robbins, 2000). This view is
reflected in a meta analysis of the Big Five factors and performance that revealed that
people high on this quality tend to be more curious and eager to learn (Barrick &
Mount, 1991b). I think this should enhance their efforts to make sense out of their
lives (i.e., to find meaning: Hogan & Shelton, 1998b). Although this trait has not
been strongly associated with employee performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991a;
Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), I suggest that it will influence innovative performance. As
an aspect of intellectance, creativity can be thought of as an innovator role that
employees are expected to play in organizations. Insofar as organizations are
increasingly assessing such employee activities (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy,
1998), I propose the following:
Hypotheses 5: Intellectance is a positive predictor of innovative performance.
El and Workplace Performance
A central theme in emotional intelligence research is that emotions serve
important functions in human behavior, e.g., preparing for action, aiding cognition,
58
and communications. Rather than being only dysfunctional and disruptive, emotions
can be helpful if employed properly (Gross & John, 2002; Gross & Keltner, 1999).
As with almost all emergent areas of study, however, there is confusion or lack of
consensus with respect to a construct definition of emotional intelligence. Ciarrochi
et al. (2001a), put El in perspective by outlining what it is as well as what it is not.
Unlike some theorists (i.e., Matthews et al., 2002), Ciarrochi, Forgas, and Mayer
(2001b) agree with Mayer and Salovey's (1997) conceptualization that says El is not
about stress, adaptation, mental health, relationship quality, work success or physical
health. On the contrary, these are life outcomes. In contrast with definitions offered
by 'mixed model' researchers who tend to blend El and performance, El is regarded
as something that is helpful in understanding and predicting these life outcomes
(Ciarrochi et al., 2001b).
In outlining the theoretical underpinnings for their four-branch model of
emotional intelligence, Mayer, et al. (Mayer et al., 2002) set a platform for
understanding the relationship between El and performance. According to them, the
theory of emotional intelligence is based on two main ideas: (1) intelligence involves
the capacity for abstract reasoning, and (2) emotions are indicators of regular,
identifiable meanings about relationships. Recently, Wolfe and Caruso (2002)
summarized how the four branch model depicts the relationship between emotions
and thinking. For them, the key is "...that emotions and thinking are linked. Emotions
can be intelligent and intelligence can be smarter when it incorporates emotions."
Thus, emotions are sophisticated and contain information of value. People not only
use emotions to think, they also think about emotions; emotion involves both skill and
knowledge; individuals are different in respect to these skills; and these individual
differences seem to have an impact (Caruso & Wolfe, 2002, p. 9).
59
From a socioanalytic perspective (Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Hogan & Shelton,
1998a), I think emotional intelligence can be considered an individual difference that
will facilitate motivation to achieve, to get along with others, and to find meaning.
Given the strong socially based nature of emotional intelligence, it can also be
conceptualized in terms of a social skill and social skills, according to Hogan and
colleague's socioanalytic theory, will moderate relationships between personality and
performance. Consequently, I contend that El will have both direct and indirect
effects on employee performance.
What is the combined relationship of personality and social skills (as
operationalized with El) and job performance? I suggest that they could be either
additive or interactive. If they are additive, this would mean that while both may be
positive in their direct influence on performance, the effects are complementary but
independent. That is, an individual with positive personality traits and high El will
demonstrate higher task, contextual, innovative performance as well as relationship
supportive behaviors. In the previous section, I proposed this additive effect. For
example, a sales person with high extraversion and high El abilities would be better
able to perform the task and contextual performance duties of their jobs than if they
were high on one dimension and moderate or low on the other.
On the other hand, if the personality and social skills relationship is
interactive; the power of each to be played out in the various performance dimensions
could be enhanced or debilitated. Using the previous example, a salesperson high in
extraversion but low in El abilities may display an assertive and gregarious
personality to clients. However, the lack of ability to perceive, understand and
manage emotions may result in the salesperson being seen as the prototypical
60
overbearing, pushy, self-interested "used car salesperson" that alienates a prospective
customer, resulting in diminished performance levels.
To clarify the linkage between El abilities and workplace performance, I first
describe the four branches of El posited by Mayer and Salovey (Mayer & Salovey,
1997) and the relationship of each branch to performance. Next, I provide empirical
evidence for the effects of emotional abilities on performance. Following this, I
discuss the role of El as a moderator of the personality-performance connection.
Based on these theoretical and scant empirical considerations, I propose exploratory
hypotheses for the direct and indirect effects of El on various forms of performance.
The Four Branch Model of El and Performance
Branch One is emotional perception. Perceiving or identifying emotions is the
ability to correctly identify how people are feeling, or to identify emotional content in
objects, art, music, etc. Caruso and Wolfe (2002) contend that people with high El
will attend to their own emotions and those around them. They will be better prepared
to evaluate the emotions of the situation and this information will lead them to better
decisions in respect to modifying those emotions. They further argue that low-El
people are generally characterized as those who ignore the emotional content of the
situation and are not able to discern fake from sincere emotional expressions such that
they make decisions with limited or unreliable "social information". For example, if
a manager has the capacity to perceive the feelings of a subordinate (by paying
attention to and accurately decoding emotional signals such as facial expression or
tone of voice), he or she will be better able to direct or supervise the subordinate's
activities. However, if the manager is uncomfortable with the subordinate's
expression of emotion, perhaps avoiding the person when they sense discomfort, they
will not be able to perceive the subordinate's true emotions accurately. More
61
effective communications is likely when a manager can accurately identify emotions
in others and is able to accurately express his/her own emotions to others (Caruso &
Salovey, 2004). It follows that with more effective communications, higher task,
contextual and innovative performance will result as well as the creation of an
environment conducive to positive, supportive relationship.
Branch Two is referred to as emotional integration. Once an emotion is
perceived, the next step in the hierarchical model is the ability to use this perceived
emotional information to facilitate thinking. Mayer and Salovey's (1997) model of El
draws attention to the different levels of ability individuals possess to harness
emotion to aid in decision-making, problem solving, reasoning and creativity.
Whereas the other three branches involve reasoning about emotions, Branch Two
involves using emotions to enhance reasoning (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios,
2001).
Emotions are generally viewed as intense feelings directed at someone or an
object (Frida, 1993). However, moods are feelings that are less intense, lacking in the
contextual stimulus (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Thus, emotions are reactions to an
external object. For example, a person displays emotions when he/she is happy about
something, angry with someone, or afraid of something. On the other hand, moods
can last a long time, many times arising for unknown reasons, and can even be part of
our body chemistry (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). When abilities of this branch are
employed effectively, an individual is able to "Get in the Mood" that is most
appropriate for a given situation. For example, a salesperson employing abilities in
this branch can "psyche themselves up" before a big presentation by directing their
thinking to create an appropriate mood of enthusiasm and focus. On the other hand,
some emotions (e.g., fear and anxiety) can serve to disrupt cognitions, resulting in
62
negative outcomes, or they can serve as an aid to prioritize the cognitive system to
pay attention to what is most important. For example, should a person find herself in
a burning building, fear may be the most important emotion to possess because it
focuses her thinking on that which is crucial survival. It is also interesting to note
the power of both negative and positive moods over this cognitive process. Negative
moods can help provide clear focus, with more efficiency in examining details, and
better ability in search for errors. Conversely, positive moods work to expand
thinking, aid in the generation of new ideas, and encourage creative thinking (Caruso
& Wolfe, 2002). This implies that, whereas tasks such as completing an income tax
return are better facilitated when the person is feeling down, tasks requiring creativity,
such as participating in a brainstorming session, are done better when the person is in
a happy mood.
An emotionally intelligent person has the ability to understand what others
feel and the reasons for the feelings, and then to regulate appropriate moods that fit
the situation (Forgas, 2001; Gohm & Clore, 2002). According to Caruso and Wolfe
(2002), this could also be seen as an "emotional theater of the mind," where emotions
are generated, felt, manipulated, and examined. Furthermore, the abilities under this
branch allow for the generation of moods that assist in creative thinking, perspective
shifts, and increased empathy with others by allowing the person to access his or her
emotions and by linking feelings to thoughts. Such abilities will influence how
individuals complete assigned tasks and how they relate with others and the social
behaviors they will display.
Branch Three is labeled emotional understanding. This next step in the
hierarchical model is to cognitively understand the meaning emotional information
holds for self and relationships. Processing in this branch may be analogous to a
63
computer software program, where emotional "what-if' analyses take place. With
underlying causes, emotions move in accordance with a set of rules and can be
understood (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). The extent to which emotions can be put to
use can be seen as a function of the degree to which responses to them are
experienced, attended to, and reflected upon (Lane & Pollermann, 2002).
Understanding emotions is characterized as the ability to understand complex
emotions, the "chains" emotions become a part of, and how emotions move for one
stage to another. According to Caruso and Wolfe (2002), an individual with this
ability has developed an "emotional language" that allows labeling and effective
reasoning with emotions. For example, petty annoyances of daily life such as being
caught in traffic can build to rage. The emotional chain might be such that a driver
after a five-minute delay in rush-hour traffic may label his/her emotion as annoyance,
after ten-minutes - irritation, twenty-minutes - anger, and full-blown rage after an
hour delay.
The model characterizes this as a "family of emotions" that forms a chain of
various levels of intensity and similarity. The emotional information that has been
perceived and used to facilitate thought (Branches One and Two) is now scrutinized
for what it means to the individual relative to relationships with others. This includes
reasoning with respect to the progression of feelings in interpersonal relationships. In
the above example of traffic frustration for instance, an emotionally intelligent person
would recognize that he or she was progressing on the chain from annoyance to rage
and consider how the emotions he or she was experiencing would influence
interpersonal relationships, perhaps others in the automobile with them or other
drivers on the street.
64
It should also be noted that emotions could be complex or mixed. For
example, if a friend receives a career promotion but must relocate, one may be happy
for his/her success but sad that the friend must move. People high in Branch Three of
El are better able to work through, such conflicts of emotions. For instance, in a
service transaction a clerk may recognize that a customer is frustrated with a poor
product (Branch One and Two) and come to the understanding (Branch Three) that if
something is not done to change that emotion, the customer may transition to anger.
Or in an even subtler example, a salesperson who is high in Branch Three of El will
consider how he or she can make the best deal for the company and still allow the
purchaser to save face when in a negotiation situation.
Caruso and Wolfe (2002) argue that an individual with high ability to
understand emotions is recognized as being able to understand the complexity of
emotions, other's point of view and generally, having insight about others.
Conversely, low ability here may mean that the person may "miss the point" or be
"out of the loop" many times and generally not able to understand others. A manager
equipped with this knowledge is better able to understand what will motivate or de-
motivate others and to develop strategies on how to best work with them. I suggest
that this better understanding will directly affect the range of criterion variables
related to performance and relationship behaviors.
Branch Four is managing emotions. This branch concerns how emotional
awareness is used to make ideal decisions. In successfully managing and coping with
emotions, feelings are worked with in a judicious manner, as opposed to simply acting
without thinking about them. For example, with the emotion of anger, the sage advice
that one should "count to ten before acting", illustrates a simple mechanism for
allowing the emotion to be worked through (Branches Two and Three) and
65
consideration paid to consequences before acting. While spontaneous reactions to
anger may be effective in the short term, channeled anger may be more effective in
the long term (Caruso & Wolfe, 2002).
People with high abilities in this branch generally demonstrate the capacity to
stay open to feelings. This implies the ability to engage or disengage (when
appropriate) from emotions, to understand emotions without exaggerating or
minimizing their significance, and to regulate them. The managing of emotions often
involves their awareness, acceptance and use in problem solving. This does not
necessarily mean the repression or rationalization of emotion. It calls for the use of
emotions in thought and for thoughts to be used in emotion (Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2003b).
Early scholars in the area drew a distinction betweenfelt and displayed
emotions (Hochschild, 1979). While the former is the actual emotion, the latter are the
emotions that are required by the organizational setting and considered appropriate for
the individual's particular job. An effective manager will learn when it is appropriate
to be serious (maybe during a negative performance review) and when to display
friendly emotions (maybe in a sales situation) and display the ability to "over-ride"
the actual emotions felt. Those with high ability in this branch will generally feel
emotions but will not necessarily be controlled by them; they will be able to solve
emotional problems and, in short, be more effective. Low abilities in this area may
result in an individual that becomes overly emotional, such that their emotions may
control them and they feel overwhelmed by situations. Caruso and Wolfe (2001)
contend that how individuals manage emotions (their own and others) in the
workplace will influence their job performance and satisfaction. I suggest, once again,
66
a direct influence will be shown across the range of criterion variables related to
performance and relationship behaviors.
Empirical Evidence for El and Performance Linkages
Emotional intelligence researchers have investigated the effects of El on
several work-related outcomes. Using EQ-i scores, which represent a mixed-model
perspective of El, Stein and Book (2001) found interesting patterns reflecting
differences in the relationship between El and workplace success across professions.
For instance, the top five factors for successful HR professionals were happiness, self-
actualization, optimism, assertiveness and stress tolerance; for successful engineers,
the top five factors were self-actualization, happiness, optimism, empathy and
interpersonal relationships. These results carry a degree of face validity or
recognition that some jobs carry a higher degree of responsibility for social
interaction. For example, a flight attendant, as a boundary spanner for his or her
organization, would require different skills than an accountant.
Assessing quality of interpersonal relationships, Gohm and Clore (2002) found
positive relationships between employees' beliefs in their level of emotional
intelligence and their relationships with superiors and coworkers. This is consistent
with reports that those who score high on the MEIS El abilities test also tend to report
greater relationship success, greater life happiness and more parental warmth. (e.g.,
Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Matthews et al., 2002). Further, scores on El ability tests have
been negatively related with several socially unacceptable behaviors such as fighting,
aggression, and misuse of drugs and alcohol problems with students (Cobb & Mayer,
2000).
A number of empirical studies lend credence to the importance of an
individual's ability to perceive emotions as a predictor of positive workplace
67
outcomes (see Elfenbein, Marsh, & Ambady, 2002 for a review). For example, a
recent study by Elfenbein and Ambady (2002b) reported that employees of a public
service company who were adept at "eavesdropping" on negative emotions received
lower performance ratings; those who were good at "eavesdropping" on positive
emotions received better ratings. According to them, it may be more important to
understand intentionally expressed negative emotions. With respect to positive
emotion, it may be detrimental to perceive those that are falsely expressed or
exaggerated.
A recent study by Lam and Kirby (2002) incorporated the MEIS abilities test
in an investigation of the relative influences of El and traditional general intelligence
on cognitive-based performance. Their findings suggest that overall El and other,
more specific elements of the four-branch model, (perception and regulation of
emotions) can explain individual cognitive-based performance beyond the level
attributable to general intelligence. Janovics and Christiansen (2001) showed that a
modest correlation exists between ability measures of El and job performance.
Incorporating the MSCEIT abilities measures they found job performance correlated
significantly with perception abilities (r =.14) and understanding (r =.30), Branches
One and Three, respectively, of the four branch model.
Management practitioners and researchers concerned with leadership issues
have shown an increased interest in El (Goleman, Boyatzis, & Mckee, 2002a). In a
recent leadership study of 110 managers (Gardner & Stough, 2002), the most effective
managers (i.e., those who were more transformational) had high scores on their
abilities to understand the emotions of others and to manage their emotions.
Together, the results of these studies suggest that the four branches of
emotional intelligence, as conceptualized and operationalized by Mayer and
68
colleagues (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al., 2000c), may predict various work-
related outcomes. Given the somewhat scant nature of this evidence, however, I offer
exploratory hypotheses regarding the relationship between El and the different forms
of performance targeted in this study.
Hypotheses 6a-e: Emotional intelligence is a positive predictor of (a) task
performance, (b) contextual performance, (c) innovative
performance, (d) relationship supportive behaviors, and a
negative predictor of (e) relationship
Moderating Effects of Emotional Intelligence
The extant research linking personality and job performance has focused, for
the most part, on direct relationships, with consistent, yet relatively low (in
magnitude) effects (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Although personality traits themselves
have frequently been considered as moderators of linkage between performance and
various affective and cognitive determinates (e.g., Gellatly & Irving, 2001; Hogan,
Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman, 1998; Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth,
1998), very few studies have examined moderators of personality-performance
relationships. In pointing out the possibility of a complex link between personality
and performance, Tett and Burnett (2003) suggest that ability may interact with
personality to influence performance. According to them, personality and ability
contribute uniquely and jointly to the prediction of performance. The two work
together, such that ability provides the "can do" and personality provides the intrinsic
"will do" behind valued work behavior. To express a given personality trait, an
individual must have some ability to carry out the inclination (Murray, 1938). For
example, someone with a nurturing personality must have the ability to select
69
appropriate helping behavior (and physical ability to carry it out) in order to help
someone. The lack of appropriate ability could undermine the expression of
nurturance, and result in frustration and disappointment.
This argument is consistent with Hogan and colleagues' (Hogan & Shelton,
1998a) contention that social skill is a moderator of the relationship between
personality and performance. They distinguish between personality and social skills.
Personality traits are relatively stable and enduring; social skills are more dynamic
and trainable. From a socioanalytic perspective, social skills allow individuals to
achieve their goals to achieve, to get along with others, and to find meaning by
translating their identities (i.e., personality) into actions.
Social skills have been variously conceptualized as the ability to control others
through counseling, persuading and suggesting (Argyle, 1969), impression
management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), and as interpersonal (i.e., the ability to
understand others) and intrapersonal (i.e., the ability to understand oneself)
intelligence (Gardner, 1993). Hogan and Shelton (1998a) describe a taxonomy
comprising seven categories of social skills: (1) being sensitive and responsive to the
needs and moods of others, (2) being flexible and adaptable, (3) being persuasive, (4)
being able to create trusting relationships, (5) being consistent across interactions, (6)
being accountable, and (7) being able to communicate with diverse individuals.
Given the strong relationship-orientation of emotional intelligence, I
conceptualize El as a social skill, and predict that it will moderate the relationships
between the Big Five personality traits and performance. Although investigations of
the interactive effects of personality and ability on job performance are inconclusive
(Sackett, Gruys, & Ellingson, 1998), socioanalytic theory posits an enhancing effect
for positive personality traits. I suggest that the Big Five personality traits are more
70
important to job performance among workers high in social skill relative to those low
in social skill.
The consistently low direct effects of the Big Five on performance may be due
to the fact that unadulterated personality traits are not necessarily a good thing for all
persons in all contexts. For example, extraversion may facilitate performance for
sales people but not for accountants. What might properly direct and fine-tune the
effects of increased social energy of extraverts is a higher awareness of their own
emotional states and the emotional states of their behavioral targets. In other words,
El will enable individuals to effectively match their personality with the situation to
comply with social expectations. The dearth of empirical evidence for social skills as
a moderator of personality-performance linkages, however, makes sound predictions
problematic. Therefore, the nature of my final set of hypotheses is exploratory in
nature. Thus, I propose the following exploratory hypotheses:
Hypotheses 7a-e: Emotional intelligence will strengthen (weaken) the positive
(negative) relationships between the Big Five personality
traits and (a) task performance, (b) contextual performance,
(c) innovative performance, (d) relationship supportive
behaviors, and a negative predictor of (e) relationship
To summarize, the model developed in this chapter predicts that both
personality and the various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence will have direct
influences on performance. Also, exploratory hypotheses regarding the interactive
effects of personality and Emotional Intelligence are offered. In the next chapter, I
present the methodology used to test these hypotheses.
71
CHAPTER 4
METHOD
In this chapter I describe the methods used to test the proposed model. First, I
discuss the overall research strategy and design. Next I discuss the data collection
procedures employed. Then I provide an overview of the sample that was surveyed.
This is followed by a description of the instruments used to operationalize the
variables. Finally, I describe the analytical procedures used to assess the hypotheses.
Research Strategy and Design
This was a quantitative, cross-sectional field study. The major advantage of a
field study is that it occurs in a non-contrived, natural context so that realism is
enhanced and the effects are stronger (McGrath, 1982). Collecting data in a non-
contrived setting by use of surveys goes to developing strong external validity
(Sekaran, 2000). The use of two or more independent measures, or triangulation, is
considered to be advisable to prevent the research from becoming method-bound
(Easterby-Smith, 1991). To this end, data triangulation was accomplished by
collecting data with two on-line instruments (one was an abilities test for assessing
Emotional Intelligence and the other was a self-report survey for assessing all other
variables) at two different time periods.
According to Sekaran (2000), the survey technique is generally acknowledged
as the most efficient means to carry out data collection, especially when dealing with
a large population with limited time. Arguably, the most significant communications
technological development in the last fifty years, the Internet or the World Wide Web
(WWW), is being used increasingly in academic research. Many recent scholarly
journals attest to its usefulness (e.g., Kelly-Milburn & Milburn, 1995: Landis, 1995).
These and other advocates of the use of this new technology as a research tool
72
compare it favorably with traditional pencil and paper media. Kraut and Saari (1999)
observed that the technology is increasingly a vital part of an organization's
infrastructure as employees are connected via e-mail, Internet, intranet and electronic
surveying has increased. The potential for lower data collection costs is significant.
Donovan (2000) highlighted the convenience and global reach of online data
collection. Schaefer and Dillman (1998) pointed out that the speed of data collection
over paper instruments is enhanced. Still, another writer has noted that the electronic
survey can grant the researcher greater control (Dillman, 2000). Several researchers
further note that employees may actually prefer this mode of data collection
(Christianson DeMay & Toquam, 2001; Church, 2001; Thompson, Surface, Martin
and Sanders, 2003).
In respect to the effectiveness and the integrity of data generated by online
methods, many scholars offer evidence that supports its adoption. For example,
comparison studies with online and paper instruments report no difference in response
rates (Fenlason, 2000; Yost and Homer, 1998) ; online instruments display the same
or a lower proportion of missing values (Stanton, 1998; Fenlason, 2000); and
completion rates are generally the same (Church, 2001) .
Thompson, Surface, Martin and Sanders (2003) showed that influences of
Web response rates included past satisfaction with past online surveys, the absence of
problems with technology, and the subjects' overall evaluation of the usefulness of
the media. They found also that demographic differences such as gender, race, and
military versus civilian occupation did not influence participation rates. Finally, no
differences in measurement equivalence between paper and Web-based modes have
been found by many recent investigators (e.g., Donovan, Drasgow and Probst, 2000;
Fenlason, 2000; Magnan, Lundby and Fenlason, 2000; Young, Daum, Robie and
73
Macey, 2000). Thus, the choice of an online questionnaire and an abilities test as
data collection instruments was made based on the increased economies, speed and
effectiveness they offered. I also thought that the subjects would benefit by having
the ability to complete the instruments at a time of their choosing, thus increasing
their willingness to participate.
Using two different surveys meant that data were collected at two different
points in time, with two types of instruments a self-report survey and an abilities
test. A large proportion of the bias in estimated connections between constructs
measured with common methods is due to transient factors. Thus possible problems
associated with common method variance (CMV) were mitigated. Additionally, most
theories of CMV argue that cognitive limitations/tendencies are the main source of
problems (see (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Paodsakoff, 2003). Separating by time
greatly reduces these (see (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Clark, 2002).
Data Collection
To collect data, I targeted managerial-level employees working in Hong Kong.
To maximize variability across occupations and industries, I used a convenience
sampling technique to solicit subjects to participate in the study. As a form of
nonprobablity sampling, convenience sampling is generally believed to undermine the
generalizability of research findings (e.g. Aaker, Kumar and Day, 1995; Sekaran,
2000). However, as the focus of this research is model-based rather than person-
based, I felt it justified. Mook (1983) argued that a preoccupation with external
validity may indeed be detrimental to good research, especially when generalizations
to real life are not its intention.
Two basic criteria were applied to screen for potential subjects. First,
subjects were selected based on their fluency in English. University education was
74
used as a proxy for judging fluency because the language of instruction at all Hong
Kong universities is English. Several other reasons influenced this decision to use
English rather than Chinese: (1) The El measures employed (MSCEIT) were first
developed and validated in English, and are not yet available (as copyrighted
instruments) in Chinese; (2) as a former British colony, Hong Kong's second official
language is English; and (3) the need for English communications skills is high,
especially for mid to senior level Hong Kong mangers as is witnessed by continuing
reports in the popular press and in academic research. For example, Lundelius (1997)
gave some indication of its importance in the Hong Kong workplace when he noted,
"For use in nearly all types of written business communications, nearly twice as many
respondents say that English is used rather than Chinese."(p.112). Thus, the basic
criterion of English proficiency was established for selection.
The second criterion used for selection was management experience.
Individuals were invited to take part if they had experience in a management position
at front-line, middle or senior levels. Once again, enrollement in university programs
designed for working adults and executive development programs was used as an
initial screen. This was done both as a matter of convenience and to ensure
respondents had previous or current managerial work experience. No control group
was employed. Thus, effects that these developmental programs may have had on the
subjects' responses were not explored. However, insofar as all participants had
experienced executive development programs, the influence of such programs is
constant across participants. Thus, it should not have any effect if terms of the
putative connections between variables.
On-line surveying was conducted over a six-month period from September
2003 to February 2004 in two phases. The first phase involved soliciting participation
75
through email invitations. To find subjects that met the basic criteria, I approached
students in post-graduate classes at three Hong Kong universities and participants
from executive development programs that I had conducted for two Hong Kong
organizations (the Hong Kong Government and an insurance firm). As a high level of
English fluency is required for enrolment in these classes, the language requirement
was met. These classes were composed of current and former part-time students who
held management positions in a wide-range of industries. Thus, the second criterion of
management experience was also achieved. I then sent an email invitation to
participate. The invitation directed the potential subject to the first of two an Internet
websites.
Labeled "eiplace.com" the initial website included more background
information outlining the scope of the study, the participants' involvement and
instructions on completing the first part of the survey. The first instrument measured
personality factors, demographics, and performance variables. After completing part
one of the survey, respondents were directed to part two, the MSCEIT V2 emotional
intelligence abilities test. This was also an on-line instrument administered by
Multiple Heath Systems.
Although there are no figures available in respect to expected participation
rates for on-line instruments, Harzing (1997) noted that for international academic
mail surveys, Hong Kong ranked lowest among 22 countries at 7.1%. Various
measures were used to increase the response rate. First, to obtain email addresses for
sending the invitation, I (or a trained representative) visited each class explaining the
general nature of the study and requested their involvement. Secondly, all email
correspondence featured the letterhead of the International Graduate School of
Management, The University of South Australia and the endorsement of my
76
supervisors, Dr. David Harrison and Dr. Barry Elsey and me. According to Bruvold
and Corner (1988) and Schneider and Johnson (1995) questionnaires endorsed by
reputable persons or renowned organizations will elicit higher response willingness.
Secondly, because participation in this study was voluntary, every effort was
made to prepare easy-to-read and appealing on-line questionnaires. Erdogan and
Baker (2002) observed that once the respondents invest the time to read a
questionnaire, they will develop a degree of psychological commitment to complete
it.
Third, every effort was made to assure the respondents of confidentiality. The
study's purpose was explained explicitly and promises that the data collected would
be used solely for research were given in the invitation and the background
information sheet given to the participants before they gave their informed consent.
Throughout the study, respondents were requested to only identify themselves by
means of their email address and my local server and the MHS testing authority's
secure Internet server captured all the data. Fourth, in return for their participation, I
offered them a personal summary of their Emotional Intelligence scores. Finally, in
instances where invited subjects did not respond within two weeks of the invitation, a
reminder email was sent. Subsequently, after one month another, final email
remainder was sent.
These procedures resulted in an above-average response rate for Hong Kong
surveys. Out of the 509 email invitations sent, 484 were confirmed received (25 were
not delivered, perhaps due to incorrect email addresses). Thus, of the 484 confirmed
invitations, 116 subjects completed both instruments, for a response rate of 24%.
Based on a power analysis, this sample size is adequate for detecting small to
moderate effects. According to Cohen (1988), for a power of .80 and a significance
77
criterion of .05, a sample size of 84 is needed to detect a small to medium (i.e., .30)
effect size.
The on-line surveys were presented in a way that participants were required to
complete the performance and personality measures before accessing the Emotional
Intelligence test. This order was intended to ensure that participants completed both
surveys. The inducement was that they would receive an assessment of their
Emotional Intelligence, so this survey was administered last. Nevertheless, several
potential participants (N = 72) only completed the first survey, thus rendering their
(partial) input invalid.
Sample
The sample represents a diverse group of management-level employees. Only
13% of the sample reported that their native language was English, and 84% of the
respondents reported that it was Cantonese or Mandarin. Another 3% reported that it
was another language. However, all were fluent in English. Correspondingly, most
(88%) were of Asian descent and the rest (12%) were Caucasians. The gender
distribution was 37% male and 63% female. The majority of respondents were over
30 years of age, and they had, on average, 7.41 years of work experience. The
respondents were highly educated, with 91% having at least a bachelor's degree.
Most (86%) were in management positions, and 14% were in supervisory posts. They
represented a wide variety of industries, including the public sector, professional
services, financial/insurance services, and manufacturing. Details of these
characteristics are presented in Table 4.1.
Measures
In this section, I describe the measures used to operationalize the variables.
All measures were taken from existing studies, and all have demonstrated sound
78
Table 4.1. Demographic Profile of Respondents
Demographic Characteristics Number Percentage

Gender
Male 43 37
Female 73 63
Age
20-25 7 6
26-30 18 16
31-35 27 23
36-40 33 28
41-45 13 11
46-50 9 8
51+ 9 8
Ethnicity
Asian 102 88
Caucasian 14 12
Language
Cantonese 94 81
Mandarin 3 3
English 15 13
Other 4 3
Education
Forms 5-7 3 3
Associate's Degree 5 4
Bachelor's Degree 55 47
Post-graduate Diploma 11 9
Master's Degree 33 28
Doctoral Degree 9 8
Position
Top-level Management 18 16
Middle-level Management 58 50
Lower-level Management 23 21
Supervisory Level 16 13
Industry
Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting and Fishing 1 1
Hotel/tourism 1 1
Transport and Allied Services 1 1
Manufacturing 5 4
Communication 6 5
Electricity, Gas and Water 1 1
Financial Services/Insurance 16 14
Construction 2 2
Wholesale, Import/Export 3 3
Business/Professional Services 19 16
Retail 5 4
Community, Social and Personal Services 6 5
Restaurant/Food Services 2 2
Government 35 30
Education 13 11
79
psychometric properties. The performance, personality and demographic items were
on the first on-line survey (see Table 4.2 for a complete listing of the performance and
personality items). After completing that survey, participants were directed to the
second survey, which assessed their Emotional Intelligence (see Table 4.3 for sample
items). Both on-line surveys were in English.
Performance. Performance was conceptualized and operationalized in terms
of five variables: task and contextual performance, innovative behaviors, relationship
supportive behaviors, and relationship disruptive behaviors. The first three
performance variables were assessed with role-based performance scales developed
by Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (1998). The response format for these scales
ranged from 1 = needs much improvement to 5 = excellent. Task performance was
measured with four items; a sample item was 'quantity of work output.' The
contextual performance scale consisted of four items about behaviors directed toward
the organization. A sample item was 'working for the overall good of the company.'
Innovative behaviors were assessed with four items, such as 'working to implement
new ideas.' Welbourne et al. (1998) reported reliabilities ranging from .59-.87, .72-
.84, and .87-.91 for the task, contextual, and innovator scales, respectively.
Relationship supportive and relationship disruptive behaviors were measured
with scales developed by Sin, Harrison, Shaffer and Lau (2004). These scales
comprised ten items each, and responses were on a 7-point frequency scale ranging
from "never" (0) to "always" (6). Response anchors taken from the psychometric
research of Bass, Cascio, and O'Connor (1974). A sample item for the relationship
supportive behavior scale is 'shows interest in and knowledge of many different
topics of conversation.' For the relationship disruptive scale, a sample item is 'has a
80
Table 4.2. Items to Assess Performance and Personality
Variable Items
Performance
Task 1. Quantity of work output
Quality of work output
Accuracy of work
Customer service provided (internal and/or external
customers)
Contextual 1. Doing things that help others when it's not part of
the job
Working for the overall good of the company
Doing things to promote the company
Helping other coworkers so that the company is a
good place to be
Innovative 1. Coming up with new ideas
Working to implement new ideas
Finding improved ways to do things
Creating better processes and routines
Relationship 1. Remembers birthdays and special events
Supportive Behaviors 2. Others go to him/her for advice when making
important decisions
Discusses problems openly
Is willing to talk about his/her personally matters,
family or non-work interests
Keeps track of what's happening to others' family
members and close friends
Visits others when they're sick or in the hospital
Shows interest in and knowledge of many different
topics of conversation
Organizes informal social activities
Mediates differences of opinions among others
Sends postcards or email messages back to his/her
workplace while he/she is on holiday/vacation
Relationship 1. Tends to ignore feedback from others
Disruptive Behaviors 2. Has a number of ongoing conflicts with colleagues
Interrupts or cuts off others who are talking
Brags about his/her contributions
In case of disagreements, he or she will insult her/his
adversary
Seems to enjoy stirring up arguments
Treats others at work as his/her competitors
Is often suspicious of the well-intentioned acts of
others
Loses his/her temper easily
Refuses to provide information to others
Personality
Extraversion 1. Is the life of the party
Doesn't talk a lot
Feels comfortable around people
81
Variable Items
Starts conversations
Keeps in the background
Has little to say
Talks to a lot of different people at parties
Doesn't like to draw attention to him/herself
Doesn't mind being the center of attention
Is quiet around strangers
Agreeableness Feels little concern for others
Is interested in people
Insults people
Sympathizes with others' feelings
Is not interested in other people's problems
Has a soft heart
Is not really interested in others
Takes time out for others
Feels others emotions
Makes people feel at ease
Conscientiousness Is always prepared
Leaves his/her belongings around
Pays little attention to details
Makes a mess of things
Gets chores done right away
Often forgets to put things back in the proper place
Likes order
Shirks his/her duties
Follows a schedule
Is exacting in his/her work
Emotional Stability Gets stressed out easily
Is relaxed most of the time
Worries about things
Seldom feels blue
Is easily disturbed
Gets upset easily
Changes his/her mood a lot
Has frequent mood swings
Gets irritated easily
Often feels blue
Intellectance Has a rich vocabulary
Has difficulty understanding abstract ideas
Has a vivid imagination
Is not interested in abstract ideas
Has excellent ideas
Does not have a good imagination
Is quick to understand things
Uses difficult words
Spends time reflecting on things
Is full of ideas
82
number of ongoing conflicts with colleagues.' Sin et al. (2004) report reliabilities
ranging from .74-.75 and .75-.87 for the supportive and disruptive behavior scales,
respectively.
Personality. Big Five factor markers from Goldberg (2000b) were used to
assess personality traits. Ten items assessed each of five subscales: extraversion (e.g.,
"is the life of the party"), agreeableness (e.g., "is interested in people"),
conscientiousness (e.g., "is always prepared"), emotional stability (e.g., "is relaxed
most of the time"), and openness to experience (e.g., "have a vivid imagination").
Responses were made using a 5-point Likert scale, 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very
accurate). Goldberg (2000a) reported estimated reliabilities ranging from .75-.90.
Emotional Intelligence. Respondents' emotional intelligence was assessed by
means of the on-line version of the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT V2). This is an ability-based assessment designed by the authors of
the four-branch model of emotional intelligence and administered by the professional
assessment organization, Multi-Health Systems Inc. (MHS). Managers were invited
to "log-on" to a designated secure server at their convenience any time during a two-
week period to take the 30 to 45 minute test. MHS scored the test and returned
individual and aggregate results directly to me electronically.
The test consists of 141 items that are designed to measure the specific skills
associated with each of the four branches of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model:
perceiving emotions, using emotions to facilitate thought, understanding emotions,
and managing emotions (see Table 4.3 for sample items). The four branches are each
measured by two tasks. The test developers varied the response formats to gain better
generalizability across tasks and to reduce the possibility of correlated measurement
error. That is, where some tasks were measured using a 5-point scale, others used a
83
multiple- choice structure. Test validity across educational levels, occupational and
ethnic groups, and geographic locations has been reported (see Mayer, Salovey,
Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003afor a detailed discussion of the MSCEIT).
Table 4.3: Sample Items from the MSCEIT
El Branch Sam le Item

Branch 1 Perceiving Indicate the
Emotions emotions
expressed by this
ace.
Happines
000:11
11111111001411
Sadness
001411
Branch 2 Facilitating What mood (s) might be helpful to feel when meeting
Emotions in-laws for the very first time?
Not
Useful
Useful
Tension 1 234 5
Surprise 1 234 5
Joy 1 234 5
Branch 3 Understanding Tom felt anxious, and became a bit stressed when he
Emotions thought about all the work he needed to do. When
his supervisor brought him an additional project, he
felt . (Select the best choice.)
Overwhelmed
Depressed
Ashamed
Self Conscious
Jittery
Branch 4 Managing Debbie just came back from vacation. She was
Emotions feeling peaceful and content. How well would each
action preserve her mood?
Action 1: She started to make a list of things at home

that she needed to do.
Very Ineffective..1 2 3 4 5..Very Effective
To measure the ability to perceive emotions (Branch One), participants
responded to 20 items that required viewing a series of 4 faces. For each face, they
84
indicated on a 5-point (1 = no feeling to 5 = extreme feeling) the extent to which they
perceived five specific emotions. For example, for one face, respondents rated how
much happiness, fear, surprise, disgust, and excitement were expressed by the face.
Another 30 items consisted of respondents viewing 6 pictures of landscapes and
abstract designs and indicating the extent to which each of 5 feelings (e.g., happiness,
fear, anger, surprise and disgust) was expressed by the picture.
Facilitating thought (Branch Two) was measured with 15 items that asked
respondents to match 3 sensations with each of 5 emotions. For example, respondents
were asked to imagine feeling guilty and then they rated how alike (1 = not alike to 5
= very much alike) that feeling was to sensations such as cold and sweet. Another 15
items consisted of 5 situations involving cognitive or behavioral tasks. For each
situation, respondents rated three moods that would be helpful in carrying out the task
(1 = not useful to 5 = useful). For example, when creating decorations for a birthday
party, respondents were asked to indicate how useful it would be to feel boredom or
joy.
Understanding emotions (Branch Three) was measured with 12 items that
asked respondents to identify emotions that may be combined to form other emotions.
A sample item is 'acceptance, joy, and warmth often combine to form
Respondents then chose from one of 5 emotions to complete the statement. Another
20 items required respondents to select an emotion that may result from the
intensification of another feeling. For example, respondents were asked to indicate
the emotion (e.g., depression) that would be the most likely outgrowth of intensified
sadness and fatigue.
Managing emotions (Branch Four) was measured with 20 items. Respondents
were presented with 5 stories and asked to judge the effectiveness of 4 options for
85
reaching a specified emotional outcome. For example, respondents were asked to
judge what a person might do to reduce anger or extend joy. Another 9 items required
respondents to judge the effectiveness of behaviors in the management of another
person's feelings.
Just as its predecessor, the MSEIT, the MSCEIT renders many scores: a total
measure of El, two areas scores (experiential and strategic); a score for each of the
four branches; and eight task scores. Scoring can be done in two ways i.e., using
either general consensus or expert methods. Using the general consensus method
involves scoring the respondent's answers against the proportion of the sample that
selected the same answer. For example, if an individual answered that anger was
"definitely present" in a face, and the same answer was given by 50% of the sample,
the individual's score would be incremented by the proportion .50. The individual's
total raw score is the total of the 141 items across the test. Alternatively, comparisons
can be made of individual responses to a group of experts' responses. The expert
scoring method used by the MSEIT was criticized for its use of only two experts
(Matthews et al., 2002). The MSCEIT V2.0 addressed this criticism by incorporating
21 experts in its development and testing.
In scoring the tests by general consensus and expert methods, differences in
reliabilities were reported. At the total El score level, the general method reliability
was .93 and the expert method was .91. Reliabilities for the four branch scores were
more varied. For the general scoring method, reliabilities were: Branch 1= .91, Branch
2=.79, Branch 3=.80, and Branch 4=.83. In contrast, the expert scoring method
resulted in reliabilities of: Branch 1=.90, Branch 2=.76, Branch 3.77 and Branch
4=.81 (Mayer et al., 2003a).
86
In commenting on the differences between the two methods, Mayer and his
colleagues report that for emotions "...experts are more reliable judges, and converge
on correct answers where research has established clear criteria for answers"(Mayer et
al., 2003a). Therefore this was the scoring method of choice for the current study.
Control Variables. Three control variables were used in the analyses. Gender
was assessed by asking respondents to indicate whether they were male (coded 1) or
female (coded 2). To measure age, respondents selected from one of 7 categories:
20-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, and over 50. Ethnicity was assessed by
having respondents indicate whether they were Asian (scored 1) or Caucasian (scored
2). An option was available for participants to write-in another ethnic choice, but
none was reported.
87
CHAPTER FIVE
DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS
In this chapter, I explain how I analyzed the data and the results. First, I give
an overview of the analytical procedures used to assess the data. Then I present an
overview of the quality of the data. I next present descriptive statistics and
correlations of the variables personality, emotional intelligence, performance and
controls. Following this, I provide the regression results of the tests of the
hypotheses.
Analytical Procedures
Before testing the hypotheses, I first examined the quality of the data by
checking to ensure it was normally distributed and that common method variance was
not a major issue. Next, I assessed the internal consistency of each scale by
calculating Cronbach alphas. I then looked at the means and standard deviations. An
examination of the zero-order correlations indicated preliminary evidence for
proposed relationships.
To test the hypotheses, I conducted multiple hierarchical (moderated)
regressions on all performance measures (task, contextual, innovative, relationship
supportive behaviors, and relationship disruptive behaviors). To test the direct effects
of the Big Five personality traits and the four branches of El, I entered these into
regression equations after entering the control variables. To test for the moderating
effects of El, I first calculated a total El score by adding the scores from the four
branches together. Then, I created interaction terms by multiplying each of the Big
Five personality traits by the total El score. For the regressions, I entered the
variables in this sequence: controls, personality, total El, and interaction terms (El x
personality). To minimize multicollinearity among interaction terms and their
88
constituent terms in the regression models, I centered all variables with the mean (i.e.,
I transformed the scales to 1 = -2, 3 = 0, and 5 = 2 for 5-point scales: Aiken & West,
1991).
For each regression model, the coefficient of determination, R2 or the
goodness-of-fit measure, was computed. R2 ranges from 0 to 1 and is the proportion
of variation in the dependent variable explained by the regression model. Small
values indicate that the model does not fit the data well. Hypotheses were tested by
analyzing the significance of the coefficients of the regressions. Positive (negative)
coefficients denote a positive (negative) relationship between the predictor variable
and the criterion variable. The t statistic determines the importance of each variable
in the model. A significance value of p < .05 supports the relationship between the
dependent and independent variables.
Data Quality
To evaluate the quality of the data, I first examined the normality of the
distributions (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). To do this, I looked at the
skewness and the kurtosis. Skewness is a measure of the asymmetry of a distribution.
In skewness equals zero, the distribution is symmetric. A distribution with a
significant positive skewness exhibits a long right tail, called a downward straggle; a
significant negative skewness possesses a long left tail, called an upper straggle. If
skewness is less than one, it indicates that the distribution would not differ
significantly from a normal, symmetric distribution (Norusis, 2001). All of the
variables had skewness scores less than 1.0, therefore assumption of data normality
was valid.
Kurtosis is a measure of the extent to which the observations gather around a
central point. In a normal distribution, the value of the kurtosis statistic is zero.
89
Positive kurtosis, termed leptokurtic, suggests that the observations gather more and
have longer tails than those in the normal distribution. Negative kurtosis, called
platokurtic, indicates that the observations pack less and form shorter tails. A
distribution is considered normal if the kurtosis value is within the range of 3 to +3
(Norusis, 2001). All variables were within this range, so normal distributions were
assumed.
The El measures were assessed at a separate time and with a separate
instrument (i.e., an abilities test), so common method variance should not be a
problem with these scores (Harrison, McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996). However, the
personality and performance measures were collected at the same time. Consequently
there was a potential threat of common method variance, in which any defect in the
source would contaminate both measures in the same fashion and in the same
direction (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Although some researchers (e.g., Crampton &
Wagner, 1994) argued that common method variance will not necessarily invalidate
empirical findings, Harman's one factor test (Harman, 1967) was performed to assess
the presence of common method variance. The underlying assumption of this method
is that if a substantial amount of common method variance exists in the data, either a
single factor will emerge or one general factor will account for the majority of the
covariance among the variables. Although this test does not completely rule out the
existence of common method effects, it provides some post hoc statistical support for
the absence of such bias in the findings, and it increases confidence in the substantive
interpretations made based on the results.
To assess the possibility of CMV, I entered all the independent and dependent
variables from the self-report survey into a factor analysis (Promax rotation). Sixteen
factors emerged, and the results of the un-rotated factor analysis indicated that no
90
single factor accounted for over 50% of the covariation in the variables. Factor 1
explained 10.73 of the variance, and all other factors explained less than 5% variance
each. These results suggest that common method variance is probably not a problem
in the data. See Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for factor loadings for independent and dependent
variables, respectively. Because some items failed to load or loaded on more than one
factor, they were eliminated from the scales.
Descriptive Statistics
Having established the quality of the data, I next computed descriptive
statistics. In a normal distribution, two summary measures, mean and variance, are
sufficient to describe an entire distribution. Table 5.3 reports the means, standard
deviations, zero-order correlations, and internal consistency reliabilities (i.e.,
Cronbach's alphas) for all variables. Cronbach's alphas are reported on the diagonal
in parentheses.
The Pearson correlation coefficient is a measure of the linear association
between two variables. Values range from to +1, with the absolute value denoting
the strength (i.e., larger values reflect stronger relationships) and the sign showing the
direction of the relationship. In this study, all of the values except one (the correlation
between task and innovative performance was r = .81) were below r = .75, which is
the threshold for rejecting multicollinearity (Sekaran, 2000). To further examine
multicollinearity, which will reduce the power of the test of coefficients in regression
analyses, the variance inflation factor (VIF) associated with each independent variable
in the regression equations was examined. The maximum VIF calculated for each
independent variable was less than six, which is the cutoff threshold (Maruyama,
1998). As a result, multicollinearity was ruled out as a problem in this study.
91
Table 5.1: Factor Loadings of Independent Variables
Items Emotional Stability Extraversion Intellectance Conscientiousness Agreeableness

I feel comfortable around people. .62
I start conversations. .80
I talk to a lot of different people at parties. .72
I don't mind being the center of attention. .76
I am interested in people. .44
I sympathize with others' feelings. .79
I have a soft heart. .76
I feel others' emotions. .57
V
I make people feel at ease. .41

I am always prepared. .47
I pay attention to details. .67
I get chores done right away. .62
I like order. .64
I follow a schedule. .65
I am exacting in my work. .62
I get stressed out quickly. .64
I worry about things. .57
I am easily disturbed. .60
I get upset easily. .85
I change my mood a lot. .67
I have frequent mood swings. .76
I get irritated easily. .78
I often feel blue. .62
I have a rich vocabulary. .75
I have a vivid imagination. .60
I have excellent ideas. .44
92
Items Emotional Stability Extraversion Intellectance Conscientiousness Agreeableness
I use difficult words. .69
I spend time reflecting on things. .55
I am full of ideas. .58
Table 5.2: Factor Loadings of Dependent Variables
Items Innovative Contextual Task

RSB Performance RDB Performance Performance
Quantity of work output. .66
Quality of work output. .76
Accuracy of work. .76
Customer service provided (internal and/or external) .56
Coming up with new ideas. .83
Working to implement new ideas. .84
Finding improved ways to do things. .75
Creating better processes and routines. .65
Doing things that help others when its not part of my job. .61
Working for the overall good of the organization. .73
Doing things to promote the organization. .68
Helping coworkers so that the organization is a good place to be. .77
Remember birthdays and special events. .72
Discuss problems openly. .50
Am willing to talk about my personal matters, family, or non- .70
work interests.
Keep track of what's happening to others' family members and .83
close friends.
Visit others when they're sick or in the hospital. .77
93
Items Innovative Contextual Task
RSB Performance RDB Performance Performance
Show interest in and knowledge of many different topics of .49
conversation.
Organize informal social activities. .67
Brag about my contributions. .63
Enjoy stirring up arguments. .68
Treat others at work as competitors. .65
Am often suspiciousrof the well-intentioned acts of others. .59
Send postcards or email messages back to my workplace while I .71
am on holiday/vacation.
Lose my temper easily. .67
Refuse to provide information to others. .56
94
However, the correlations among the three role-based forms of performance
(i.e., task, contextual, and innovative) were high especially the relationship between
task and innovative performance as noted above. This indicates that these three
dimensions are all tapping into a general overall measure of performance.
Consequently, I formed a measure of 'overall performance' by adding the scores for
these three forms together. I then included this as another dependent variable and
conducted the same regressions as with other dependent variables (see Tables 5.4 and
5.5).
The zero-order correlations (see Table 5.3) were stronger for the personality-
performance relationships than for the El-performance relationships. Task
performance and innovative performance were positively and significantly related to
all of the Big Five personality traits. Contextual performance was only related to
extraversion and agreeableness; RSBs were significantly related to extraversion,
agreeableness, and intellectance; RSBs were negatively related to extraversion,
conscientiousness, and intellectance. Correlations involving El were primarily related
to RSBs, with all four branches correlating negatively with this dimension of
performance. Branch One (perceiving emotions) was negatively associated with
contextual performance and Branches Two (facilitating emotions) and Three
(understanding emotions) were positively related to innovative performance.
The reliability coefficient alphas for each scale are recorded on the diagonal in
Table 5.3. Cronbach alpha is a measure of internal consistency based on the average
inter-item correlations among scale items. It measures the degree to which the items
are measuring the same theoretical construct. Alpha values in this study ranged from
.66 to .90, all of which were greater than the minimum threshold of .60 (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). While Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients below .60 are
95
generally considered to be poor and those at .70 or better are acceptable (Sekaran,
2000) those ranging from .60 to .69 may also be acceptable, albeit modest. For
example Schmidt and Hunter (1996) showed that the average pairwise inter-rater
estimates of reliability for job performance are rarely above .60. Yet we still continue
to use pairs of raters in research.
Hypothesis Tests
Effects of Personality on Performance
The results for the effects of personality on performance are reported in Table
5.4. As predicted by Hypothesis 1, extraversion was a significant positive predictor of
relationship supportive behaviors (B = .35, p < .001). Agreeableness was significantly
and positively predictive of contextual performance (B = .28, p < .01) and relationship
supportive behaviors (B = .25, p < .01); it was also a significant, negative predictor of
relationship disruptive behaviors (B = -.22, p < .01). Thus, Hypotheses 2b, d and e
were supported, but Hypotheses 2a and c were not. Conscientiousness had a
significant influence only on task performance (13= .28, p < .01) and on overall
performance (B = .19, p < .05), so Hypothesis 3a was supported but Hypotheses 3b-e
were refuted. Emotional stability was an important negative predictor of relationship
disruptive behaviors (B = -.22, p < .050), as predicted by Hypothesis 4e. However, it
had no effect on the other forms of performance; thus Hypotheses 4a-d were not
supported. Intellectance had no effect on any of the performance dimensions, so
Hypotheses 5a-e were also not supported.
Effects of El on Performance
Table 5.4 presents the results for the influence of El on performance.
Contrary to expectations, Branch One (perceiving emotions) was a significant
negative predictor of contextual performance and Branch Two (managing emotions)
96
was a significant negative predictor of relationship supportive behaviors. However,
Branches one (perceiving emotions: B = -.22, p < .01) and Two (facilitating emotions:
B = -.24, p < .01) were significant negative predictors of relationship disruptive
behaviors. Thus, Hypothesis 6e was partially supported, but Hypotheses 6a-d were
not supported.
Moderating Effects of El
According to Hypotheses 7a-e, El would moderate the relationship between
personality and performance (see Table 5.5). Significant moderating effects were
found for all forms of performance except relationship supportive behaviors.
Agreeableness was involved in significant interactions with El for task (B = .52, p <
.05), contextual (B = .47, p < .05), innovative (B = .73, p < .001), and overall (B = .69,
p < .001) performance. Two significant interactions affected relationship disruptive
behaviors: conscientiousness x El (B = .22, p < .05) and emotional stability x El (B =
.18, p < .05). As predicted, El enhanced the effects of agreeableness on task,
contextual and innovative performance However, the relationship between
intellectance and innovative performance was stronger for those with low levels of El.
For relationship disruptive behaviors, El counteracted the negative relationships
involving conscientiousness and emotional stability. Thus, Hypotheses 7a, b, c, and e
were partially supported, but Hypothesis 7d was not. Graphical representations of
these moderating relationships are depicted in Figures 5.1 to 5.7.
97
Table 5.3: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations and Cronbach's Alphas
Mean s.d. 1 2 6 7 8
Variables
Task Performance 3.76 .65 (.80)
Contextual Performance 3.66 .68 .52*** (.82)
Innovative Performance 3.42 .81 .57*** .58
RSB 4.28 1.08 .30*** .45*** .38*** (.83)
RDB 1.93 .67 -.06 .06 -.00 .07 (.77)
Extraversion 3.19 .77 .27** .35*** .34*** .49 (.78)
Agreeableness 3.84 .52 .23* .36*** .22* .43*** -.27** .41*** (.66)
Conscientiousness 3.60 .59 .35 .24** .14 -.09 .21* .20* (.69)
3.38 .75 .25** .12 .24** .17 -.20* .31*** .15 .19*
Emotional Stability
Intellectance 3.32 .64 .20* .32 .40*** .24* -.10 .46*** .23* .14
Perceiving Emotions .48 .15 -.06 -.20* -.09 -.07 -.37*** .06 .07 -.04
Facilitating Emotions .43 .10 .16 .12 .24* .08 -.46*** .24** .20* .07
Understanding Emotions .53 .12 .05 .12 .21* -.06 -.44*** .10 .12 .00
Managing Emotions .38 .09 -.01 -.04 .03 -.13 -.33*** .11 .13 -.02
Total El .45 .08 .03 -.02 .12 -.06 -.55*** .16 .17 -.00
Gender 1.63 .49 .03 -.12 .31 .16 -.22* .02 .23* -.06
36.37 8.14 .19* .17 -.12*** .10 -.19* .15 .15 .18*
Age
Ethnicity .88 .33 -.10 -.24* -.22* -.02 .18 -.07 -.06 .07
**.
*p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 Coefficient alphas indicating scale reliabilities are in parentheses.
RSB = Relationship Supportive Behaviors; RDB = Relationship Disruptive Behaviors; El = Emotional Intelligence
Gender: 1 = Male, 2 = Female; Ethnicity: 1 = Asian, 2= Caucasian
Table 5.3: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations and Cronbach's Alphas (Cont'd)
Variables 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Task Performance
2. Contextual Performance
3. Innovative Performance
4. RSB
5. RDB
6. Extraversion
7. Agreeableness
8. Conscientiousness
9. Emotional Stability (.85)
10. Intellectance .16 (.78)
11. Perceiving Emotions -.01 .03 (.90)
12. Facilitating Emotions .18 .20* .32
13. Understanding Emotions .15 .30 .54
14. Managing Emotions .13 .13 .33 .40*** (.69)
15. Total El .14 .22* .70*** .75*** .73*** .69*** (.90)
16. Gender -.20* -.21* .23* .16 .03 .06 .18 --
17. Age .37*** .27** -.08 .33*** .36*** .19* .25** -.23*
18. Ethnicity -.02 -.43*** -.01 -.10 -.46*** -.23* -.27** .15 -.36***
4.* ***
*13 < .05; p <.01; p<.001
Coefficient alphas indicating scale reliabilities are in parentheses
Table 5.4: Regression Results for the Direct Effects of Personality and El Abilities on Performance
Standardized Regression Coefficients

Relationship Relationship
Task Contextual Innovative Overall Supportive Disruptive
Predictors Performance Performance Performance Performance Behaviors Behaviors
Controls
Gender .10 -.12 -.03 -.02 .16 -.14
Age .01 -.05 .08 .02 .05 .03
Ethnicity -.16 -.21 -.10 -.18 -.07 .09
Personality 35***
Extraversion .07 .20 .12 .15 .34***
Agreeableness .07 .28** .05 .15 .25** -.22**
Conscientiousness .28** .08 .12 .19* -.01 -.08
Emotional Stability .18 -.03 .08 .09 .07 -.22*
Intellectance .05 .06 .20 .13 .06 -.04
El Branches
Perceiving -.09 -.22* -.12 -.17 -.07 -.22*
Facilitating .16 .14 .17 .19 .06 -.24*
Understanding -.12 -.00 .01 -.04 -.15 -.17
Managing -.09 -.11 -.10 -.12 -.20* -.04
F 2.56*** 3.96*** 3.23*** 4.26*** 4.96*** 6.97***
R2 .23 .32 .28 .33 .37 .45
Adj. R2 .14 .24 .19 .26 .29 .39
df 12, 102 12, 102 12, 102 12, 102 12, 102 12, 102
< .05 < .01 p < .001
100
Table 5.5: Regression Results for the Moderator Effects of Emotional Intelligence
Standardized Regression Coefficients

Task Contextual Innovative Overall
Predictors Performance Performance Performance Performance RSBs RDBs
1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Step 1 2 2
Control Variables
Gender .11 .10 -.11 -.11 -.02 -.03 -.01 -.02 .18: .16 -.15: -.15:
Age .05 .04 .02 .01 .14 .13 .09 .08 .06 .02 .01 .04
Ethnicity -.10 -.07 -.20: -.20 -.07 -.10 -.14 -.15 -.02 -.02 .06 .07
Personality .37***
.09 .08 .21* .19 .13 .08 .17: .14 .36*** .33*** .30**
Extraversion
Agreeableness .07 .04 .28** .24* .05 -.00 .15 .11 .25** .25** -.22* -.21*
Emotional Stability .28** .33*** .08 .14 .13 .21* .19* .26** -.01 .01 -.08 -.10
.17: .13 -.03 -.03 .08 .06 .09 .06 .06 .11 -.21* -.30***
Conscientiousness
Intellectance .06 .08 .08 .11 .22* .26* .15 .19: .07 .06 -.05 -.05
Total El -.09 -.49* -.16: -.35 -.03 -.44* -.11 -.51** -.24** -.20 -.49*** -.84***
Interaction Terms
Extraversion X El -.02 .01 -.04 -.02 -.15 .05
Agreeableness X El .52* .47* .73*** .69*** .12 .14
Conscientiousness X El -.09 -.20 -.19 -.19 -.13 .22*
Emotional Stability X El .05 -.04 .05 .03 -.04 .18*
Intellectance X El .01 -.09 -.21: -.13 -.01 -.04
F 3.11** 2.67** 4.47 3.68*** 3.78*** 4.22*** 4.88*** 4.83*** 6.27*** 4.30*** 9.18*** 7.21***
R2 .21 .27 .28 .34 .24 .37 .29 .40 .35 .38 .44 .50
Adj. R2 .14 .17 .22 .25 .18 .28 .23 .32 .29 .29 .39 .43
df 9,105 14,100 9,105 14,00 9,105 14,00 9,105 14,100 9,105 14,100 9,105 14,100
**
P < .10 *p<.05 p < .01 p < .001
101
Figure 5.1: Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on Task
Performance
2 3 4 5
Emotional
Intelligence (H)
0 Emotional
Intelligence (M)
Emotional
Agreeableness Intelligence (L)
Figure 5.2: Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on

Contextual Performance
4-
3.5
3
2.5
2
a)"
0- 1.5
-c-t
1
4 Emotional
t' 0.5 Intelligence (H)
0
0 Emotional
-0.5 3 4 5 Intelligence (M)
-1
Emotional
Agreeableness Intelligence (L)
102
Innovation Performance
2
Emotional
Intelligence (H)
1
Emotional
0
Intelligence (M)
1 2 0
-1 Emotional
Intelligence (L)
Agreeableness
Figure 5.4: Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Openness to Experience

on Innovation Performance
3
Emotional
Intelligence (H)
0 Emotional
Intelligence (M)
Emotional
Intelligence (L)
1 4 5
Intellectance
103
Overall Performance
2
-4- Emotional
Intelligence (H)
Emotional
0
Intelligence (M)
2
-1 - - Emotional
Intelligence (L)
Agreeableness
Figure 5.6: Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Conscientiousness on

Relationship Disruptive Behaviors
2 Emotional
Intelligence (H)
-E- Emotional
Intelligence (M)
A,.. Emotional
1 3 4
Intelligence (L)
Conscientiousness
104
Figure 5.7: Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Stability on
Relationship Disruptive Behaviors
2
-- Emotional Intelligence
(H)
(M)
4 5 (L)
-3
Emotional Stability
105
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, I discuss the central findings of the study. First, I review the
key research findings in respect to the direct effects of personality and El on
workplace performance dimensions of task, contextual, innovative as well as
relationship supportive behaviors and relationship disruptive behaviors. Then I
elaborate on the interactive effects of El and personality on the workplace
performance variables. Next, I discuss the limitations and strengths of the research
and offer suggestions for future research paths. Finally, I present the contributions
that this research makes to the literature and its benefits to practitioners.
Key Research Findings
The purpose of this research was to develop and test a socioanalytic model of
workplace performance by synthesizing three literatures: personality, El and
performance. In the process, I proposed and examined, as have many earlier
researchers, the direct effects that the Big Five personality factors have on workplace
performance. In this regard, my findings are fairly consistent with those of the
literature.
Direct effects of Personality on Performance
As expected, the study confirmed previous research findings in respect to task
and contextual performance. Addressing each of the Big Five factors in turn, I will
review the key findings and discuss unanticipated results.
Extraversion. Extraversion was a strong, significant predictor of relationship
supportive behaviors. Individuals high in social abilities are more sensitive to the
ongoing maintenance of their groups as compared to introverted personalities.
Although not predicted, extraversion was also a significant predictor of relationship
106
disruptive behaviors. Insofar as the zero-order correlation between these two
variables was not significant, it is likely that this is a statistical artifact. While no
other significant relationships with dependent variables were noted from the
regression analyses, the picture is somewhat different in respect to the zero-order
correlations. Here, extraversion was significantly correlated with task performance,
contextual performance, innovative performance and relationship supportive
behaviors.
Extraverts are generally considered to be more social, enthusiastic, and active,
with a desire to be "part of the action" (Barrick & Mount, 1991a). Hogan (1986)
considered extraversion to consist of two parts. One part is Ambition which includes
such traits as initiative, surgency, ambition, and impetuous. The other component is
Sociability which includes traits of being sociable, exhibitionist, and expressive.
Following this thinking, those characteristics of extraversion under Ambition, would
likely influence task and innovative performance; those under Sociability would be
played out in the relationship performance areas. Further, it could be argued that an
extravert will be more likely to work toward maintaining and facilitating a team for
the purpose of task completion, in part by performing supportive behaviors. Future
research targeting the more specific facets of extraversion would help to clarify its
effects on performance.
Agreeableness. Agreeableness was a positive significant predictor of
contextual performance and relationship supportive behaviors and a negative
predictor of relationship disruptive behaviors. Although no direct effects were found
for task performance or innovative performance, at the zero-order correlation level,
agreeableness correlated significantly with all performance variables. This suggests
support for the view that individuals who have a disposition to accommodate to others
107
and who are team players with a service orientation will perform better, across the
board, than those who do not.
Barrick and Mount (1991a) report that traits associated with this dimension
are: courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, softhearted,
and tolerant. It seems likely that these traits are especially important in influencing
performance involving relationships such as contextual performance and relationship
supportive behaviors.
The negative predictive relationship in respect to relationship disruptive
behaviors was expected and offers support to the thought that agreeable people are
less likely to "rock the boat" with respect to social interactions. Finally, it is
interesting to note that agreeableness may have a direct (although weak) effect on
innovation. This may indicate that while creativity may require unconventional
thinking, low agreeableness traits such as being challenging and competitive are not a
requirement.
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was found to significantly predict task
and overall performance. This relationship was expected based on the literature.
Barrick and Mount (1991a) noted that conscientiousness has been seen to reflect
dependability, which includes such traits as careful, thorough, responsible, organized,
and planful. It is reasonable to expect that an individual possessing such traits is more
able to focus on performing tasks than individuals lacking the traits. However, the
lack of any relationship with the more interpersonal forms of performance (i.e.,
contextual and relationship supportive and disruptive behaviors) contradicts past
meta-analyses (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Although conscientiousness may be
relevant for those in service-oriented occupations, for this sample of heterogeneous
managers, conscientiousness did not play a role in influencing their social behaviors.
108
At the zero-order correlation level, conscientiousness was strongly associated
with innovative performance. This may indicate that individuals high in
conscientiousness, i.e., focused, organized, and ambitious, can marshal these traits to
foster higher levels of creativity.
Emotional Stability. In line with expectations, emotional stability was a
significant negative predictor of relationship disruptive behaviors. Barrick and Mount
(1991a) list common traits associated with this dimension to include being anxious,
depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure. Thus, individuals
high in neuroticism are inclined to be reactive, tense, and anxious. Conversely,
emotionally stable individuals are considered more resilient, secure, and experience
less stress (Howard & Howard, 2001). It seems likely that such personality traits
would mitigate negative social behaviors.
No other significant relationships were derived from the regression analyses in
respect to emotional stability. However, once again, the zero-order correlations offer a
wider picture. Emotional stability was positively correlated with task performance,
innovative performance, and, in support of the regression analysis, negatively
correlated with relationship disruptive behaviors. This seems to support what might
be thought to be intuitively obvious; that is, emotionally stable individuals are able to
perform tasks better, have a tendency to be more creative and are less likely to behave
in ways that are detrimental to relationships on the job. Work by Judge and
colleagues supports the relationship between emotional stability and performance
(e.g., Judge & Bono, 2001)
Intellectance. While the regression analysis reflected no significant
relationships for intellectance with any of the performance variables, the zero-order
correlations did. Intellectance was positively related to both task performance and
109
innovative performance. This is in accord with McCrae (2000), who suggested that
openness to experience is more directly related to the original ability conception of El
than other Big Five elements. Barrick and Mount (1991a) enumerated traits
associated with Intellectance to include being imaginative, cultured, curious, original,
broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive. Howard and Howard (2001)
described high scorers on this dimension as being explorers, curious, dreamers and
visionary. All these adjectives seem to describe qualities that are associated with a
creative individual. Thus, the high correlation with innovative performance was
expected and offers partial support for that hypothesis.
A more novel finding was that intellectance was strongly associated with
relationship supportive behaviors. This may suggest that individuals who are open to
experience are aware of and more sensitive to others in the workplace. Because they
are more likely to recognize, (as well as to analyze, understand and develop strategies
for managing) the signals that communicate what others want, they may be more
likely to engage in more positive supportive behaviors. It is also interesting to note
that, in past studies, intellectance has not been highly associated with employee
performance in general. However, as the previous research has only focused on task
and contextual performance, expanding the investigation to include innovative
performance and relationship supportive and relationship disruptive behaviors has
helped to reveal a more complete picture.
Another interesting finding was the strong correlation between intellectance
and El. Of all the Big Five traits, intellectance had the strongest relationship with El
(overall or total El as well as two dimensions: facilitating and understanding
emotions). This finding corroborates McCrae's (2000) contention that El is closest to
the personality trait of intellectance.
110
In summary, one of the most noteworthy observations to be drawn in respect
to the direct effects of personality on the performance variables relate to the Big Five
factors of extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability relative to relationship
disruptive behaviors. The findings here suggest that outgoing, disagreeable people
who are emotionally unstable are more likely to engage in relationship disruptive
behaviors. In particular, individuals low on emotional stability tend to be nervous and
temperamental, prone to mood swings and outbursts. Such actions are hard to
accommodate and can lead to damaged relationships in social settings (Barrick,
Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998). Individuals fitting this profile might be termed
'caustic', posing a great management challenge.
The findings in this study are consistent with a stream of research
investigating the "dark side" of interpersonally directed behaviors (O'Leary, Duffy, &
Griffin, 2000). Actions such as yelling, rudeness, and threats have been studied under
multiple labels, including interactional injustice (Bies & Moag, 1986), workplace
bullying (Leyman, 1996), political/interpersonal deviance (Robinson & Bennett,
1995), workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), and interpersonal conflict
(Spector & Jex, 1998). Sin et al. (Sin et al., 2004) demonstrated the relationship
between RDB and outcome variables at the individual (e.g., job performance, social
network size) and organizational levels (e.g., firm performance,-employee loyalty).
Direct Effects of El Abilities on Performance
To provide a more specific examination of El on performance, I assessed the
effects of each of the four branches of El on the multiple dimensions of employee
performance. Below, I review the major findings for each branch.
Branch One Perceiving Emotions. In regression analyses, Branch One was a
significant negative predictor of contextual performance. This would seem to indicate
111
that individuals that are better in perceiving emotions in themselves and others are
less likely to perform well contextually in the workplace. Findings from studies of
emotional eavesdropping may offer an explanation for these results. These studies
(e.g., Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002a) report that workplace ratings from colleagues and
supervisors are higher for individuals that are better in their ability to "read" positive
emotions and lower for those with abilities to "read" negative emotions in others. It
could be conjectured that subjects in the present study who registered high in
emotional perception abilities find it difficult to perform well contextually. At
operation here may simply be a felt sense of vulnerability to others in the workplace
context with respect to being able to read negative emotions.
Regression analysis also revealed, as expected, a significant negative impact
of the ability to perceive emotions on relationship disruptive behaviors. This
indicates that those high in emotion detection abilities would be predisposed, through
their awareness of their own emotions and those of others, to process this information.
This "intake of more information" may be conducive to creating a higher level of
empathy for others. Although in the present research greater ability to perceive
emotions did not result in more supportive behaviors, it did increase the likelihood
that managers would engage in less disruptive or negative behaviors in the workplace.
Branch Two Facilitating Thought About Emotions. Similar to findings for
Branch 1, regression analyses revealed a significant negative relationship between
facilitating abilities and relationship disruptive behaviors. This would suggest that if
an individual, after perceiving emotions, actually engages in cognitive processing
about them, the resulting behavior is less likely to result in disruptive behaviors.
Interestingly, perceiving emotions was positively associated with innovative
performance at the zero-order correlation level. One possible explanation may
112
involve the acuity skills that are common to both Branch One and innovativeness. For
example, just as an individual must be able to scan the face, gestures and voice of
others to see the emotions display, an innovative person is served well by being able
to scan the environment to select meaningful information that may facilitate the
process of creativity.
Branch Three Understanding Emotions. While regression analysis indicated
no significant relationships with the performance measures, two significant
correlations did emerge. First, understanding of emotions correlated with innovative
performance. It may be conjectured that this reflects a cognitive ability for processing
information that is common to making sense of emotions and the creative process.
The second significant correlation was with respect to relationship disruptive
behaviors. Consistent with the first two branches, a negative correlation between
understanding and relationship disruptive behaviors was reasonably high. Following
the same reasoning to explain the previous branches' relationships with this
performance dimension, it may be argued that by simply understanding emotions of
self and others the need or desire to engage in disruptive behavior is mitigated.
Branch Four Managing Emotions. Interestingly, unlike the other branches,
the regression analysis showed no significant relationship with relationship disruptive
behaviors, although managing emotions was a strong, negative correlate of this
performance dimension. However, a significant negative relationship between this
branch and relationship supportive behaviors was recorded. This seems to indicate
that an individual that can regulate the emotions of others and themselves will have a
decreased tendency to engage in relationship supportive behaviors.
The manifestation of this results in the personality characteristic of
Machiavellianism (Mach), which has been defined as "the degree to which an
113
individual is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and believes that ends can
justify means" (Robbins, 1991, p. 724). Early research showed that high-Machs were
more manipulative, more apt to win, less susceptible to persuasion and more likely to
persuade others (Vleeming, 1979). Further, research as to how this personality trait is
moderated by situational factors has shown that high-Machs do well in direct
interpersonal interactions especially when the social context has few rules and
regulations that allows them to improvise and when low-Machs may be distracted
with the details of emotional involvement irrelevant to winning (see Christie and
Geis, 1970 for a review). In essence, people who can control their own emotions
more readily can use them strategicallypressing the emotional buttons to serve
themselves but not others.
Total El Ability. Consistent with branch-level findings, total El abilities
registered a very strong correlation with relationship disruptive behaviors. This may
indicate the power of emotional intelligence in regulating negative behavior. That is,
an individual with high El abilities may be more aware of what behaviors will disrupt
social bonds and be quite good at not committing them. On the other hand, no
evidence emerged that high El abilities are manifested in positive behaviors (e.g.,
contextual performance or relationship supportive behaviors). This may be reflective
of passivity in respect to extra-familial relationships in the context of Hong Kong (Lo,
2003; Lo, Stone, & Ng, 2003). It could be speculated that to avoid engaging in
relationship disruptive behaviors requires no extra effort beyond knowing the rules of
the social context. However, to engage in relationship supportive behaviors requires
an extra degree of emotional labor and emotional risk taking, especially when it is
extra-familial.
114
In summary, with respect to the El abilities and performance dimensions, El
had no significant effects on task performance or innovative performance. However,
it did have significant effects on the social forms of performance. This was especially
apparent in the zero-order correlations where all four branches of the El abilities test
showed significant correlations with relationship disruptive behaviors. Another
interesting observation is that Branches Two and Three correlated positively with
innovative performance. Thus, facilitating thought about emotions and understanding
emotions was highly correlated with innovative performance measures, indicating that
thinking about emotional information and understanding what the information means
in a given context may share a common dynamic with the creative thought process.
Interactive effects of El and Personality on Performance
A major objective set out for this study was to examine what, if any,
interactive effects exist between the independent variables of personality and El in
respect to workplace performance. The regression analyses supported the supposition
that there are several interactive effects involving the personality traits of
agreeableness, intellectance, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. I will discuss
each in turn.
Agreeableness El Interaction. Agreeableness was involved in three
significant interactions with El. Together, El and agreeableness predicted task,
contextual and innovative performance. Agreeable individuals with high levels of El
displayed higher task performance than those with medium or low El abilities (see Fig
5.1). This may indicate that an individual possessing a personality trait that
predisposes them to get along with others, such as team players, are even more
effective in task roles when they also possess high El abilities. The relationship
between agreeableness and contextual performance was also stronger for individuals
115
with high levels of El than for those with medium or low El abilities (see Fig 5.2).
Here again, this may indicate that people with high agreeableness traits will leverage
them when they also have high abilities of El. This may indicate that a highly
agreeable, emotionally intelligent individual will be a better facilitator of
relationships. Finally, El also enhanced the effects of agreeableness on innovative
performance (see Fig 5.3). This would seem to suggest that an employee with high El
abilities and high agreeableness tends to contribute more to the job than only getting
the job done and getting along with others. For example, their increased innovative
performance level may include contributing insights and perspectives to a greater
extent than those with low El abilities.
IntellectanceEl Interaction. There was a significant interaction involving
intellectance and El with respect to innovative performance, but the direction was
counter to what might have been expected (see Fig 5.4). Individuals with high levels
of intellectance displayed lower innovative performance if they also had high levels of
El. This may suggest that El has a suppressing effect on the relationship between
intellectance and innovative performance. Perhaps the cognitive vent to being highly
sensitive to the emotions of others and self detracts from the expansive perspectives
that seem to characterize an individual with a high degree of openness and curiosity.
ConscientiousnessEl Interaction. Individuals who reported both extremely
low levels of conscientiousness and extremely low levels of El abilities were more
likely to engage in relationship disruptive behaviors (see Fig. 5.5). A possible
explanation is that low conscientiousness and low El abilities may reflect a common
predisposition factor. For example, an individual with low conscientiousness may be
less "engaged" with the job, while an individual with low El may have less interest in
the relationship aspects of the job. Combined, these qualities may reflect an
116
individual that is disconnected from the task and the social context of the job.
Consequently, their behaviors on the job are more likely to be disruptive.
A look at the other end of the continuum presents a different picture. Those
individuals with high levels of conscientiousness and high levels of El abilities also
engaged in high levels of relationship disruptive behaviors. While this may be
startling, it may reflect a fairly intuitive truth about personality types. High
conscientiousness qualities could include being focused, organized, perfectionist and
ambitious (Howard & Howard, 2001). Further, those with high El abilities are
considered to be superior in terms of perceiving and managing the emotions of others
and themselves. The combination of these two sets of qualities does not necessitate
that the resultant behavior should be entirely socially acceptable. For example, one
can think of sociopathic behaviors that draw upon qualities of both conscientiousness
and El such as a confidence man who needs to be very focused and organized in terms
of playing his game while he monitors and manipulates emotional states. This also
illustrates the "value neutral" nature of El abilities and personality factors.
Emotional Stability El Interaction. The interaction between emotional
stability and El parallel that of the conscientiousness El interactions in regard to
relationship disruptive behaviors (see Fig 5.6). That is, individuals who displayed
low levels of emotional stability and El were more likely to engage in relationship
disruptive behaviors than those with moderate levels of each. Likewise, those with
high levels of emotional stability and El also registered a higher predisposition to
perform relationship disruptive behaviors. Further, those registering high levels of
emotional stability and low levels of El engaged in much less relationship disruptive
behaviors than those with high emotional stability and high El. This may add support
to the earlier observation that a neurotic person, who reflects more anxiety, stress and
117
with a reactive nature and who is not equipped in respect to managing his or her
emotions, will be prone to disruptive social behavior. At the same time, those with
high emotional stability and high El may reflect a personality consistent with the
profile of a sociopath.
Limitations of the Research
All research has its limitations, and this is no exception. The findings reported
here need to be considered against the backdrop of the study's limitations. One
limitation has to do with generalizability. As the data collection was confined to
English speaking Hong Kong managers who were currently or formerly engaged in
executive development programs, a caveat in respect to the applicability of its results
to other Hong Kong mangers or managers in other cultural settings is required. First,
as no control group was established, it is not possible to determine what (if any)
influence the respondents' participation in executive developmental programs may
have had on their responses. It is possible that these types of programs work to
making managers more sensitive to some of the research issues than would be the
case with managers without such training.
While Hong Kong is considered to be cosmopolitan and one of the world's
most attractive environments for conducting business, it has many unique qualities
that set it apart. One such quality is the blend of languages, cultures and races that
one generally experiences in the workplace. While the data collection instruments
were written in English, some of the subjects' English level proficiency was probably
less than that of a native speaker.
Hong Kong's business culture is quite similar to major cities in North
America and Europe. However, the influence that some artifact of Hong Kong's
national culture such as Confucianism, specifically its precepts in respect to
118
interpersonal relationships, should be considered. As the primary data collection
instruments were of Western origin, the results may have been mitigated by this
cultural difference.
Data collection was done on-line, which may be considered a strength of the
study because it allowed for economies of time on the part of the participants and the
researcher. However, it may also constitute a limitation in that it presupposed
respondent computer and Internet literacy. While Hong Kong businesses are
approaching the saturation point for this relatively new technology, the method of
data collection may have posed a self-selection hurdle that many did not jump.
Another possible limitation of the study was its sample size. While an attempt
was made to gather a more robust sample, only 116 subjects completed both on-line
instruments. While I had hypothesized 50 effects, only 11 (about 22%) proved to be
significant. That is, only 1 of 5 predictions of El's effects on performance; and 5 out
of 25 predicted interactions proved significant. The small sample size may have made
for a low statistical power resulting in the large number of insignificant results.
Further, while an attempt was made to gather performance measures from the
respondents' workplace supervisors by asking the respondents to "nominate" them,
few complied. Again, this very request may have intimidated many potential
subjects. Thus, participant self-selection may have resulted in a sampling that was
less representative of Hong Kong's general business environment than was desired.
The reliance on single source data collection measures raises questions about
common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). An additional concern is the
accuracy of respondents' perceptions and their willingness to respond honestly.
While these concerns were partially address by use of recognized, previously
l"
119
validated instruments and the incorporation of a test of ability as opposed to self-
reports of El, social desirability remains as a possible limitation.
Another limitation is the fact that this was a cross-sectional study. Although
data triangulation was achieved by having participants complete two separate
instruments (a survey and a test) at two separate times, all of the data is from the same
respondent, and no repeat measures were taken. A longitudinal study would serve to
increase the internal validity of the study and help to establish causal relationships.
A final limitation has to do with the exploratory nature of the moderating
effects of Emotional Intelligence. Under such conditions, a Bonferroni correction
should be done. This is an adjustment of the critical values of the significance tests
when multiple comparisons are being made. Adopting a .05 level of significance, and
conducting 20 different moderator tests, the significant level needs to be .05/20 or
.0025. Two of the interactions reached this level of significance: emotional
intelligence interacted with agreeableness to influence both innovative and overall
performance. Recognizing that this correction can cause a substantial loss in the
precision of my findings, however, I reported all interactions that reached traditional
levels of significance. These findings are intended to inform future researchers who
may want to confirm such relationships.
Strengths of the Research
Despite several limitations, this research has many strong points. One is the
use of a standardized El test that has been well-validated with good internal
consistency indicators. As mentioned earlier, the use of web based survey
instruments facilitated data collection and data entry. Steps to safeguard
confidentiality were taken seriously. Finally, the diversity of subjects in terms of
gender, age, ethnicity, education, managerial experience, management level, years of
120
tenure, and industries represented resulted in a heterogeneous sample that allows more
confidence in generalizing the findings.
Contributions to the Literature
The literature is replete with research that has investigated the relationship of
personality with various dimensions of performance. However, none has investigated
the interplay of some of the important antecedents of performance in a manner that
this study did. Three contributions to the literature are most significant. First, the
study illuminated the joint roles that El and personality have on workplace
performance. Second, the criterion space of performance was expanded beyond the
traditional focus on task performance and contextual performance to encompass
innovative performance and relationship supportive and disruptive behaviors. Third,
the study incorporated an explicit test of socioanalytic theory by conceptualizing El as
a social skill that interacts with personality to predict performance.
Other findings of note include the use of the El abilities test in an Asian
culture. As this is the first empirical study of the MSCEIT V2 in the Hong Kong
context it will contribute by bringing a better understanding of its validity outside
Western cultures. The research results also contribute to personality and El literatures
by clarifying the distinct nature of El abilities. These findings help inform the
ongoing debate as to whether El is independent or simply measuring the same
individual traits as personality. The two constructs are distinct. By testing for direct
effects of both independent variables on performance, differences were revealed in
respect to their differential influences on task, contextual, and innovative performance
as well as the newer constructs of relationship supportive and relationship destructive
behaviors.
121
In this study, the proposed relationships were all based on sound theoretical
arguments. As predicted by socioanalytic theory (Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Hogan &
Shelton, 1998a), El moderated the personality performance relationship. Although
in general El had enabling effects, some suppressor effects also occurred. More
research in this area is needed to clarify the dynamic interactive effects.
Implications of the Results for Organizations
The desire to develop a good theory that is practical was one of the prime
objectives of this research. In many respects I believe a foundation has been built to
achieve this goal. This stream of research can address many of the primary concerns
of human resource practitioners, especially in the areas of selection and assignment.
Selection
Personal selection has been defined as a process of measurement, decision-
making and evaluation with a goal to hire individuals that will do well on the job.
(Fisher et al., 2003, p. 283). Because of today's rapidly expanding, competitive global
economy, corporations find that they are more frequently engaged in a talent war for
the best managers and leaders. Selection and promotion decision are becoming
increasingly critical to the success of a company.
A recent study reported in Hong Kong's popular press highlighted the
important role selection and training can play in the competition between regional and
national economies (Lo, 2004). According to the British-based manpower assessment
company SHL, managers in Hong Kong spend twenty percent of their time correcting
their employees' mistakes. The $HK39b a year that this costs, is nearly equivalent to
Hong Kong entire budget for education. In contrast, the six other economies studied
reported significant (but lower) figures, i.e., India 16 percent, the US 13 percent,
Australia 12 percent, the Netherlands 11 percent, Britain 9 percent and in Sweden it
122
was 7 percent. If workforce productivity is regarded as a significant competitive
element in the new global economy, Hong Kong is certainly lagging behind. The
study further reported that twenty-five percent of Hong Kong employees quit their
jobs before they reach a competent level. The researchers suggested that the root of
these very costly inefficiencies could be traced back to a 'fire-and-hire attitude' on the
part of Hong Kong employers and advocated the use of better assessment tools to aid
decision-making in the selection process.
After several decades of abandonment as a primary selection device,
personality measures are becoming increasingly popular. What seems to have
fostered this new interest is an increased sense of their predictive validity relative to
workplace performance (Fisher et al., 2003). Increasingly, Human Resource
professionals are turning to a selection instruments that go beyond measuring task
performance (e.g., Hough & Oswald, 2000).
The importance of the selection process to an organization's bottom line is
highlighted by research of the costs involved. Spencer (2001) notes that staffing adds
value in demonstrable ways. By hiring, placing and promoting higher performers
organizational goals are more readily achieved. The costs associated with poor
selection decisions are significant. For example, an analysis of lost productivity
revealed that on average, it takes between 55 to 57 days or about two months of sales
or production costs to fill a management position. The author estimates this to be
about one third of an employee's first-year salary. Further, he contends that it takes a
new hire on average about twelve months for a new hire to become proficient on his
or her job. If direct costs incurred for relocation and training of technical or
professional staff are added, the total cost can be as much as two to three times their
direct salary (McClelland, 1998; Spencer, 1986; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Thus it is
123
evident that the stakes are high in the search for assessment instruments that offer
better performance predictability.
All three of the selection process stages (measurement, decision-making,
evaluation) offered by Fisher et al., (2003) can be aided by a better understanding of a
potential employee's personality traits and El abilities. In choosing selection
measurement instruments, care must be given as to their reliability and validity. The
present study, testing the reliability and validity of an El abilities test in a new cultural
context has added to the ongoing search for more effective tools that can predict
performance with mangers in Asia. Evidence was obtained that may aid the Human
Resource professional in choosing viable measures for selecting employees. For
example, while no evidence was found of a direct link between El and task
performance, evidence was revealed as to the power of El to predict contextual
performance. Additionally, by shedding light on the joint roles that El and personality
have on workplace performance, the instruments that measure these abilities and traits
can be better evaluated.
Selection decision-making needs to incorporate a balanced approach as to the
relative value of the instruments used such that the information collected about an
individual leads to a successful hiring decision. The present study offers evidence that
the predictive value of performance gained by an El abilities test is more in line with
Mayer (1999) who suggested that El may be able to predict important life outcomes
but probably at about the same level of other personality variables. This more
measured view refutes popular press accounts, which advance that El is twice as
important as GMA in its predictive powers (i.e., Goleman, 1995). Thus while, El
measurement can be considered to have marginal utility, it should be used in
conjunction with other instruments to aid selection decisions. This study illustrates the
124
promise of El abilities tests, especially when used in conjunction with Big Five
personality measures, as an effective assessment tool.
Job Assignment
Reporting on a recent study of work-life balance in Hong Kong, Michael
(2004) outlined some of the personal and organizational consequences in relationship
to poor job assignment decisions. For example, one of the outcomes of a more
balanced life is to allow people to find fulfillment inside their work situation. A poor
fit between the employee and the job undermines the achievement of this goal with a
resultant dissatisfaction on the part of the employee and lower productivity for the
organization. According to the study, only five out of 1,000 people polled reported
that that they were very happy in their work, seventy-five percent suffered from
stress, thirty-three percent reported being depressed by their job and twenty-eight
percent were planning to quit in the next twelve months.
This illustrates why assigning the right person to the right job is an important
goal for most Human Resource managers. The merits of a proper "job fit" may
extend to a wide range of outcomes. Across all levels of a firm (organizational, group
and individual) such outcomes as performance, job satisfaction, turnover,
absenteeism, team functioning and customer service all stand to improve through the
proper match of the employee to the position. Better job satisfaction and lower
turnover (through better job fit analysis) results from better staffing decisions.
Spencer (2001) illustrated this in a meta-analysis of the effects of eight selection
systems that incorporated emotional intelligence factors. The effects of including El
competencies in the selection were: median productivity improved 19%, median
turnover decreased 63 percent, median economic value added was $1.6 million and
125
the median return on investment was over 1,000 percent. Placing the right employee
in the right jobs has dramatic consequences in respect to productivity increases.
However, the decision to use El assessment instruments should take into
account their purpose and relevance for specific occupational settings under
consideration. Matthews et al.(2002) recommend their judicious use, suggesting that a
distinction should be made between occupations where emotional skills are relevant
to successful job performance and those in which it may not be as important. For
example, helping and service professions such as clergy, teachers, sales,
psychotherapist would seem to require higher skills to do their jobs than mechanical
engineers, software programmers and brain surgeons. In essence, the task of filling
jobs that require more social and emotional involvement may be made more effective
by measuring the candidates' El.
A major implication of this study is that by including measures of El ability,
along with other measurements such as the Big Five, decision-making in respect to
employee assignments and job design can be improved. Additionally, having a
clearer picture of employee personality and El abilities can be of practical use in the
structuring of groups and work teams. This study's findings suggest that team
composition variables can, and should, include other factors than demographics such
age, gender, education and position. By considering the personality and emotional
qualities of potential team members before organizing a team, the likelihood of
building teams with compatible members is increased. Such teams are more likely to
be high performing and experience less negative conflict (Druskat & Wolff, 2001).
Suggestions for Future Research
Many future research opportunities are open in respect to El abilities. As a
relatively new, multi-dimensional construct, continued effort should be placed on
126
validating instruments. While this study illustrates the promise of El abilities tests,
especially when used in conjunction with Big Five personality measures, as an
effective assessment tool much remains untested. Based on the results of this study,
more research to clarify the interactive effects of individual traits on workplace
performance is warranted. The wider perspective that this offers can help improve the
selection, assignment and job design processes of organizations. Additionally, more
research is in order to test for the malleability of El abilities. Is it relatively static
after a certain age or can it be increased through training as some suggest? More
comprehensive, longitudinal studies in respect to coaching may result in significant
insights in this regard.
Demographic differences in the Hong Kong workplace in respect to El abilities
would also be of great interest to explore. Because of significant differences involving
ethnicity, gender and age with other constructs in the present study's model, I
controlled for these demographic factors in the regressions. Additionally, subjects
reported being employed across 15 different industries. Grouped under
manufacturing, government and services; 7 subjects were in manufacturing, 35 were
in government and 76 were employed in services. Analysis revealed no significant
differences as a result of their respective industries. While these various demographic
variables were not of theoretical interest in the present work, I recommend that future
researchers consider looking at their possible influence further.
Further research in respect to the individual El abilities and team composition
is also needed. What is the most advantageous grouping of individuals based on
individual El abilities for raising the level of group performance? This becomes an
increasingly important issue as more organizations rely on teams as a major way of
structuring work. In conjunction with this, more concerted investigation of how the
127
dynamics of social interaction in general are influenced by individual El abilities may
be rewarding.
Another potentially valuable stream of research would be investigations into
the cross-cultural differences that may exist relative to El abilities. Examining what
commonalities may exist between El abilities of managers coming from different
cultures could aid our understanding in such areas as international human resource
management, expatriate selection and assignment procedures, and even international
business negotiations.
Conclusion
The three-fold objectives of this study have been accomplished to varying
degrees. First, an examination of the direct effects of El and personality on task
performance, contextual performance and innovative performance was accomplished
with significant, mixed results. The inclusion of relationship supportive and disruptive
behaviors as more interpersonal forms of performance yielded important findings,
especially regarding the relationship between El and the darker side of employee
actions. Secondly, the exploration of the interaction effects between El abilities and a
range of workplace performance variables was completed, with significant findings
surfacing. Lastly, the results set a base for discussing the implications of El and
performance on important areas of human resource management.
I conclude the study with a degree of amazement. While its objectives were
accomplished and answers to the research questions I initially proposed were
generally enlightening and gratifying, many more questions were raised in the
process. This may be common to all research, i.e., it raises more questions than it
answers. I end with a favorite quotation by George Bernard Shaw that has sustained
me and that embodies the spirit of this endeavor: "All progress is initiated by
128
challenging current conceptions". I hope that in some small way this work has
challenged the traditional view of workplace performance and added to the
understanding of the complexities of how the head and the heart work together to
determine employee performance.
129
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. 1995. Marketing Research. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Adler, P. S. & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept.
Academy of Management Review, 27: 17-40.
Adler, S. 1996. Personality and work behavior: Exploring the linkages. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 45: 207-214.
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Andersson, L. M. & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility
in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.
Argyle, M. 1969. Social Interaction. Chicago: Aldine.
Ashforth, B. E. & Humphrey, R. H. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: The

influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 88-115.
Ashforth, B. E. & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.

Human Relations, 48(2): 97-125.
Austin, J. T. & Villanova, P. 1992. The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77: 836-874.
Averill, J. R. & Nunley, E. P. 1992. Voyages of the heart: Living an emotionally

creative life. New York: Free Press.
Barchard, K. A. & Hakstian, A. R. 2004. The Nature and Measurement of Emotional

Intelligence Abilities: Basic Dimensions and Their Relationships With Other
Cognitive Ability and Personality Variables. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 64(3).
Bar-On, R. 1997a. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual.

Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. 1997b. Development of the Bar-On EQ-i: A measure of emotional and

social intelligence. Chicago: The American Psychological Association.
Bar-On, R. 2000. Emotional and Social Intelligence: Insights from the Emotional
Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The Handbook of
Emotional Intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at
home, school, and in the workplace.: 363-388. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. & Parker, J. D. A. (Eds.). 2000. The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence:

Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the
workplace. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
130
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. 1991a. The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1): 1-26.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. 1991b. The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. 1993. Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship

between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78: 111-118.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. 1998. Relating
member ability and personality to work-team processes and team
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 377-391.
Bass, B. M., Cascio, W. G, & O'Connor, E. J. 1974. Magnitude estimations of

frequency and amount. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 59: 313-320.
Behling, 0. 1998. Employee selection: Will intelligence and conscientiousness do the

job? Academy of Management Executive, 12: 77-86.
Berry, D. S. & Sherman Hansen, J. 2000. Personality, nonverbal behavior, and

interaction quality in female dyads. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,
26: 278-292.
Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria for

fairness. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations, Vol.
1: 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Bobko, P. 1985. Removing assumptions of bipolarity: Towards variation and

circularity. Academy of Management Review, 10: 99-109.
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B.
1995. On the interchange ability of objective and subjective measures of
employee performance. Personnel Psychology, 48: 587-605.
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S., Rose, S. R., & Hanser, L. M. 1985. Development of a
model of soldier effectiveness. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions
Research Institute.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., & Oppler, S. H. 1991. Models of
supervisory performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 863-872.
Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include

elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel Selection in Organizations: 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. 1997. Task Performance and Contextual

Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human
Performance, 10(2): 99-109.
Boyatzis, E. E. 1982. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.
131
Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. S. 2000. Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). In R.
Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence:
Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the
workplace.: 343-362. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of

Management Review, 11: 710-725.
Brown, C. S. & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. 1994. An assessment of the relationship between

customer satisfaction and service friendliness. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 14: 55-75.
Bruvold, N. T. & Corner, J. 1988. A model for estimating the response rate to a mailed
survey. Journal of Business Research, 16(2): 101-116.
Buck, R. 1984. The communication of emotion. New York: The Guilford Press.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. 1993. A theory of
performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations: 35-70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cantor, N. & Kihlstrom, J. F. 1987. Personality and social intelligence. Englewood

Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carson, R. C. 1969. Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Caruso, D. R. & Wolfe, C. J. 2001. Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace. In J.

Ciarrochi & J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional Intelligence in
Everyday Life.. A Scientific Inquiry: 150-167. New York: Psychology Press.
Caruso, D. R. & Wolfe, C. 2002. Emotionally Intelligent Certification Workshop

Training Manual. Mashantucket, Connecticut.
Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. 2004. The Emotionally Intelligent Manager. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., & 0-Reilly, C. A. 1999. Managerial personality and
performance: A semi-idiographic approach. Journal of Research in
Personality, 33: 514-545.
Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (Eds.). 2001. The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christianson DeMay, C. & Toquam, H. J. 2001. 360-degree assessment at the Boeing

company: A dual- process (web/paper) approach. In M. H. (Chair) (Ed.), The
Internet and I/O psychology: Applications and issues.: Symposium conducted
at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology.
Christie, R. & Geis, F.L. 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
132
Church, A. H. 2001. Is there a method to our madness? The impact of data collection
methodology on organizational survey results. Personnel Psychology, 54: 937-
969.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A., & Caputi, P. 2000. A critical evaluation of the emotional
intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28: 539-561.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A., Caputi, P., & Roberts, R. 2001a. Measuring Emotional
Intelligence. In J. Ciarrochi & J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional
Intelligence in Everyday Life: A Scientific Inquiry: 25-45. New York:
Psychology Press.
Ciarrochi, J., Forgas, J., & Mayer, J. (Eds.). 200 lb. Emotional intelligence in
everyday life: A scientific inquiry. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Cobb, C. D. & Mayer, J. D. 2000. Emotional intelligence. Educational Leadership,

58(3): 14-18.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlaum.
Cooper, R. K. 1997. Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training &

Development, 51(12): 31-38.
Cooper, R. K. & Sawaf, A. 1997. Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership

and Organizations. New York, New York: Gosset, Putnam.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. M. 1992a. Revised NEO personality inventory [NEO-PI-R]

and NEO five factor inventory [NEO-FFI] professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. 1986. Personality stability and its implications for
clinical personality. Clinical Psychology Review, 6: 407-423.
Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. 1992b. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NE0-
PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. 1997. Longitudinal stability of adult personality. In
R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality
psychology: 269-290. New York: Academic Press.
Crampton, S. M. & Wagner, J. A. 1994. Percept - percept inflation in

microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 67-76.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. 1998. Emotional Intelligence: In search of
an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 989-
1015.
133
Digman, J. M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model.
Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 417-440.
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Donovan, M. A. (Ed.). 2000. Web-based attitude surveys: Data and lessons learned.
New Orleans, LA: 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology.
Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Probst, T. M. 2000. Does computerizing paper-and-
pencil job attitude scales make a difference? New IRT analyses offer insight.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 305-313.
Druskat, V. U. & Wolff, S. B. 2001; Group Emotional Intelligence and Its Influence
on Group Effectiveness. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The
Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: 132-155. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. 2000. Emotional intelligence a review and evaluation

study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(4): 341-372.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. 1991. Management Research: an

introduction. London: Sage Publication, Ltd.
Elfenbein, H. A. & Ambady, N. 2002a. On the universality and cultural specificity of

emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128: 2003-
2235.
Elfenbein, H. A. & Ambady, N. 2002b. Predicting Workplace Outcomes from the

ability to eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5): 963-
971
Elfenbein, H. A., Marsh, A. A., & Ambady, N. 2002. Emotional Intelligence and the
Recognition of Emotion from Facial Expressions. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey
(Eds.), The Wisdom in Feeling: Psychological Processes in Emotional
Intelligence: 37-59. New York: Gulford Press.
Erdogan, B. Z. & Baker, M. J. 2002. Increasing mail survey response rates from an
industrial population: A cost-effectiveness analysis of four follow-up
techniques. Industrial Marketing Management, 31: 65-73.
Fenlason, K. J. 2000. Multiple data collection methods in 360 feedback programs:

Implications for use and interpretation. In T. A. (Chair) (Ed.), Current issues
and challenges in the use of survey-based data. New Orleans, LA: Symposium
conducted at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology.
Fisher, C. D., Schoenfeldt, L. F., & Shaw, J. B. 2003. Human Resource Management
(5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Fleishman, E. A. & Harris, E. F. 1962. Patterns of leadership behavior related to

employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15: 43-56.
134
Forgas, J. 2001. Affective intelligence: The role of affect in social thinking and
behavior. In J. Ciarrochi & J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional
Intelligence in Everyday Life: A Scientific Inquiry: 46-63. New York:
Psychology Press.
Frida, N. H. 1993. Moods, Emotion Episodes and Emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M.

Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions: 381-403. New York, NY: Guildford.
Furnham, A. & Heaven, P. 1999. Personality and social behaviour. London: Arnold.
Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. 1989. Multiple intelligences go to school. Educational

Researcher, 18(8): 8-14.
Gardner, H. 1993. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, L. & Stough, C. 2002. Examining the relationship between leadership and
emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 22(2): 38-78.
Gellatly, I. R. & Irving, P. G 2001. Personality, autonomy, and contextual

performance of managers. Human Performance, 14(3): 231-245.
Gibbs, N. & Epperson, S. E. 1995. The EQ factor, Time, Vol. 146: 60-67.
Gohm, C. L. & Clore, G. L. 2002. Affect as Information: An Individual-Differences

Approach. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.), The Wisdom in Feeling:
Psychological Processes in Emotional Intelligence: 89-113. New York:
Guilford Press.
Big 5 Factor Markers from.2000a. http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/.qform50.htm.March 11.
The IPIP Items in each of the preliminary scales measuring the five NE0
domains.2000b.http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/appendixb.htm1.3/11/2000.
Goldberg, L. R. 1993. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American

Psychologist, 48: 26-34.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. 1996. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goleman, D. 1997. Beyond IQ: developing the leadership competencies of emotional

intelligence. Paper presented at the 2nd International Competency Conference,
London.
Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
135
Goleman, D. 2001a. An El-based theory of performance. In C. Cherniss & D.
Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: 27-34. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D. 200 lb. Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building. In C.

Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. New
York: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & Mckee, A. 2002a. The New Leaders: Transforming the
Art of Leadership Into the Science of Results. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business
School Press.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & Mckee, A. 2002b. Primal Leadership: Realizing the
Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School
Press.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Cardy, R. L. 1998. Managing Human

Resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gottfredson, L. S. 1998. The general intelligence factor. Scientific American Presents

Intelligence, 9: 24-29.
Gowing, M. K. 2001. Measurement of Individual Emotional Competence. In C.

Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: 83-
131. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gross, J. J. & Keltner, D. 1999. Functional accounts of emotion. Cognition and

Emotion, 13(September).
Gross, J. J. & John, 0. P. 2002. Wise Emotion Regulation. In L. F. Barrett & P.

Salovey (Eds.), The Wisdom in Feeling: Psychological Processes in Emotional
Intelligence: 297-318. New York: Guilford Press.
Guion, R. M. & Gottier, R. F. 1965. Validity of personality measures in personnel

selection. Personnel Psychology, 18: 135-164.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 1998. Multivariate data
analysis (4th ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Harman, H. H. 1967. Modern factor analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. 1996. Context, cognition, and
common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68: 641-665.
Harzing, A. W. 1997. Response rates in international mail surveys: Results of a 22-

country study. International Business Studies, 6: 641-665.
Hedlund, J. & Sternberg, R. J. 2000. Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social,

Emotional, and Practical Intelligence. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.),
The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, development, assessment,
136
and application at home, school, and in the workplace.: 136-167. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hernstein, R. J. & Murray, C. 1994. Race, genes, and IQ--an apolgia., The New
Republic: 35-37.
Herrnstein, R. J. & Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class structure
in American life. New York: Free Press.
Higgs, M. 2001. Is there a relationship between the Myers-Briggs type indicator and
emotional intelligence? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7): 509-533.
Hochschild, A. R. 1979. Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure.

American Journal of Sociology(November): 555-575.
Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hogan, J., Rybicki, s. L., Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. 1998. Relations between
contextual performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human
Performance, 11(2-3): 189-207.
Hogan, J. & Holland, B. 2003a. Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job-
Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(1): 100-112.
Hogan, J. & Holland, B. 2003b. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-
performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88: 100-112.
Hogan, R. 1983. A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 55-89. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Hogan, R. 1986. Manual for the Hogan Personality inventory. Minneapolis: National
Computer Systems.
Hogan, R. 1991. Personality and personality measurement. In D. L. M. Hough (Ed.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 2: 327-
396. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R. 1996. A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins

(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: 163-179. New York: Guilford
Press.
Hogan, R. & Shelton, D. 1998a. A socioanalytic perspective on job performance.

Human Performance, 11: 129-144.
Hogan, R. & Shelton, D. 1998b. A socioanalytic perspective on job performance.

137
Hogan, R. & Roberts, B. W. 2000. A socianalytic perspective on person-environment
interaction. In W. B. Walsh & K. H. Craik (Eds.), Person-environment
psychology: New directions and perspectives., 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
H6pfl, H. & Linstead, S. 1997. Learning to feel and feeling to learn: emotion and
learning in organisations. Management Learning, 28(1): 5-12.
Hough, L. M. 1992. The "Big Five" personality variables -- construct confusion:

Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5: 139-156.
Hough, L. M. & Oswald, F. L. 2000. Personnel Selection: Looking Toward the

Future--Remembering the Past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 631-664.
Howard, P. J. & Howard, J. M. 2001. The Owner's Manual For Personality at Work.
Marietta, GA: Bard Press.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. 1986. Moderator variables in leadership
research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 88-102.
Hurtz, G M. & Donovan, J. J. 2000. Personality and job performance: The Big Five
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6): 869-879.
Ickes, W. 1997. Empathic accuracy. New York: Guilford.
Janovics, J. & Christiansen, N. D. 2001. Emotional intelligence at the workplace.

Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference on the Society of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
John, 0. P. 1990. The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research, Vol. 65: 66-100. New York: Guilford.
Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits--self-

esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability--
with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1): 80-92.
Jung, C. 1921. Psychological types (r. R.F.C. Hull (Rev. Trans.), Trans.). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Katz, R. L. 1955. Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business

Review(January-February): 33-42.
Kelly-Milburn, D. & Milburn, M. A. 1995. Cyberpsych: Resources for psychologist

on the Internet. Psychological Science, 6: 203-211.
Konovsky, M. A. & Organ, D. W. 1996. Dispositional and contextual determinants of

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17:
253-266.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G 2001. Principles of Marketing (9th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
138
Kraut, A. I. & Saari, L. M. 1999. Organization surveys: Coming of age for a new era.
In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving practices in human resource
management: 302-327. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lam, L. T. & Kirby, S. L. 2002. Is Emotional Intelligence an Advantage? An

Exploration of the Impact of Emotional and General Intelligence on Individual
Performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1): 133-143.
Landis, C. 1995. An exploratory study of science educators' use of the Internet.

Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(3): 181-190.
Lane, R. D. & Pollermann, B. Z. 2002. Complexity of Emotion Representations. In L.

F. Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.), The Wisdom in Feeling: Psychological
Processes in Emotional Intelligence: 271-298. New York: Guilford Press.
Law, K., S., Song, L. J., & Wong, C. S. 2002. Emotional Intelligence as an ability
facet: construct validation and its predictive power ofjob outcomes. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management, Denver Co.
Law, K., S., Wong, C.-S., & Song, L. J. 2004. The Construct and Criterion Validity of
Emotional Intelligence and Its Potential Utility for Management Studies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3): 483-496.
Lawler, E. E. 1986. High-involvement management: Participative strategies for

improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G E. 1995. Creating high performance
organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality
in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E. 1998. Strategies for high performance organizations. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.
Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression management: A literature review

and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34-47.
Leary, T. 1957. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
Leyman, H. 1996. The content and development of mobbing at work. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5: 165-184.
Lo, A. 2004. Fire-and-hire attitude costs Hk$39b a year, survey finds, South China
Morning Post: 1. Hong Kong.
Lo, S. 2003. Perceptions of work-family conflict among married female professionals

in Hong Kong. Personnel Review, 32(3): 376-390.
Lo, S., Stone, R., & Ng, C. W. 2003. Work-family conflict and coping strategies
adopted by female married professionals in Hong Kong. Women in
Management Review, 18(3/4): 182.
139
Lundelius, J. 0. 1997. Languages and business: The Hong Kong Mix. Business
Communication Quarterly, 60(4): 112-125.
Magnan, S. M., Lundby, K. M., & Fenlason, K. J. 2000. Dual media: The art and
science of paper and Internet employee survey implementation. In T. A.
(Chair) (Ed.), Current issues and challenges in the use of survey-based data.
New Orleans, LA: Symposium conducted at the 15th Annual Conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Marlowe, H. A. J. 1986. Social Intelligence: Evidence for multidimensionality and

construct independence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1): 52-58.
Maruyama, G M. 1998. Basics of structural equations modeling. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. 2002. Emotional Intelligence: Science
and Myth. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G 2003a. Measuring Emotional
Intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1): 97-105.
Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M. T., & Salovey, P. 1990. Perceiving affective content in
ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 54: 772-781.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. 1993. The intelligence of emotional intelligence.

Intelligence, 17: 433-422.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.

Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development, emotional literacy, and emotional
intelligence: 3-31. New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. 1997. Emotional IQ test (CD-ROM).
Needham, MA: Virtual Knowledge.
Mayer, J. D. 1999. Emotional intelligence: popular or scientific psychology?, APA

Monitor Online, Vol. 30: [Shared Perspectives column].
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. 1999. Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27: 267-298.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. 2000a. Selecting a Measure of Emotional
Intelligence: The Case for Ability Scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker
(Eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development,
Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace: 320-342.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. 2000b. Emotional Intelligence as Zeitgeist,
as Personality, and as a Mental Ability. The Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home,
school, and in the workplace.: 92-117.
140
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. 2000c. Emotional Intelligence. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence, 2nd ed.: 396-421. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G 2001. Emotional Intelligence
As a Standard Intelligence: A Reply. Emotion, 1: 232-242.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. 2002. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test: User's Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Academic Researcher's Home Page for Emotional Intelligence & the

MSCEIT.2003b.http://www.emotionaliq,org/Model.htm
McClelland, D. C. 1998. Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews.

Psychological Science, 9(5): 331-340.
McCrae, R. R. & John, 0. P. 1992. An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60: 175-215.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Lima, M. P. d., Simoes, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner,
A., Marui, I., Bratko, D., Caprara, G V., Barbaranelli, C., Chae, J. H., &
Piedmont, R. L. 1999. Age differences in personality across the adult life span:
Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35: 466-477.
McCrae, R. R. 2000. Emotional Intelligence from the perspective of the Five-Factor

Model of Personality. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The Handbook of
Emotional Intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at
home, school, and in the workplace.: 263-276. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGrath, J. E. 1982. Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. In

R. A. Kulka (Ed.), Judgment calls in research: 69-102. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Michael, P. 2004. Overworked and stressed? Most Hongkongers are, survey finds,
South China Morning Post: 1. Hong Kong.
Mook, D. G 1983. In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4):

379-387.
Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79: 475-480.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. 1997. A theory of individual

differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10: 71-
83
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. 1994. Validity of Observer Ratings of
the Big Five Factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2): 279-281.
Mount, M. K. & Barrick, M. R. 1995. The Big Five personality dimensions:

Implications for research and practice in human resources management. In K.
141
M. R. G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management, Vol. 13: 153-200. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Murray, H. A. 1938. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford Press.
Norusis, M. S. 2001. SPSS 10.0 guide to data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
MacMillan.
O'Leary, A. M., Duffy, M. K., & Griffin, R. W. 2000. Construct confusion in the study
of antisocial work behavior, Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 18: 257-303: JAI Press, Inc.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. 1993. Comprehensive meta-analysis

of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection
and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4): 679-
703.
Ones, D. S. & Viswesvaran, C. 1997. Personality determinants in the prediction of

aspects of expatriate job success. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to
employee management, Vol. 4: Expatriate management: Theory and research:
63-92. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time.

O'Shaughnessy, J. 1999. Review of 'Working with Emotional Intelligence'. Journal of

Macromarketing(December): 178-179.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. 2002. Substantive and Operational Issues of
Response Bias Across Levels of Analysis: An Example of Climate-Satisfaction
Relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 355-368.
Phares, E. J. & Chaplin, W. F. 1997. Introduction to personality (4th ed.). New York:
Longman.
Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:

Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12: 531-544.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y, & Paodsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common
Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5).
Pugh, S. D. 2001. Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 1018-1027.
142
Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. 1997. Genetic and environmental influences
on personality: A study of twins reared together using the self- and peer report
NEO-FFI scales. Journal of Personality, 65: 449-475.
Robbins, S. 2000. Managing Today! (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling method. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 555-
572.
Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D. 1979.
Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS Test. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, J. D. A. 2001. An empirical evaluation of

emotional intelligence: The impact on management development. Journal of
Management Development, 21(4): 272-289.
Saarni, C. 1997. Emotional competence and self-regulation in childhood. In P.

Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional
intelligence: 35-66. New York: Basic Books.
Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellingson, J. E. 1998. Ability-personality interactions

when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4): 545-
556.
Salgado, J. F. & Rumbo, A. 1997. Personality and job performance in financial

services manager. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5: 91-99.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. 1990. Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and

Personality, 9: 185-211.
Sapolsky, R. M. 1998. Open season: When do we lose our taste for the new?, New
Yorker, Vol. March 30: 57-58,71-72.
Schaefer, D. & Dillman, D. 1998. Development of a standard e-mail methodology:

Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62: 378-397.
Schein, E. H. 1980. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. 1992. Development of a causal model of processes

determining job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1:
89-92.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. 1996. Measurement error in psychological research:

Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1: 199-223.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124: 262-274.
143
Schmitt, N. W., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. 1984. Meta-analyses of
validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of
study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37: 407-422.
Schneider, K. C. & Johnson, K. C. 1995. Stimulating response to market surveys of

business professionals. Industrial Marketing Management, 24: 265-276.
Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. 1987. Referent selection in

determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavioral and
attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 40(1): 113-124.
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).
Sekaran, U. 2000. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sin, H. P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Lau, V. 2004. Breaking ties:
Relationship disruptive behaviors at work. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Meetings, New Orleans, LA.
Smith, H. 1991. The World's Religions. New York: HaperCollins.
Spearman, C. 1904. "General intelligence" objectively determined and measured.

American Journal of Psychology, 15(201-293).
Spector, P. E. & Jex, S. M. 1998. Development of four self-report measures of job

stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational
constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms
inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3: 356-367.
Spencer, L. M. 1986. Calculating human resource costs and benefits. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Spencer, L. M. & Spencer, S. M. 1993. Competence at work: Models for superior

performance. New York, NY: Wiley.
Spencer, L. M. 2001. The Economic Value of Emotional Intelligence Competencies

and ETC-Based HR Programs. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The
Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: 45-82. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stanton, J. M. 1998. An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet.

Personnel Psychology, 51: 709-724.
Stein, S. & Book, H. 2001. The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and Your Success.
Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co.
Steiner, C. 1997. Achieving Emotional Literacy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sternberg, R. J. 1999. Working with Emotional Intelligence. Personnel Psychology,

52(3): 780-783.
144
Sullivan, H. S. 1953. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: Norton.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. 1991. Personality measures as predictors
of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4):
703-742.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. 1999. "Meta-analysis of
bidirectional relations in personality-job performance research": Errata.
Human Performance, 12(2): 177-181.
Tett, R. P. & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and
cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 34: 397-423.
Tett, R. P. & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of

Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 500-517.
Thompson, L. F., Surface, E. A., Martin, D. L., & Sanders, M. G 2003. From paper to
pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology, 56: 197-
227.
Thorndike, E. L. 1920a. A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 11(3): 25-29.
Thorndike, R. L. 1920b. Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine: 140,227-235.
Toms, M. 1998. Emotional intelligence in the workplace: An interview with Daniel

Goleman., The Inner Edge: 14-17.
Tsai, W. C. 2001. Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive

emotions. Journal of Management, 27: 497-512.
Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. 2000. Effects of task performance
and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(4): 526-535.
Van Scotter, J. R. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job

dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(5): 525-531.
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., III, & Roth, P. L. 1998. A meta-
analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(4): 586-597.
Vleeming, R. G 1979. Machiavellianism: A Preliminary Review. Psychological

Reports(February): 295-310.
Warr, P. 1999. Logical and judgmental moderators of the criterion-related validity of

personality scales. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
72: 187-204.
145
Wechsler, D. 1940. Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Psychological
Bulletin, 37: 444-445.
Wechsler, D. 1958. The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence (4th ed.):
Williams and Wilkins.
Weiss, H. M. & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective Events Theory. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18: 17-19.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. 1998. The role-based performance
scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management
Journal, 41: 540-555.
Wiggins, J. S. 1979. A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The

interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 395-
412.
Wolfe, C. & Caruso, D. R. 2002. MSCEIT Certification Workshop August 6-10, 2002.
Mashantucket, Connecticut.
Wong, C. S. & Law, K., S. 2002. The Effect of leaders' and Followers' Emotional
Intelligence on Performance and Attitudes: An Exploratory Study. Leadership
Quarterly, 13(3): 243.
Yost, P. R. & Homer, L. E. 1998. Electronic versus paper surveys: Does the medium
affect the response? Dallas, TX: Paper presented at the 13th Annual
Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Young, S. A., Daum, D. L., Robie, C., & Macey, W. H. 2000. Paper versus web survey
administration: Do different methods yield different results? In M. Sederberg
& S. R. (Chairs) (Eds.), Improving the survey effort: Methodological questions
and answers. New Orleans, LA: Symposium conducted at the 15th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
146

The Effect of Personality and Emotional Intelligence On Workplace Performance

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Effect of Personality and Emotional Intelligence On Workplace Performance

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Effect of Personality and Emotional Intelligence on Workplace Performance: An

Investigation of Hong Kong managers

Reuben Darrell Shaffer

Presented to the Faculty of the International Graduate School of Management

The University of South Australia in Partial Fulfillment

For the Degree of

The University of South Australia at Adelaide, Australia

LIST OF FIGURES iii

Statement of the Problem 1

What is Emotional Intelligence 8

Key Research Issues Involving El 9

Research Purpose and Objectives 10

Overview of this Study 11

Emotional Intelligence: An Historical Perspective 13

Conceptualizations of Emotional Intelligence 17

A Model of Personality, El, and Workplace Performance 48

Moderating Effects of Emotional Intelligence 69

Research Strategy and Design 72

DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 88

Key Research Findings 106

Limitations of the Research 118

Strengths of the Research 120

Contributions to the Literature 121

Implications of the Results for Organizations 122

Suggestions for Future Research 126

3.1 Theoretical Framework 49

5.1 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on Task

5.2 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on

5.3 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on

5.4 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Intellectance on

5.5 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Agreeableness on

5.6 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Conscientiousness on

5.7 Interaction Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Stability on

1.1 Borman and Motowidlo's (1997) Taxonomy of Contextual

1.2 Validity Coefficients for Commonly Used Selection Tests 6

2.1 Comparison of Three El Models 18

2.2 Comparison of Major El Measures 25

2.3 The Four-Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence 28

3.1 The Big Five Personality Dimensions 54

4.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents 79

4.2 Items to Assess Performance and Personality 81

4.3 Sample Items from the MSCEIT 84

5.1 Factor Loadings of Independent Variables 92

5.2 Factor Loadings of Dependent Variables 93

5.3 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations and Cronbach's Alphas 98

5.4 Regression Results for the Direct Effects of Personality and

El is an important antecedent (higher than IQ in many cases) of job performance and

multiple forms of performance (i.e., task, contextual, and innovative performance as

of self-reported personality and workplace behavioral data. Multiple hierarchical

(moderator) regression was used to analyze the data.

Hypotheses in the proposed model were generally supported. Extraversion was

a significant positive predictor of relationship supportive behaviors. Agreeableness

had a positive influence on contextual performance and relationship supportive

behaviors; it was a negative predictor of relationship disruptive behaviors.

Conscientiousness was positively associated with task performance, and emotional

stability was a negative influence on relationship disruptive behaviors. Except for

Branch Three (understanding emotions) of El, all branches were significant in

predicting various forms of performance. Branch One (perceiving emotions) had a

negative effect on contextual and relationship disruptive behaviors. Branch Two

Branch Four (managing emotions) had a negative influence on relationship supportive

behaviors. The effects of El on contextual performance and relationship supportive

behaviors were in the opposite direction hypothesized.

Several interactions of El and personality were significant in predicting all